Similar posts

Freesu-San #fundie deviantart.com


Okay, I've said it before, and I'll say it again (this time I'll just elaborate): its only God that defines marriage; not you, not humans, not the government, not some activists, just God alone.

And before you say stuff like "Then polygamy is okay", or "But love is love!", or whatever excuse you're about to come up with, let me just get some stuff straight here, especially on some certain issues:


Polygamy
Okay, some of you may think that there are people in the Bible that practice polygamy (well, there were). But the big question is this: is polygamy acceptable? The answer is no.

Can a man love more than one wife? Certainly not.

A man cannot love more than one wife, neither should a woman love more than one husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). The Scriptures tells us that "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." This sinful practice can be classified as a combination of fornication and adultery.

In countries such as Brazil and Netherlands that have legalized it, it has created a whole deal of chaos in those families, and the rest of the people.

Polygamous marriages, (or known to some countries as "group marriages"), can put a whole household into so much unrest and ruins, and it will have a negative impact on children living in polygamous families.

Having said that, polygamy is also classified as greed, because they will even take other men's wives, which before God is wrong. God created marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, Adam and Eve, not one man and multiple wives, not even Adam and multiple Eves.

Now I mentioned it, during Issac's time, people were seeing polygamy as a norm (which before God its not). But Issac married only one wife, and that's Rebekah. He loved her dearly, and he was loyal to her that he did not take another wife for any reason whatsoever.

Joseph, the 11th son of Jacob did not take many wives himself; he only married one woman, and had two sons with her.

Some of you reading this may think that the Bible condones polygamy. Wrong. And in case you didn't know, it's actually Islam that allows that practice, not Christianity. And with that being said, God's Word never for once approves it. The Bible also says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." (Deuteronomy 17:17). Even the New Testament makes it clear that men are ought to have one wife, for example, when speaking about the role of the elders it says "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2).
Bear in mind that phrase "the husband of one wife"; not two, not three, not four, not even 100, but one wife. That just tells you that polygamy is clearly unacceptable.

To all Christians reading this, and to all who are looking forward to be married someday, stick to one husband/wife.

Arranged marriage

Regardless of what you think, human beings are not Matchmakers. Okay? Unfortunately this thing is happening across the globe, more especially among rich people and Muslims. Some will even sell their daughters as child brides, which is totally wrong. Some will even kidnap young girls to forcefully marry them. That is why you even see human trafficking here, where they sell girls as child brides, forcing them to marry at such a young age. Its repulsive. Its wrong. Its downright immoral.

I mean, seriously, why can't they understand that God is the real Matchmaker? They just end up taking it into their own hands, and that never ends well. At all.

I mean, during Issac time, he wanted to marry but none of the ladies living there are even eligible because they all worship pagan gods. So God used Abraham's servant Eliezar, to bring the right wife for Issac.

God has His own way of bringing the right husband/wife for you, if you simply leave the matter to God's hands!

Same-sex "marriage"

A very widely debated topic, still going on today. And believe it or not, same-sex "marriage" is and will always be a sin. In fact, when it comes to homosexuality itself, the Bible does clearly forbids it. In countries such as Spain and Argentina that have allowed this practice, it has created a great deal of damage, to the point it even destroyed many families, and it is a very grave injustice to equality. Even in Netherlands, there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since the day marriage was redefined. In France, there have been continuous large scale protests against this practice, even after the law was passed. In this century we live in, homosexuality is considered normal by many people. Whenever it is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear someone ask "What's wrong with two people of the same gender falling in love? Isn't it normal?" The answers to these questions can be found in none other than the Bible.

In the modernized world we live in, people (especially Christians) are labelled as "homophobes" for not agreeing with homosexuality or anything related to it such as same-sex 'marriage', which is just foolish mentality.

The world considers what God clearly tells is unnatural to be natural (Romans 1:26-27). Some may argue that God's law forbidding homosexuality was only for the Old Covenant which God made between Himself and the Israelites. However, a quick search of the Scriptures will show that the New Testament has more verses condemning homosexuality than the Old Testament does.

Jesus himself gave God's definition of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, when he was speaking about marriage and grounds of divorce. He said that in the beginning 'God made them male and female.' He also said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Plus, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Geez man.

Recent polls also show that children are better off with a married mother and father than same-sex couples.

The worst part about that is that some of todays churches are even accepting it as a norm. No. Its shouldn't be that way. Its not good, its not Biblical, its not Godly, its not right.

Please read the journal for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

Transgender "marriage"

Possibly one of the rarely debated issues, transgender 'marriage' is as worse as same-sex 'marriage'. It will affect everybody in a really drastic way. When men liberalizes sin, and when sin demands rights and acceptance, that very nation will crumble down, and will eventually lead people to Hell. This practice is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder that "have to live with"; it is rebellion against God's plan.

God created marriage solely between one man and one woman, but in today's world, they disregard the Truth and not only promote same-sex 'marriage', but also promote laws that involves a transgender person who was born a male to marry a man, and a transgender person born a female to marry a woman.

The most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: male and female, as He created Adam as a man, and Eve as a woman. (Genesis 1:27). There is no room for error in God's creation, and no one is born with the "wrong body." as the transsexual activists so claim.

They may think they are right all the time, but God will weigh their hearts (Proverbs 21:2). And the Scriptures clearly warned of such pride:

"For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God." ~ Psalms 10:3-4

"For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter" ~ Psalms 59:12

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world." ~ 1 John 2:16

And also the Bible says that He resists the proud and give grace to the humble (Proverbs 3:34). Some people (even the LGBT activists, and so-called Christians) may argue "But what's wrong with pride?!", when pride, unfortunately is what Satan uses to lead more people to Hell. It is no wonder that many are too comfortable in sin that they are very hardened against The Word of God.

A man should stay as a man, and a woman should stay as a woman, is that too hard to ask?

See this for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

....

What marriage is
When you hear the word marriage, its earliest use of that very English word dates back to the 13th century. However, it's more valuable than we can ever think. Having said so, there is more to marriage than just "love and romance". Unfortunately, many seem to deny that.

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
First of all, marriage, is not something that just happened recently in the century we live in. In fact the first marriage took place right in the beginning, when Adam and Eve are joined together as husband and wife (Genesis 3:21-24).

After he created Adam and all the animals, God said “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” . So He put Adam to sleep, “and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:21,22)

When a man and a woman get married they commit themselves to spending their lives in a new relationship. It is a partnership of love, made richer and deeper through sex. Like many people, Christians regard it as the best context for nurturing children. It is also seen as the best (many Christians would say the only) setting for sex.

In any marriage ceremony the bride and groom must confirm that they want to marry each other, and after the opportunity has been given publicly for anyone present to prevent the marriage if there is a legal reason, the couple join hands and make promises. They exchange rings, which are worn as a reminder of these promises for the duration of their married life.

Marriage is more than a man a woman joined together, it is a beautiful gift from God, a marital devotion solely between one man and one woman as God created it to be. And to add to it, marriage is meant to be for life, and not some cheap contract for people to use and dump. Jesus gave a solid warning concerning divorce, when He said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12). Simple as that. Having said this, in marriage there should be room for reconciliation, else how can that marriage even stand?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." ~ 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

There are aspects that can either build or crumble down a marriage: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

A spiritual aspect on marriage

Now, there is more to marriage than the earthly one itself. Having said this, if you look at the issue in a spiritual aspect, it actually reflects our relationship between us the Church, the children of God for that matter and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the head of the Church, the body of Christ to be precise. The earthly marriage has this high symbolism that most of us unfortunately are not even aware of or chose to overlook .

If you look at Isaiah 54:5 where it says "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." And also the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife "even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." And that as wives submit to their husbands, so do we as Christians submit ourselves to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His will (Ephesians 5:23,24,32).

This is something we as Christians really need to keep in mind.

....

In Conclusion

Marriage is a very beautiful union that God has created. In fact, the government did NOT create marriage, God did. Marriage is more than just about love and romance between two people, it is a holy marital devotion between a man and a woman, the way God designed it. And before you ask, in as much as marriage is important, and it is a beautiful union defined by God as between one man and one woman, we are actually given a choice whether to marry or not. I mean 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." That just shows you that marriage is not by force. All in all, marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman.

Jimbo #fundie moonbattery.com

"If gay marriage ruins the sanctity of a marriage, then the same argument could be made that jewish [sic] marriage ruins the sanctity of catholic [sic] marriage, or that mixed race marriage ruins the sanctity of single race marriage."

Sooooo... Besides implying homosexuals are a race, you also imply homosexualism is a religion (which may actually be true). LOL! Just when I think a liberal can't say anything more stupid - they out-do themselves.

I don't recognize the homosexual race or the homosexual religion. So that I guess that makes me "homophobic," huh?

By that same reasoning, I suppose since I abhor Rap "music" and don't celebrate "Kwanza" I'm a racist, too, huh?

You see - you just can't win with silly unreasoning liberals. It is perfectly okay for them to publicly foam at the mouth when the name Jesus is uttered in a public place - but if someone calls a homo a homo that breaks all the rules. If someone says homosexuality is taboo - then that someone is hateful.

No people who ever lived practice hate more openly or with more fervor than liberals. They are right up there at the top with the Taliban. (Only liberals are directly responsible for far more deaths than the Taliban.)

Caucasian Ju-Ju #racist niggermania.net

As I pull into the gas station, I see a nigger pumping gas into it's shit box 90's caprice; rattle can painted metalic-piss purple something, wif 20-something inch "looks at me" rims and curb feelers (didn't those go out of style in the 70's?).

It had pulled into the pumps in the wrong direction, but left the spot open if you were to pull in the correct way. Well I took the opportunity to inconvenience this nigger. I pulled into the open pump spot.

I took my time to clean my windows, then pump my gas. I noticed the nigger go in to pay fo it's gas (and possibly steal something).

When I was done with pumping, the nigger was coming out and it had a blue bottle in one paw and a paper funnel in the other. The blue bottle had an orange cap and label that read NOS in big letters and Energy Drink in smaller letters under the NOS. (Yes people, this is going where you think it is, because niggers are dum as a box of dried jenkum)

Said nigger puts the paper funnel in it's gas tank and I see it open the blue bottle and begin to pour the NOS energy drink into his tank. As it is standing there, I'm staring at it in disbelief, it looks up at me and it ooks out: "Dis her be sum good sheet for da car! make it go fast!"

I just shook my head, and went in to pay for my gas. I told the owner (who is a human of Indian origin) what I had seen and he said "Stupid Niggers!"

When I came out the nigger was in it's piece of shit, revving the engine, trying to get me to move quicker. So I decided to check my oil and other fluid levels.

The nigger started tapping his horn, as if that was going to make me move any quicker. The nigger ooked: "Com'n on mang! Iz can't back dis car up and Iz got to be go-in I've got shit to du!"

So I finished up checking the fluids and backed out to let the nigger go since it don't know what the "R" on it's gear shifter means. It took off and I ended up following it for a while (at a distance and not on purpose I was going to the grocery store and it happened to be going the in the same direction).

About 5 minutes, after leaving the gas station, the niggers car stalled out ahead of me. This pavement ape didn't pull off onto the shoulder (we're on a 4 lane divided country road with a divider median and shoulders) it just fucking stopped in the lane it was driving in.

The car behind it swerved into the left passing lane to avoid a collision.

As I passed it, I slowed down, it looked like it was having a cat 3 or 4 chimpout in his hooptie. I could see it was throwing shit around and banging on the steering wheel and dashboard.

That made my day!! =)

David Collard #fundie the-spearhead.com

Most people do indeed think of God as He. Even feminists. It often surprises me to hear otherwise agnostic, liberal, and even feminist-minded people refer reflexively to God as “He”.

I sometimes wonder if a lot of liberal and feminist rage is directed at men because of this male image of God. Most of what liberals and feminists say seems to be motivated by a misplaced misotheism. They hate God for being God, for being Father, and they displace their hatred onto the nearest male. A lot of liberal slogans and goals seem designed to provoke the male principle. “Watch me leave my husband, abort my child, change this child’s sex, sleep with this other woman, campaign for single sex marriage, demand that Daddy pay for my contraception, demand that Daddy pay for my lifestyle … and now, call God a girl.” It is rebellion against the Natural Order, like the Sin of Eve, the first feminist.

Do you think there were no feminists in the crowd crying out “Crucify Him!”?

watchdog #conspiracy gangstalkingworld.com

THIS WAS THE DAY THAT I ALMOST CAPTURED ONE OF THEIR HIGH TECH DEVICES!!!!!
What kind of a fool would go to the extent to disable an alarm then go underneath a low riding car to rip the gas lines and yank off the gas pump to vandalize it? See mechanic bill in here. Then to force the driver door open to gain access and open the hood and vandalize the Battery??? If they really wanted to vandalize a car they would have gone for the tires and windows. Disabled the alarm, butchered the gas lines and gas pump, forced door open, nicely open the hood, smashed the battery and leave the rest of the car intact? That doesn't make much sense uh? Never heard of that kind of vandalism before. Uhmmm.... Who would do such a thing? And for what purpose??...
MY BATTERY WAS THEIR POWER SUPPLY!... ...
Tadda! I got a witness! When I left my car in the street the alarm went off. The home owner of the house next to my car came out and found few cars parked next to mine and a bunch of innocent looking, church-going, Bush-Loving, Wal-Mart Shopping, Selfrighteous, sinless, pure and spiritual "Community Watch" law abiding citizens (Typical Gang-Stalkers) and asked them what was they were doing to the car. Everyone run to their cars and left in a hurry!... so the homeowner went back into his house. When the Gang of Stalkers returned to do what they were trying to do, they cut off the cables of the alarm. THE REASON THE GAS LINES WERE RIPPED APART WAS THAT THEIR UNLAWFUL HIGH TECH SURVEILLANCE-GPS-MICS AND OTHER DEVICES WERE ATTACHED TO THE GAS LINES. They vandalized the battery because they had to yank off the cables of their power supply. They were in a hurry to remove them because the home owner could come out again and they knew that I HAD NOTICED the car was bugged and first thing that I was going to do in the morning was to sweep the car for High Tech Devices.

Who would leave so much evidence behind? They had to choose the lesser of two problems. They were in a hurry to remove their unauthorized devices, they had to do it in the dark and they had to forcibly remove it. They took whatever the device was attached to (gas Lines and gas pump) with it. If I had captured their High Tech devices. OH BOY, their not-so-secret-society would have suffered a big blow and they knew that! After the incident above, I went to the Police Station twice and I was treated like crap. However, the Distric Attorneys Investigators were very nice and professional.

This is going to be the controvertial and touchy part: The police has a duty to serve and protect EVERYONE equally or at least I would like to think so. I have seen on TV that many people accused of really bad things are being protected with bulletproof vests when they come in and out of the courthouses. What about when the "Todays Heroes/Vigilantes" (Community Watch Organizations) attack other people and break, enter and vandalizes property? Are "Todays Heroes" allowed to act with impunity? If this is the case I would like to join them and turn myself into a "today hero" as well so I can enjoy the same benefits!

Kathleen Gilbert #fundie lifesitenews.com

(=Note; this is from 2011=)

Al Franken’s attempt to embarrass Focus on the Family fails

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday for the incredibly named “Respect for Marriage Act” - the measure to repeal DOMA - Democrat Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota attempted to make a fool of Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery for asserting that children in traditional households do much better in several respects than those in nontraditional households.

Minnery had used data from a comprehensive, national HHS study to make the point that the traditional family model actually works pretty well, and that things tend to get screwed up majorly whenever it’s tampered with. The senator and former comedian took issue with this, and offered a logical parry destined to send LGBT blogs and media outlets into raptures.

“I… checked the study out,” said Franken, shrugging, as a titter of laughter was heard in the room. “And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says.”

The study, as Franken notes, defines a “nuclear family” as consisting of “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.”

“Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a family in the study that you cite?” Franken questioned. “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony, if you are reading studies these ways.”

Only Franken seems to have forgotten that as of 2007, the end date of the study’s data, there was only one state in the union with gay “marriage.” According to UCLA’s William Institute, Massachusetts in 2008 had 13,285 homosexual “marriages.” This would put the 2007 national total at even less - let’s say 13,000.

Meanwhile, there were around 59 million total married households in America at the same time, putting same-sex “marriage” households at 0.0002% of all the “nuclear households” theoretically considered by the HHS study.

Minnery’s point, that a traditional household shouldn’t be messed with, is decidedly not debunked by calling foul over a two ten-thousandths technicality. The real question is whether Congress will swallow the push to slap a band-aid labeled “marriage” on yet another such experiment.

Johnny Rebel #racist streetdirectory.com

Well I don't know why the sky is blue
And why the gums on a nigger well they're blue too
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
But I do know niggers suck

And I don't know why the world ain't flat
And why the nose on a nigger is flat like that
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
But I do know niggers suck

I don't know, I don't wanna know
Why a jigaboo's lips are thick
But I sure know that
A nigger ain't worth a lick
And I don't know, I don't wanna know
Why a nigger ain't got no pride
But I know them coons are never
No, they're never satisfied

Well I don't know why the rain comes down
I don't know why a nigger is black or brown
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
I do know niggers suck

Well I don't know why nigger stinks
I don't know why jigaboo's hair has kinks
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
I do know niggers suck

I don't know why night turns to day
And why a nigger won't work to earn his way
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
But I do know niggers suck

I don't know, I don't wanna know
Why a jigaboo's lips are thick
But I sure know that
A nigger ain't worth a lick
And I don't know, I don't wanna know
Why a nigger ain't got no pride
But I know them coons are never
No, they're never satisfied

I don't know why a nigger is kin to an ape
I don't know why spooks wanna integrate
I don't pay attention to all that stuff
But I do know niggers suck
I do know niggers suck
Hey, I do know niggers suck

Tony Randolph and South Dakota Republicans #homophobia #transphobia sdlegislature.gov

2020 South Dakota Legislature
House Bill 1215

Introduced by: Representative Randolph


An Act to prohibit the state from endorsing or enforcing certain policies regarding domestic relations.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added:

25-11-1. Marriage policies--Prohibitions.
The state may not enforce, endorse, or favor policies that:
(1) Permit any form of marriage that does not involve a man and a woman;
(2) Appropriate benefits to persons who enter a marriage other than a marriage involving a man and a woman;
(3) Permit counties to issue marriage licenses to persons other than for a marriage involving a man and a woman;
(4) Treat sexual orientation as a suspect class or as a basis of prohibited discrimination;
(5) Recognize a person's belief that that person was born a gender that does not accord with the biological sex of the person as determined by that person's anatomy at birth;
(6) Appropriate tax dollars to pay for sex change operations;
(7) Ban conversion therapy. Under this subdivision, conversion therapy, means a therapeutic practice in which a licensed medical professional, acting under authorized consent, assists a client in the goal or realigning the client's sexual preference to prefer members of the opposite sex who have corresponding reproductive anatomy;
(8) Permit public libraries or public schools in the state to partner with nonsecular organizations to promote, host, sponsor, favor, or endorse drag queen storytime;
(9) Mandate pronoun changes;
(10) Condone or affirm homosexual, transgender, zoophilia, objectophilia, polygamy, or sexual orientation doctrines; and
(11) Permit a person to change the sex on a birth certificate to a sex that does not accord with that person's anatomy at birth.

Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added:

25-11-2. Rights not affected by chapter.
This chapter does not affect:
(1) Marriages between a man and a woman;
(2) A person's right to set the person's self-asserted, sex-based identity narrative or sexual orientation; and
(3) A person's right to practice secular humanism.

Lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

There is an old saying out there which says that, "respect is earned, not given." Apparently, the femoid species haven't heard about it, which is why you see them going around demanding everyone to respect them. Rather than making some effort to earn the respect from others, these cunts demand it simply because they have a vagina. That's how arrogant and obstinate these creatures are.

What boggles my mind is that, how can anyone respect bitches for what they really are. How can you respect a femoid knowing that her mouth has been filled with loads of semen? How can you respect femoids knowing that they get railed by multiple men every week? How can you respect femoids knowing that they would simply reject a man because he is ugly and short? How can you respect femoids knowing that they only use their beta provider partners for financial aid while getting banged by Chad/Tyrone by the side? How can you respect femoids knowing that they purposely condemn ugly men to their deaths? I could just keep going on and on but I think we all get the point.

Society will use whatever tactic to force people to respect cum dumpsters but the fact of the matter is, they don't deserve it one bit. Not even in the slightest.

Silver Fox 1957 #conspiracy dailykos.com

Whatever happened to the Chavez/Maduro supporters around here?

They would be here, but they're only halfway through the Caracas bread line


The bread line caused by Obama, Hiterly and the CIA blowing up the economy?

Ok. Everyone is getting plenty to eat. The stores are full. No one’s starving. The capitalists are refusing to produce goods, causing artificial shortages. And when they import goods, they divert almost all of it to Colombia or the Black Market.

How bout if you economic geniuses tell me how you can have mass shortages in a capitalist economy? And capitalists run the whole Venezuelan economy.

I’m waiting. Come on, geniuses, let’s hear how you get mass shortages of goods in a free market economy. It’s not even possible.

OK, this one isn’t satire, apparently. Capitalists in Venezuela aren’t permitted to function as capitalists. They don’t have access to raw materials either foreign or domestic, and they’re only allowed to sell below their costs production. Thus there’s no production. It’s true that a lot of production is diverted to Colombia or (more commonly) the domestic black market, but the chavista idea that the producers are diverting it isn’t correct. Rather, it’s the people who arbitrarily have first dibs on buying at ridiculously low mandated prices (typically the government’s most fervent supporters, curiously enough) who are doing that.

Not one thing you say here is true.

The stores are full. There are only shortages of a few things, and those tend to be basic items. There have been deliberate and artificial shortages of other things such as toiletries, medical goods, etc. This was all done to blow up the economy to get rid of the Chavistas. They have raids every week of warehouses full of hoarded goods. The last raid captured 21 million syringes. There are lots of people with plenty of money who want to buy stuff. And there are shortages. What sort of crap is that? So produce goods to supply the people with dollars waiting to buy stuff. Capitalism 101.

The oppositon has admitted many times that they are sabotaging the economy. The latest one was when an opposition leader said they were “boycotting the economy.”

What you say is nonsense. They have access to all of the goods they need to produce anything they want. Anyway the stores are full. Just not of the stuff people want to buy at the prices they want to pay. 95% of the goods in the stores are not covered by price controls. Price controls only cover a few basic goods. The prices are too low, but the government keeps raising the price controls to deal with business demands.

This entire crisis has unfolded as Maduro has stocked his government full of rightwingers from the business community and opposition. So this “failure of the Left” happened under the watch of rightwingers. Maduro has seriously caved to many of the demands of the Opposition. In fact a lot of people think he is a sellout. So this crisis happened after Maduro met demand after demand of the opposition. But the Opposition are like Republicans on Steroids. They keep moving the goalposts.

You know why those price controls were put in in the first place? Because the Opposition tried to blow up the economy. They had a lockout strike 10 years ago in which they shut down the economy by closing the doors of their businesses. This created artificial shortages and inflation raged. So Chavez put in price controls. They’ve since been lifted on many goods. So the Opposition forced the price controls in the first place.

You are wrong that goods are not diverted from production. The government gives dollars to import goods. First of all, the business sector generally takes these dollars and either invests them overseas in the US or diverts them to the money black market where they can sell them at a markup. So a lot of the dollars to import stuff are immediately diverted to the black market. In fact, the business sector is not producing anything. They would rather just play the money market. What goods are produced are diverted immediately to the black market or shipped to Colombia for a markup.

Fully 35% of goods imported are immediately diverted to Colombia where they can sell them for more money.

This whole mess is caused by a black market in currency which is a whole other ball of wax. This was caused by currency controls, but those were put in due to opposition meddling too. The opposition was shipping their money out of the country to the US instead of investing it. It’s called capital flight. Chavez put in price controls to stop that as he had to. Venezuela continues to lose $50 billion/year to capital flight. It’s still a huge problem. The currency controls were no big deal for a long time until the oil price blew up, then everything went to hell, and a black market for currency rose which screwed up everything.

Really this whole mess has been caused by the decline in oil prices, which incidentally was done by “leftwing” heroes like Obama and Hitlery. They negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia to spike production to crash the price of oil. The purpose was “screw Russia.” A secondary purpose was to screw some other US enemies like Venezuela. So it’s the US and your pals the Saudis who crashed the price of oil as part of a scam to crash the Russian economy.

Price controls only cover maybe 5% of goods, and even that is iffy. So rice is covered, but a rice dish with chicken in a package is not. So chicken is covered, but not rotisserie chicken which the stands have plenty of. True there is a low profit on the price controlled stuff.

The capitalists had been refusing to produce this stuff as soon as the controls went in because the profit margin was too low. They could make a profit, but not enough of one. So the government was importing all that stuff on the price controlled list. Then the oil price blew up and the government went broke, so they had no money to import price controlled stuff. So shortages. Then a lot of planned sabotage.

PS you realize that the markets in the wealthy and middle class areas are full, right? Including all that price controlled stuff. There are no shortages of one thing, not even price controlled stuff, in the wealthier areas. Tell me how this is because capitalists can’t function.

The main problem is the black market in dollars. The way to deal with that was to float the currency, but Maduro did not have the balls to do it. This is a policy failure, but it’s not leftwing or rightwing. But to float the currency is a tough decision and it would hurt a lot of people. They did a partial float though. The black market dollars are now worth 4X the government rate, but before it was 90X the official rate.

Seeing as price controls only cover a small % of items, where do you get off with this “price controls ruined the economy” stuff.

Besides a lot of the price controls allow for a modest profit. I think some are below the cost of production but not most. And Maduro keeps raising them anyway.

Keep supporting fascists abroad while opposing them at home. It’s a grand tradition in the Democratic Party all the way back to 1900.

Unknown #conspiracy dataasylum.com

In 1999 the world changed. The money trust, the law (commerical code/contract law, applicability of public/statutory presumptions, etc.), technology (nano-tech), and the general direction of the planet completely changed. In order to even remotely grasp what is happening you must disconnect your mind from the last century's way of thinking. Failure to change the way you think will preclude you from seeing reality accurately. There is no money anymore, taxes are a thing of the past and no written law applies to you.

So what we now have is a real brave new world. The purpose of this site is to simply show the extent at which they have leveraged nano-technology directly on you, how they control everyone on demand with it, and end the confusion around the subject of chemtrails and how they fit into the larger picture while showing how the media and movies are conditioning the mind of the general public.


Let's just get right to it. Forget everything you know. Here it is, the epitome of reality. This video is the best example that summarizes what's happening or has happened in your body already. This is the most prevalent secret in the whole world because it has been forced onto everyone unknowingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBGF98rAcGQ

What you see here is a nano-bot encapsulating a neuron or synapse (for example your purkinje neurons) or other nerve ending/bridge. It's only a simulation, but accurately summaries everything that has happened in the past decade. This allows complete control of the host (your body) remotely as demonstrated repeatedly in the movies (for example Metropia (2009), Ultrasonic (2012)). A more sophisticated set of nano-bots would and very well has subsequently allowed for a complete and full BioAPI to be installed without the host (you) even knowing it. If you want to get technical your neurons have been encapsulated, your synapses have been bridged.


The basic idea consists of a set of nano-wires tethered to electronics in the main catheter such that they will spread out in a "bouquet" arrangement into a particular portion of the brain's vascular system. Such arrangement could support a very large number of probes (in the millions). Each n-wire would be used to record, very securely, electrical activity of a single or small group of neurons without invading the brain parenchyma.

Source

Chemtrails are a huge logistical operation. Larger than the hoover damn, trans-alaska pipeline or moon landing. It's large. And expensive. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming there is only one reason for chemtrails. There are about five or six reasons and possibly more. The top six are listed below with a brief summary. This web site is concerned with the last. A visual overview may help by reviewing a flowchart here.
Blocking the Sun: This is the standard reason given to fools in the government. We need to secretly stop global warming, so keep it a secret that we're spraying. Global warming is the catch all con for everyone in the government. If you're smarter than this they'll give you a better reason.
Blocking the Sun (Again): A reduction in sun light across the planet works well to decrease or manipulate crop yields slightly. This is part of the requirement to engineer a food crisis and bring in a famine. You can dismiss this.
Superheating the Atmosphere: In order to create earthquakes and steer hurricanes (for example hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) the atmosphere needs to be more conductive for electricity so installations such as HAARP (HAARP is just what they want you to see, HAARP has nothing to do with anything) can work their magic. So the chemtrails spray barium and aluminum among other things to create a more conductive upper atmosphere. In The Phoenix Rises (2012) they tell you exactly this @ exactly ~16:00 in the movie as they specifically talk about chemtrails. For your information barium has nothing to do with the BioAPI, nano-fibers or nano-tech at all.
Health Erosion: As a side effect everyone's health and immune systems become slightly compromised. This is usually not an issue for most healthy people. Older people on average will now die sooner and any health complication is slightly more likely to be fatal. This is both a side effect of spraying and intentional.
Climate Modification: To help or hurt crops, keep skies clear for a major event (like the Olympics), cause a typhoon, steer super storms, etc.
Nano-fiber Propagation: To universally install a BioAPI in everyone they need to spray nano-fibers. These fibers cannot be put into the food supply or given in some other way, the uptake across the population would take forever and not propagate very effectively. It's much easier just to spray everyone like an insect; and because it's happening to everyone the universal herd mentality of the unwashed masses then justifies it.
Nano-fibers specifically are a transport mechanism. Nothing more. They hold a payload for delivery. A payload that would otherwise be compromised by the sun or atmosphere or not make it to its destination (your body). Such as viral RNA code, metals such as aluminum, nano-components, etc. The fibers are (surprisingly) quite harmless as everyone has them. Examples of these fibers can be found all over the internet or in the physical examples section of this site. The fibers must be independently sprayed, if they we're added to the jet fuel the extreme heat would destroy the payload.

So it's not the fiber that is critical, it's the payload.

This is a complicated question. The people creating and doing this are trying to force biblical principles onto the populace (including themselves) through technology. For example the seven deadly sins. They take a basic human requirement (food, sex, a specific emotion) and quantify it (within the BioAPI). If the result is to extreme (for example you eat too much) or you do something not approved of then they decide that you're not worthy of life or judge you accordingly. In the alternative your are added to a program. The possibilities for the BioAPI or nano-tech in general is endless. Therefore you should not focus on any one reason as being the end all purpose. It's too dynamic. It's to complex. As I mentioned on the top of page 5 of the media references - 'the BioAPI is the greatest revelation in human history'. For example see the last paragraph of the description for Vexille (2007), specifically the trailer for H+ mentioned in it. Data Asylum is only giving you one angle of the BioAPI - the nano-tech disease and all the implications that encompass it.

Also see question #9 of the frequently asked questions for a brief explanation on how this (and chemtrails) are (mostly) lawful.


The same group of people that brought humanity HIV in the late 1970's. Also see FAQ question #15.


There are essentially two phases involved with the installation of the BioAPI. I categorize it as phase 1 and phase 2. If you can imagine a new laptop computer, all it has is the operating system like Windows, so it's kind of useless. This would be the equivalent to phase 1. So a new computer can be remotely controlled (aka phase 1, see Surrogates (2009)) by your IT tech support guy, but that is all. There are no programs installed (provided by phase 2) to do much else with it. These names of a phase 1 and 2 are not necessarily just random nonsense I made up, see the clip and movie for Control Factor (2003) in which they use these exact names in the exact same context; because they are telling you everything.
Phase 1: Everyone on the planet is affected and involved in this phase. Everyone to some extent has the nano-fibers within their body cavity, and therefore wired ['I'm wired too.' - Michael Hall, Gamer (2009)]. Side effects include a clicking sound from within the skull and basic annoying body complications like aching joints. This phase provides complete remote control of your speech and thought patterns through suggestion (partially subconsciously). I guess about 99% of the populace of the entire planet has this phase complete.

Phase 1 could be construed as positive and beneficial to you, at least in the future. See John Hodgman (2012) for more information. You should also see question 9 of the FAQs.
Phase 2: This phase must be triggered (by nano-trigger-bots) and is extreme. It completely compromises your health and can do anything from kill you to simply monitor you. This phase cannot be forced onto you like phase 1 (technically it can but they don't do that yet). This involves multiple nano-sensors from ocular to heart and everything in between. I figure about 2% of the population has gone through this phase. If this phase is triggered in you they consider you evil as shown within the media examples page of this site. You must do something to trigger this phase, including eating cheap red meat, kissing specific people, using specific corporate health care/beauty products, etc. The objective they are (partially) reaching for here is to connect each event with a deadly sin of some sort. For example morgellons would be connected with vanity because your skin goes to hell. Ultimately this phase provides complete remote control of your body and mind, including the monitoring of your emotions, thoughts, body functions and everything in between. Phase 2 then can be considered a nano-tech disease (as clearly shown in the Family Guy clip) in which the contagious aspect can be switched on and off. For example I have phase 2, but I am not contagious, but I can be if they decide to make me contagious in some way - typically kissing. This allows them to completely control the transmission/vector or spreading of the nano-disease. If you want to get specific, the nano-tech or nano-implants that compose phase 2 of the BioAPI is actually just the vehicle they use to monitor, torment, test and hurt people. The disease itself is actually one of dishonor. The more dishonor you demonstrate, the more they hate you, the worse things get for you. They do not want people to figure that out. See Meeting Evil (2012) for clear details. Phase 2 can or is definitely detrimental to your life. That is the point of it. A cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

You can 100% confirm if you have phase 2 or not by seeing an eye doctor and asking him to look for anomalies exactly where the ocular implant is located. The implant is still a camera and therefore must conform to the laws of physics and optics still so it must, just like your eye has, have a concave lens which it does. You might be able to slightly feel it at night when your falling asleep when your eyes are dryer and you move your eyeball around with your eyes closed. More information on the implant's location is available here.

Also see the clip for Contracted (2013) which specifically covers the contraction of phase 2 and the physical side effects there from. Pretty Dead (2013), no clip provided, also does a good job at covering multiple aspects of the contraction of the nano-tech disease and BioAPI in general, both good and bad. They show a couple triggers (meat and hard drugs) which makes her sick, complete with heavy zombie overtones. They also show a possible positive aspect such as accelerated healing. The entire movie, every scene, becomes like a documentary.

Neuron example Of course with something as extreme as nanotech being installed within people's body's you would assume there would be health implications and side effects. This is correct and covered on this site. The approach to handle these side effects has been one of "embrace and extend" it's called. There are several examples in the media section that show how the specific side effects listed below are recognized and then associated with something ridiculous or stupid which then discounts the authenticity in the mind of the viewer. In effect convincing the viewer to dismiss a real side effect as being something that's too crazy to be real. Each side effect is dealt with in a media example. Additional technical possibilities are also talked about in the BioAPI details section. Additional side effects related to phase 2 are covered in the clip for Contracted (2013).
Phase 1 & 2 - Cranium Clicking/Screeching: A phase 1 side effect goes back as early as 2001. Exactly what is happening is not completely known but involves some sort of nano-chip being installed/operated in the cranium (your head) of the host. This is probably the equivalent of a CPU of some sort. The actual clicking/screeching sound observed is usually at night on average once a month and only lasts for a few seconds. Completely painless and easily ignored or passed off by the person. The entire purpose of the movie Shutter Island (2010) is to discount this. The nano-implant that is specifically and clearly responsible for this side effect is symbolically referenced in the second clip for Surrogates (2009). I suspect over time they have improved this side effect.
Phase 1 & 2 - Aching Joints, Headaches, Fatigue, etc.: The saturation of nano-fibers has different effects on different people. The sheer numbers involved results is a random combination of health implications. Most people will not notice anything, or pass any slight symptom off as getting older. Other people who have more of a reaction will go to the doctor and get diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a catch all disease that was created about a decade ago to give doctors something to tell the patient when they complained. The doctors can't accurate diagnose or understand what or why a patient is feeling a certain way, so the corrupt medical establishment gives them this nonsense to spew. These side effects are primarily phase 1 but are a constant problem across the board. Notice the root word of fibromyalgia is fib[e]r, it's not a coincidence. This Family Guy clip indirectly references Fibromyalgia.
Phase 2 - Itching: For whatever reason they may force harsh itching on you when they do not agree with what you are doing or how you are behaving. You probably will have no idea it is phase 2 at the beginning. This is shown in Flash of Genius (2008) when they show her typing and zoom in on her hand (@ 44:50 in the movie) when she itches it. She's presumed to be a bad wife for leaving her husband (no clip is provided; screenshot here; you'll have to read this whole site to understand this). The exact same concept is shown in Lay the Favorite (2012) where Bruce Willis itches his forearm clearly and intentionally after referencing it a few seconds earlier (screenshot here). Why? Why would they put that in? I mean millions of dollars are spent on these scripts and production thereto. This happens in real life to countless people around the world all day long, he's being warned. Why? Because in the movie he's thinking about cheating on his wife with the hot blonde that just walked in. In people with phase 2, the BioAPI is monitoring thought and emotional patterns which if conflict triggers an itch; it's automated. For example lust + guilt (because he's married) do not go together. Think Pontypool (2008). So they are judging you (or more accurately people with phase 2 who are pre-targeted). Itching is also shown in Fast Zombies with Guns (2011), as they turn into zombies [contract phase 2 in real life] they itch a lot. Again, why show this? Because it's real. Most targeted individuals will understand the extremely itchy forearm. So itching is not a side effect in the common sense of the term; it is instead intentionally inflected via the BioAPI as reflected in the aforementioned references as well as loosely shown in A Scanner Darkly (2006) @ 0:44 in the clip/trailer.
Phase 2 - Burning Smell: Phase 2 encapsulates the person's ability to smell, so they can read/write scents. It's used to help warp the reality of someone they have specifically targeted (aka Black Limousine (2010)). When inhaling or specifically exhaling quickly its often a burning/smoke smell that is noticed. This is an unwanted side effect - or more accurately to encapsulate any neuron in the body involved in sensing (for example, smell, taste, etc.) there ends up being be some minor side effect. Interestingly when I cry the smell is amplified and it smells like buttered popcorn of all things. An example of how the media discounts this is demonstrated in the movie Bandits (2001).
Phase 2 - The Left Eye: One of the concepts they push in the movies is the left eye is evil for some reason. Or to a lesser extent use the eye as a gateway to demonstrate functionality such as with Technotise (2009) or Gamer (2009). In phase 2 an actual nano-camera will be installed in the left eye. People with this might comment on how they feel like there's a small bump in their eye under slightly drier conditions such as when going to sleep at night. This is documented in the physical example page. Note if you figure out you have a camera in the left eye they will probably install something in the right eye too. Clips referencing this concept are now available here, here and here and now also Doomsday Book (2012).
Phase 2 - Permanent Metallic Taste: Some people will comment on a metallic taste in the mouth. Typically when going to sleep it becomes prevalent. In the alternative, the temporary compromising of taste buds is shown in the clip for Contracted (2013) @ 2:18. It is not a side effect of medication, that's the typical response a doctor will give you. If you are not on medication and otherwise completely healthy and all of a sudden have a permanent metallic taste in your mouth, you are being recorded (but not watched) 24/7 as per the trailer for A Scanner Darkly (2006).
Phase 2 - Morgellons: Morgellon's can strike anyone. It's a direct problem from the nano-fibers, whether intentional or accidental. The body's immune system can't see or recognize the fibers at all. So when the body can't accept the fibers anymore it beings to push them out through the skin. But the skin is a barrier because the fibers are too large. So the skin breaks up which is why people get lesions. Note that technically everyone has morgellons (nano-fibers), the actual mogellon's symptoms are when the person's body tries to get rid of them the only way possible. Some more conclusions can be seen here and examples within media references including this.

Ultimately you need some proof. This is very difficult, as we all don't exactly have nano-tech labs in our basements. The only thing possible at this point in time is to put out the physical evidence that is known and back it up with media/movie supporting clips. A complete list of unbelievable things this technology can do is listed here, also make sure you see the real life body & mind control examples in Media References.

JoJo! #fundie forum.myspace.com

Well, marriages are a lot more likely to survive if both people have a realistic idea of marriage (as in, what marriage is actually like and not just some dream come true fairy tale marriage you see in the movies), you don't live together before marriage, and you sort out issues that come up in marriage before you actually get married.
[...]
We went through a book called "1001 Questions to Ask Before You Get Married" and we talked about EVERYTHING and discussed EVERYTHING. If that doesn't give you a realistic idea of marriage, I don't know what does.

Quintus Curtius #fundie returnofkings.com

As everyone knows, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___(2015). At issue was whether “marriages” between gay couples would be recognized legally. By a narrow majority, the Court found that homosexual marriages were in fact a “fundamental right” worthy of societal acceptance.

The concluding paragraph of the majority decision rose to a disturbing level of opaque sentimentality. Inappropriately condescending to identify emotionally with one of the litigants, the Court issued this maudlin pronunciamento:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

And that was it. With one stroke of the pen, the Court found fit to overturn the definition of marriage (as a union between man and woman) that had attended humanity for thousands of years. The arrogance and presumption of the opinion was truly breathtaking. To understand why Obergefell was wrongly decided, we must do something the Court studiously avoided doing: we must trace the experience of history.
Historical Background

As an institution, marriage indeed appears to predate man. Biologists tell us that in certain bird species, males and females will live together for long periods. Gorillas and orangutans live together as males and females, with their offspring, in familial units.

Among humans, marriage has had a long and variable history among different cultures. Anthropologists tell us that among many primitive tribes (e.g., the Yakuts of Siberia, the Orang Sakai of Malacca, and certain Tibetan peoples) the marriage union could be freely terminated by either man or woman at any time.

In old Tibet, we even find “mass marriages” between groups of males and females, unifying collectively at once. Polygamy has seen institutional acceptance in some Middle Eastern societies, within certain boundaries and limitations.

gay2

The modern conception of marriage, as between man and woman, apparently arose to address a number of social needs: (1) care and rearing of the young; (2) the need to regulate sexual activity within acceptable bounds, so as to prevent social disorder; and (3) the need to pass on property to one’s kin in an ordered fashion. These practices predate history. We can conclude that marriage as the union of man and woman has existed for tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of years.

Always, the union of marriage has been defined as the relationship between a man and a woman. As we survey the peoples of the globe, we cannot find one single society, primitive or modern, in which marriage was ever accepted as a union between man and man, or woman and woman. It simply has never existed. We do not find gay marriage historically among Europeans, Asians, Africans, American Indians, Polynesians, or native Australians.

Social institutions develop in response to the needs of humanity. Those institutions that stand the test of time do so for a very good reason: they have served as a net benefit for social order.

This is not to say, of course, that homosexuality has not existed since the dawn of history. Without doubt it has. Whether through environment or genetics, or a combination of both (the question is not one I am qualified to answer), some humans find satisfaction in what may be called “sexual inversion”: that is, the inverting of sexual desire from the opposite gender, to one’s own gender.

gay3

But even though homosexuality has existed in every society, it has always been confined within specific limits. It was never permitted to gain official sanction as actual “marriage” co-equal to a normal marriage between a man and woman.

Proponents of gay marriage like to toss around historical “examples” of institutionalized homosexuality in history as somehow supporting their arguments. History does not support their argument.

Homosexuality was tolerated, for example, in the classical world, as well as in ancient China, India, and Persia. It also makes its appearance in the medieval period in nearly every civilization on record. But it was permitted to go only so far, and no further. This makes all the difference.

Among the ancient Greeks, we find an acceptance of the practice in all the major city-states; it was not stigmatized, but at the same time, the thought of two men living together as “husband” and “wife” would have been unthinkable. Aristotle himself puzzled at the practice’s ubiquity; he believed it was a social defense against overpopulation.

More likely it was an outgrowth of the strict segregation of the genders in Greek society, where both men and women spent most of their time with their own genders.

In any case, the point here is that we must distinguish between homosexuality as a practice, and homosexual marriage as an officially-sanctioned institution. The former has a long lineage; the later has never existed in history. In the classical world, the attitude towards homosexuality was generally this: it was accepted as a fact of life, and as long as its practitioners did not proselytize their views or threaten the established social order, they were generally tolerated.

Again, the point needs to be made here—which was lost on the Obergefell majority—that there has not been a single society, ancient, medieval, or modern, that has extended the definition of “marriage” to mean a union between two men or two women.

This is the fact that proponents of gay marriage have no answer for. They have no answer because there is no answer. If a social institution—marriage—has been defined for countless thousands of years as between two different genders, then this fact carries authority. It cannot be brushed aside. We cannot say that we, in the past fifteen years, have suddenly gained a greater insight and wisdom into human nature than all the generations before us.
Rationales

Same-sex marriage

It is characteristic of the feebleness of gay marriage proponents that they refuse to respond to this fact. When pressed on why they think gay marriage is appropriate, their answers are always a version of these arguments:

1. “It doesn’t matter anyway, because marriage itself is a ruined institution.” This is not a meaningful answer. One does not refute a flawed proposition (gay marriage) by stating that the object of that proposition (marriage) is a ruined thing. Despite all its flaws and abuses, marriage remains what it always has been: the cornerstone of social order.

2. “They have a right to be happy.” Civil unions could have given homosexual couples nearly everything they claim to have wanted. Yet it was not enough; they wanted to become co-equal with traditional marriages. One cannot get everything one wants in life; the hard reality of life is that some behaviors are socially acceptable, and some will remain only acceptable within certain boundaries.

The Court’s ruling will not be used as an invitation to further test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. The Court’s decision claims that religious institutions need not fear they will be forced to perform homosexual marriages; yet it is difficult to see exactly how this can be squared with their ruling.

gay4

The Obergefell decision undermines the status of both men and women. It denigrates the roles each of them play in a traditional marriage, and presumes to assert that two men can act as husband and “wife,” and that two women can behave as “husband” and wife. The indoctrination will now commence with greater intensity in the schools, the media, and in other spheres of social activity. Dissenters will be marginalized, and then penalized.
The Real Winners

One wonders how the collective experience of many thousands of years could be consigned to the trash bin so easily. The answers are there, but are deeply unsettling. The reality is that those who hold the levers of power do not really care about homosexuals. They care, in truth, very little about the “rights” of the gay community. Gays are being manipulated and used by the power structure, which has its own agenda.

What is this agenda? Control. The power elites want to see the traditional institutions of society neutered. They want to see the educational system shaped to serve their needs; they want the curricula dumbed down to accommodate the needs of the compliant masses. They want traditional morality (as espoused by religions) undermined, as it stands in the way of creating the perfect consumer zombies that they love so much.

When the social bonds which preserve order become frayed, the state is forced to step in and impose its own rules. In this way creeping authoritarianism moves forward, slowly but steadily, under the guise of liberation and empowerment.

And finally, they want to see the family unit, with the roles and authorities of the father and mother, neutered. They want the real mother and father to be them, the state. Marriage has now become meaningless with the Obergefell decision. By undermining marriage, they enhance their own power over their consumer-driven citizens, and replace themselves as every citizen’s surrogate parent.

They gay community thought it won a big victory with Obergefell, but they lost along with the rest of us. It will turn out to be a hollow victory. Authoritarianism is laughing. Obergefell opened the door to yet more government intrusion into the personal lives of individuals and families; for when the family unit is weakened, only the state wins.

The gay community got played. They got used. They just don’t know it yet.

Jack Kerwick #fundie usconservatives.about.com

The proponents of so-called “gay-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “marital,” the other “non-marital,” be collapsed into one another. To paraphrase Aristotle, it was as if they insisted on describing the conclusions of mathematics in terms of “virtue” and “vice,” “justice” and “injustice,” and ethics in terms of “axioms” and “proofs.”

In short, the proponents of “gay marriage” claim a “right” to a contradiction in terms: “same-sex unions” simply cannot be marital. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of “same-sex marriage” is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of marriage, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it.

Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8. In response to the outrageous manner in which members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) have been treated, it would be something like poetic justice if they would now assert their “right” to marry whomever and how many ever people they wanted to marry. While our society judges polygamy an undesirable marital arrangement, unlike homosexual “unions,” at least polygamy is a form of marriage.

Medicien Man #conspiracy scienceblogs.com

"highly selective understanding of science" ?

We understand the "science" just fine. It's the stupid politics we don't get.

Why do we have entire agencies devoted to destroying freedom of choice in America? The FDA and EPA are two of the most dictatorial organizations in history. Both should have funding suspended pending criminal investigations into their far left political actions.

Better yet, fire everyone who mentions global warming and ship them off to Siberia in the dead of winter wearing only a loincloth. I bet they wish they had some of that global warming then.

By the way, Gadasil is a dangerous drug. If you wish to permanently damage someone, Gardasil would be the way to go. Far better than some poisons you would find in the pest control department.

Speaking of pest control, don't bother buying insect "killer" anymore. The EPA has everything so weakened down to the point where the label has more poisonous chemicals than does the liquid itself.

If you wish to kill inspects, screw the EPA and their regulations. Gasoline, diesel fuel, chlorox, etc. are all far better insect control methods than the products that the brain dead EPA basterds have their controls over. The dumbasses even took all the phosphates out of detergents. So, you buy soap without the ingredients that make it soap. Oh, how I would love to ship these basterds out of this country and put things back like they were. This type of tyranny is what you get when you put far left commie drug snorter hippy sissies in charge.

Well, maybe when Rick Perry gets elected, he will fire everyone involved in ruining America in the name of wealth redistribuion/global warming (same thing) and change everything back to the way it was. Better yet, I would love everyone involved to be in prison ... preferably in Siberia.

E. Kitty Glendower #fundie aroomofourown.wordpress.com

[All bolding in original]

What must you think of yourself, your body if you think that all it takes to become female (biological fact) is for a male (biological fact) to dress up like society’s interpretation of woman (social construct)?

What fucking planet are you on?

Are you stupid?

Or are you so fucking weak and sorry that you will swallow anything, any line of shit in order to have male approval?

Keyword glossary:

Sex: Biological Fact
Female: Biological Fact
Male: Biological Fact
Gender: Social Construct
Masculinity: Social Construct
Femininity: Social Construct

Homophobia/Lesbophobia: When a person is so afraid to present themselves as gay/lesbian that they will instead mutilate their bodies and pretend to be born a sex that they were not born.

When a parent is so afraid to let the world know that their daughter or son is lesbian or gay that they will encourage and consent for that child to have her/his body pumped with corporate-made drugs and mutilated.

Pervert/Freak: When a male thinks just because he likes to wear dresses (thus, not the pervert/freak part of this equation), that he should be able to freely roam females spaces, i.e. female restrooms, female prisons, etc.

When a male thinks just because he likes to wear dresses (thus, not the pervert/freak part of this equation) that lesbians should be made to want to fuck him, whether he has a dick or not.

Gender Addict: A person who thinks that they must perform a specific gender (social construct) because they were born a particular sex (biological fact), and if their desire to perform a particular gender (social construct/performance) does not match the sex (biological fact) they were born, then everyone in the whole world should pay for them to mutilate their body in an attempt to accomplish a biological impossibility.

Someone who demands that everyone believe that sex (biological fact) is gender (social construct/performance). And that a copy (social construct/performance) can become an original (biological fact) with enough wishful thinking and corporate-made drugs.

Someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to wish and/or inflict violence on people who do not pretend that gender (social construct/performance) and sex (biological fact) are synonymous.

newman #fundie jtf.org

Most of us couldn't give a hoot about gays if they confined their activities to their private homes and their campaign for rights ended 20 years ago when sodomy was decriminalised.

What infuriates us about fags is the radical fag lobby. They're not satisfied with the rights they have. They make more and more outrageous demands.

Demanding gay marriage.
Demanding the right to adopt children
Demanding the Red Cross accepts their blood
Demanding the right to address jnr highschoolers and give "OK to be gay" lectures
Publishing childrens books with gay thenes.......

It goes on and on.

Every group has the right to be left alone. NOBODY has the right to demand acceptance. If they let up. we'd leave them be. But they insist on getting political and having laws drafted that destroy our culture, so they're in the firing line.

Joseph Backholm #fundie fpiw.org

Dhimmitude is an Islamic system that governs non-Muslims who have been conquered through Jihad by folks like ISIS.

If you surrender to Muslim control – though not Muslim – you are referred to as dhimmi.

Sounds fun, right?

If ISIS took over the town you live in, they might move door to door and give you three options: “convert to Islam, pay the jizya, or die.”

The jizya is a tax for not being Muslim.

It doesn’t apply to everyone, but paying it is seen as proof of your subjection to the Jihadist state and its laws. In return, non-Muslim subjects are permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression.

Acknowledging the difference, there are parallels between the way Jihadists treat those who are in dhimmitude and the way the new sexual revolution in America seeks to treat those who disagree with their (religious?) beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

Once they have political power, they are giving businesses three options “convert, pay a fine, or die” (economically, not physically).

After Arlene’s Flowers was sued for declining to decorate for a same-sex wedding, Attorney General Bob Ferguson offered to settle (demanded the jizya) for $2,000 on the condition that she would “convert,” or agree to make business decisions according to the state’s new values.

Only a few days ago, a judge in Oregon fined a bakery $135,000 because they attempted to run their business according to their Christian beliefs about sexuality rather than the government’s. When they rejected the government’s demands that they convert or pay the jizya, the government opted for what amounts to the economic death penalty.

“Nonsense,” you argue. “They broke the law. Having penalties for breaking the law isn’t exactly innovative. Nor is it jihadist.”

Fair enough.

But the left’s new found impulse to be sticklers for the letter of the law misses the larger point.

The left is proposing a regime change that fundamentally alters freedoms that have been taken for granted for in America for centuries.

Christians, Jews, Muslims and others have been not participating in same-sex “weddings” for millennia.

But under the new regime, doing what has always been done is illegal.

Your choice. Convert, pay a fine if you refuse to convert and then convert, or experience economic death.

Like the jizya, the non-discrimination law discriminates. It protects one person’s right to decline to participate in an activity they disagree with, but denies that right to others.

The good news is that if you accept the terms of the new regime, you will still be allowed a measure of communal autonomy, and be entitled to other benefits from the state.

Imagine a new law compelling church attendance or pork consumption on the grounds that refusing to participate is discriminatory. (Which, of course, it is. But that’s the kind of discrimination lefties still like.)

Being indignant with the atheist who objects to compulsory church attendance would be stupid since he’s simply doing what atheists have always done.

“But it’s the law,” you say, self-righteously.

“But it shouldn’t be the law, and you should know better,” he says in response.

And of course he’s right.

The way non-discrimination laws are being interpreted right now is not a modification to the building code that frustrates some builders or a change in the speed law that catches unsuspecting drivers.

It is a regime change that seeks to fundamentally alter the way Americans have always lived. It seeks to create the kind of conformity that America was created in opposition to.

America doesn’t and shouldn’t have conquered peoples. We make room for the atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Jew to be who they are, not just in their preferred place of worship, but in the rest of their life as well. We respect the right for people to be who they are, even if we think they’re silly and ignorant. We understand that we’re different and we make room for that.

Dhimmitude is for jihadists, not for Americans.

David R. Usher #fundie renewamerica.com

[This is only a sample of the stupidity in the article]

In its ruling the Supreme Court unjustly and erroneously created three classes of marriage with vastly different reproductive, social, political, economic rights, and liabilities – depending solely on an individual's ability to naturally bear a child.

Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.

Today, approximately 25% of single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend. Same-sex marriage allows women to double-up on everything, establishing sub-rosa polyandrous marriage as a common legal institution with men as peripheral servants without a stake in marriage or society.

The welfare state is an automatic statutory third party economically supporting these marriage contracts via welfare entitlements, some of which are "advances on child support collections."

The Supreme Court cannot explain away the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage when the welfare state becomes a predatory, automatic, and unnatural statutory third-party-provider to a class of often structurally-polyandrous marriages, extracting substantial income from taxpayers and entrapped men, that other marriages do not qualify for.

Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.

Same-sex marriage takes welfare systems intended to be used in the absence of marriage and makes it a structural part of marriage. This is a massive restructuring of the relationship among government, the people, the Constitution, and the institution of marriage.

Musician in His house #fundie rr-bb.com

I was running very low on gas this afternoon, trying to make it to Ingles so I could get a gas card to fill up when I got groceries (3 cents off per gallon if you use a gift/gas card), and I was nervously watching my digital readout tick down the "miles to E" (I love that feature on my car). I was coming through the middle of town when that last number ticked down to "0 miles to E." Needless to say, I was praying for just enough gas to get me to Ingles and to get me to the gas pumps. I pulled into the parking lot, pulled into a space, went in, got my groceries and gas card, the car started up fine, I pulled across the lot to the gas pumps, and stopped at the pump, no problem. God got me to the pump!!

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

Bill Muehlenberg #fundie barbwire.com

Top 20 Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

The entire case for embracing the homosexual lifestyle is built on lies, falsehoods and deception.

[...]

Homosexuals are born that way. There is no reliable research indicating a genetic basis of homosexuality. At best, there continues to be a debate about what is more influential: nature or nurture. The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof parent, and so on. And many homosexuals have now fully left the lifestyle, giving lie to the claim that one cannot change.

[...]

Homosexuals just want to be free to privately do their thing. Yes many do. And if this were fully true, there would be no need to write this article. But many activists are seeking to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They insist on publicly flaunting, promoting and celebrating their lifestyle, and they are using the heavy hand of the law to quash all opposition.

Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else. As I carefully document in great detail in my books, everyone is impacted by homosexual marriage. The negative results are getting worse by the day. All over the West those who dare to resist the homosexual agenda or simply affirm heterosexual marriage are losing their jobs, being fined, and even thrown into prison.

There is no slippery slope. We are already seeing the slippery slope in action. Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, all sorts of other groups are demanding that their forms of sexuality be recognised, applauded and legalised. This we have active and vocal groups calling for the complete recognition of things like polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia, objectamory, and so on. And most of these groups are using the identical arguments used by the homosexual lobby.

Marriage is only about love. Marriage is not just about love between people. Love can exist outside of a marriage: a brother can love a sister, a son can love a father, a girl can love a cat. But marriage is a special kind of love: a life-long commitment, publicly acknowledged, and with the possibility of procreation. Heterosexual married love is special, as it entails the possibility of rearing and raising the next generation.

[...]

Children raised in homosexual households do just fine. This is not the finding of the social sciences. Countless studies have now shown that children raised outside of the male-female marriage unit suffer greatly in every area, from poor educational performance, likelihood to move into drugs and crime, higher suicide rates, and so on. Family structure does matter, and those children raised in homosexual households are now coming out and telling their very sad stories.

BW #fundie themattwalshblog.com

“Matt, I like some of the things you’ve written but your constant woman worship is nauseating. Again I hear you talk about how men should “protect and serve” their wives. F*ck that. You are everything that’s wrong with men in this country. I’ve had two women try to trap me with a baby. I told them to get an abortion (I offered to PAY for it) and they didn’t. That’s their choice. Am I going to ruin my whole life by letting them hold be hostage and forcing me to “serve” them? F*ck that. Those kids aren’t my business. I’m contributing to society in other ways. Monogamy might work for you because you’re a whipped assh*le but it doesn’t work for those of us who are actually trying to be happy in life. I like women so why would I resign myself to just one? No I’m not kidding or trolling. I’m just the guy who is willing to say what everyone knows is true. Your entire worldview is bullsh*t.”

Alan Keyes #fundie barbwire.com

These days it is almost impossible to take anything that happens in our politics (i.e., the sphere of life in which we are supposed to think and act as members of the sovereign body of the people) at face value.

Gov. Mike Pence is being lionized by some for doing what the U.S. Constitution required him to do: sign into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by the Indiana legislature, and intended to reinforce the free exercise of religion in Indiana. I say that the U.S. Constitution requires him to do so because the 14th Amendment clearly says that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The Ninth Amendment further states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”


By using the word “retained” the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the rights referred to are antecedent rights, possessed by the people before, by their collective will, they ordain and establish the Constitution. Now, the organic law of the United States includes both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In words well known that resound throughout the history of the United States, the Declaration articulates the understanding of rights that informs the Constitution’s use of the word when it observes “that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

The Declaration makes it clear that those unalienable rights include but are not limited to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The word “unalienable” makes it clear that they are such as to be inseparable from the very nature of humanity, and so cannot be given or taken away without degrading it. So when we “deny or disparage” (belittle, denigrate, lower in rank or reputation) the exercise of such rights, we impair humanity itself.

In recent years, some judges and justices in the U.S. judicial branch have construed the Constitution so as to fabricate so-called “homosexual marriage rights”. In doing so they have supported the demand that same sex couplings and those of people of different sexes be held in the same regard under the law, and be treated the same when it comes to the legal institution of marriage. When regarded strictly in term of the activities of individuals, this may appear plausible to some people. But as an artifact of just sovereign power, the law cannot be exclusively concerned with individuals when it deals with matters that affect the very nature of humanity itself. In that respect, is there a more obviously natural common good than the perpetuation of humanity as such?

There can be no dispute about the fact that, before some judges and justices in the U.S. judiciary launched their insurrection against their will, the people of the United States defined marriage in terms of the natural common good. They respected, in principle, that institution’s special (i.e., of or related to the species) purpose in relation to the survival of the human race. In this respect, marriage exactly corresponds to an activity that is existentially inseparable from the very nature of humanity, in the most common and concrete sense of the term. Thus understood, marriage is self-evidently an unalienable right, sourced in the authority of the Creator, and therefore antecedent to any and all humanly constructed rights, whatever they may be.

The organic law of the United States acknowledges the authority of the Creator as the primordial and highest authority for the exercise of rights, which is to say, for the lawful permission to do what it is right to do. Right is not sourced in human will, but in the will of the Creator. It is, as President Lincoln put it, “right, as God gives us to see the right.” Unless we mean to deny that it is right, in principle, to perpetuate the human species the right of marriage, defined in terms of that purpose, cannot be denied or disparaged by merely human laws and judgments, including the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution’s Ninth Amendment simply acknowledges, in a general way, what the unalienable right of marriage makes manifest in a concrete and specific way. The judges and justices who assert and demand enforcement of “marriage equality” for same sex couplings therefore face the burden of proving that, like the marriage couplings of men with women, same sex couplings are essential to the concrete perpetuation of the species as a whole. Given that same sex couplings are, as such, barren, this burden appears, on the face of it, impossible to sustain; and of course the U.S. courts have not done so.

No amount of reasoning as to the subjective gratification individuals derive from the spiritual, emotional or physical aspect of same sex couplings is relevant to this burden of proof. It has to do with humanity as a concrete fact, not as a subjective abstraction. This explains the general prejudice of mankind against the institutionalization of such couplings. For if made into a law for all, over time the concrete material manifestation of humanity would cease to exist.

This large-scale extinction of humanity now seems to be an acceptable goal for some elements of what I call the elitist faction. For the sake of the earth, of ecology, of environmental balance and purity, they seem to have conceived a righteous hatred against the existence of the human species, and therefore against its procreation. This may seem right according to their will. But the standard of right on which lawfulness depends, according to the declaration and ordinance by which the people of the United States constitute a nation, is God’s will, not theirs.

turtlegirl77 #fundie glitter-graphics.com

You know, these comments may seem funny, light-hearted, and maybe even cute by some(I find them thouroughly distasteful and disgusting), but our Lord and Savior DEMANDS respect, and rest-assured, if you cannot give it to Him on this earth, He will demand it of you when you pass. Yeah, you may just be "playing around" but do you really want to be "playing around" with the very Creator that BREATHED LIFE into you? I would find it too big a risk to take, and I highly doubt your Creator is amused.

ExaltGod #fundie exaltgod.deviantart.com

Homosexuals say: It's wrong for Christians to force their definition of marriage on us. And then they say: Our definition of marriage should be forced on you.

Saw the quote on facebook.
----------------------------------

Sodomites get really upset about Christians trying to "force" our definition of marriage on them.
But then they turn right around and demand that everyone accept their warped definition of "marriage"!


Genesis 2:23-24
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
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."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:4-5
"And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh?"

1 Timothy 1:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind,
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"


How to get saved: exaltgod.deviantart.com/art/Sa…
-----------------------
NOTE: I do not support the murder, torture, enslavement, etc of sodomites.

nikkicompanies #fundie nikkicompanies.stumbleupon.com

[review of a scientific study entitled 'Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?']

That page is so messed up! They shouldn't even be doing a study remotly like that! Any intimate stuff should stick to the marriage bed of a husband and wife! The doctors are messed up, the participants are messed up and the whole experiment is! All around evil! I can't see any good that can come out of this!

And this study only shows results with immoral people, because no person with any kind of morals would ever agree to be part of this. It doesn't apply to the general, moral public.

Bob #fundie news.yahoo.com

[if me and my unmarried but obviously conjugal partner were not allowed to stay in the same bed (and using simple good manners to not have noisy sex) I would have BOTH of us stay in a hotel... and that's just one step away from not bothering to visit at all. If there is no secret that their relationship isn't just Victorian-era 'courting' ]

You aught to be glad that you don't live in my house. Because if you did, you would be out on your A** in a hot tick. Also I would not be paying for your collage ether because you now have a conjugal partner. He can start taking care of you and pay for all the stuff you need. Show No Respect You Get No Respect.

RickyFitts #fundie incels.co

Industrial Revolution is why we are all incels

Think about before industrial revolution. Traditional Values still existed even though secularity was starting to attack the church. Even if you asked secular people at that time they'd be against giving women rights etc. because they wouldn't be able to predict the consequences of it. The Industrial Revolution sped things up like never before and it caused profound changes all over everything which eventually broke down the traditional view


"""The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.""

Apart from everything. Think about the college. Before industrial revolution very few people was involved in the academia because they didnt need to go to college to get jobs and wife. After industrial revolution competetion increased and people had to postpone marriage and go to college to get a better paying jobs. This eventually ruined many parts of traditional marriage because people marrying later at life means BAD.

(Submitter's note: his avatar is a mugshot of the Unabomber)

HumanSockPuppet #sexist reddit.com

Good day, class. This will be a recap (and expansion) of my original guide to bitch management. In it, you will learn how to manage your bitch(es) by turning your relationship into a game she plays - winning prizes of intimacy for good behaviour, and getting punished with demotion or exile if she fails.
Additionally, this guide will also cover:

What it means to manage a bitch, and the challenges you will face
Why bitch management is ultimately YOUR responsibility
Relationship strategies for maximizing happiness and minimizing drama
How to turn those strategies into lasting positive lifestyle changes

This guide will begin with some basic theory, describing why men are the arbitrators of relationships. It will then establish some common definitions and lay the groundwork for the strategy section afterwards.
As you read this guide, bear in mind that it is a model, not an absolute treatise. You are free (and encouraged) to modify any part of it to suit you. But for the most part, the principles outlined here should be fairly universal.
We say AWALT for a reason.

Disclaimers:

1) In order to sustain a prosperous relationship with a girl, you MUST be comfortable with bossing her around - being a bonafide Patriarch™.
You don't have to be a master of your emotions yet. But at the very least, you must be willing to be firm with her, give her orders, and tell her "no", even against a flood of her tears.

Why? Because ultimately, women get their behavioural cues from men. Remember, women are children: mentally, behaviourally, evolutionarily. They are not like us. They don’t think like us, or have the same deep sense of personal responsibility.

Even the most sociopathic man will intuitively know when he has crossed a boundary and offended another man. Whether or not he feels guilty about it is a different issue, but he at least knows he’s done something wrong. Evolving this instinct was the key to a man’s ability to either strategically make enemies or avoid unwanted conflicts.

Women, on the other hand, evolved no such instinct. On the contrary, women evolved the instinct to push a man’s buttons as a way of testing his willingness to face conflict head-on (what we call shit-testing). A man who is willing to fight against her will also fight FOR her. Likewise, a man who caves before her will most certainly cave before his enemies.

This is why bossing her around is key. She is evolved to push the boundary by picking fights with you. So unless you are strict with your girl, she will become as selfish and insufferable as you let her get away with.

2) A long-term relationship CANNOT be your end goal. You can only be OPEN to the possibility of having one.
Men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Since a relationship is what you have to offer, you mustn’t just give it away. It must be a reward she earns in small doses for inspiring your trust and devotion.

I understand that many of you want a LTR with a good girl – sometimes a series of flings isn’t enough to fulfill you. Believe me, I sympathize.
But winning a LTR is HER problem, not yours. Handing a girl your devotion won’t magically make her worthy of it. When you WANT a LTR too badly, you place your focus on the idea of having a relationship instead of evaluating the girl. You become fixated on your fantasy relationship and selectively ignore the things happening right in front of you: her deep character flaws, her indiscretions, and the red flags.

You must regard women as candidates applying for the job of being your girlfriend – a supporter, a lover, a comfort away from the everyday battles. Don't just hire a bitch because you want the position filled. Make sure you vet your candidates fiercely and hire the right girl for the job.
This guide will help you do just that.

3) This guide will be far less effective if you’re already married.

As a man, your ONLY power in a relationship is the power to revoke your attention, validation, and your time by walking away – sometimes for good. It’s the only strategy you have, but it’s a potent one, and for a very specific reason:
You may want a woman, but women NEED you. The problem with marriage is that it strips you of the ability to completely walk away. Sure, you can still get a divorce, but not without shooting yourself in the foot, possibly losing your children and a significant portion of your hard-earned assets in the process.

Our current social climate is not amenable to marriage. If you’re already married, you have my condolences. If you’re not married but plan on it, then you’re a moron and you have no one to blame but yourself when your mistake comes back to bite you in the ass. And bite you it will.

Theory: The Fundamental Principle of Sex and Relationships

The Fundamental Principle states that women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of relationships. You should be familiar with it by now. If not, educate your ass here.

Beyond a man's Relationship Gate lies a paradise that every girl wants to live in. It is a magical place where pickle jars are opened, spiders are squished, rides are given, appliances are fixed, cuddles are administered, encouragement is provided, and order is firmly established. And all of that requires a man’s time and effort.

As a man, your time and effort is your most valuable asset. You use it to get shit done – most often shit that’s related to Your Mission. When you give that time to someone else, it is a tremendous gift which should be appreciated and respected. This is the key principle behind bitch management. You must demand that a girl appreciate and respect your time.

Some men don’t demand respect for their time. They are too liberal with who they let through their Relationship Gate. They've got no border patrol, no review process. Just a country full of free benefits for anyone who crosses over. These are the beta-orbiters, and they are constantly beset by every vagrant vagina and panhandling pussy that bats its attached eyelashes.

Other men are too strict about admission. They only issue temporary sex visas, and they often deport women without notice. These are the uninterested lone-alphas, and they have chosen a lifestyle of banging and then flying solo. YOU, on the other hand, are open to a LTR with a bitch – IF she earns it.Managing your life and your bitches comes down to awarding her ONLY the time that she has earned. You can decide just how much of your time a bitch has earned by assigning her with a “rank”.


Definitions: An Overview of "Ranks"

We use a lot of terms for describing a relationship with a girl: girlfriend, fiancee, one-night stand (ONS), plate, friend-with-benefits (FWB), etc.
But what do these terms really mean?
From a male perspective, each term implies a different level of investment in the girl – an investment of time, effort, emotions, and other precious male resources. As such, they can be arranged as ranks in order of how much investment each term implies.

Here is a list of ranks we will use (along with working definitions) ordered from least to greatest:
Level 0: One-Night Stand -or- Pump and Dump. You throw a fuck into this girl and never see her again (unless she reaches out to you). It is a single encounter that is casual, sexual, and impersonal. You may or may not have met her before the encounter, and you may or may not even know her name. She is a one-time answer to a physical necessity - nothing more.
Requires no maintenance and a very low investment of time.

Level 1: Plate -or- Fuck Buddy. You have sex with this girl more than once. You will know her name and just enough about her life so you can schedule sexual encounters. You may also know a little bit about her personally, so you can help her rationalize being your fucktoy, assuming she's uncomfortable about the idea of being one. Otherwise, she's down with it and you're both satisfied with being casual. She is a temporary answer to a physical necessity.
Requires some maintenance and a low investment of time.

Level 2: Friends with Benefits. You have sex with this girl more than once - typically as often as mutual convenience allows, but perhaps even when it's not completely convenient for her (because she likes you enough to go out of her way). You also spend non-sexual time with this girl, like eating out or pursuing activities of mutual interest. You know more about her personal life, and she knows more about yours, and as a result the two of you exchange mutual, non-sexual favours from time to time. You will most certainly have good memories of non-sexual time spent with this girl, which will lead to positive emotional investment in her, making her more than just an answer to a physical necessity.
Requires moderate maintenance and a moderate investment of time.

Level 3: Significant Other -or- Girlfriend. The highest level of intimacy a girl can earn. You have sex with this girl often, usually more often than you do any of your other girls. You also spend a considerable amount of non-sexual time with this girl, resulting in many shared memories and a deeper emotional investment. At this level, there is significant mutual concern for the other's well-being. The girl in particular will feel a great dependence on your direct and involved guidance in her life (rather than simple stoicism and confidence). Emotions are strongly felt at this level: affection is especially sweet, and betrayal can be especially bitter.

Requires significant maintenance and a significant investment of time.

Strategy: How She Plays the Game

The game itself is quite simple:
A girl begins the game at Level 0 or Level 1, depending on the context in which you two met.
If you met in a club, or began as total strangers grinding against each other at a house party, she's Level 0.
If you two met in a slightly more sociable manner - perhaps introduced by mutual friends, or she impressed you with her pleasant demeanour after you opened her at the local cafe, she's Level 1. She can also bump up from Level 0 to Level 1 if she reaches out and maintains pleasant and reasonable contact with you after a casual sexual encounter.

From that point on, a girl must perform NON-SEXUAL services for you in order to advance in rank.
These services can include, but are not limited to:
Cooking you a healthy meal. Either at your place or by invitation to hers.
Treating you out some place. A restaurant or an activity of interest to YOU. Bonus points if you've never done the activity but it looks like fun - that means she's really thinking about you.

Buying you a well-thought-out gift. Not just a random thing, but a gift which demonstrates an effort to understand your life and interests (example: therapeutic shoe insoles for a guy who likes running, or high-quality ear buds for a music-lover). The accuracy of her insight is more important than the cost of the gift.

Hand-making you an artistic gift. These might include a picture or painting, a poem, a knitted scarf, a calendar of her photography, and the like. The more personalized the gift, the better. A hand-made gift doesn't have to be highly useful (since making useful things is tough), as long as the gift shows patience, diligence, and an attention to detail.

The greater her investment of time and effort in the gesture, the more credit she earns with you. Eventually, if she shows a consistent pattern of investing effort in you, she can advance in rank by one level.

As previously stated, a girl must invest time and effort in you in order to get your time and effort in return.

Why Do the Services Have to Be Non-Sexual?

Simple. Because a girl doesn't have to exert any effort at all to have sex. If she is attractive enough, all she needs to do to get sex is show up. Someone will fuck her if she makes herself available.
This game only rewards effort. You should also remember this: sex is the most fundamental pre-requisite of any non-platonic interaction between a guy and a girl. You'll never find yourself in a situation where a girl is giving you gifts and cooking you meals, but NOT having sex with you (unless you’re both a coward and too daft to read the signs). If sex isn't happening, then something is terribly amiss and you must either correct it or next her. Which brings us to our next section...

Strategy: Punishment and Demotion

There are many ways in which a girl can make a mistake and upset you. Maybe she starches your shirts too much, or she burns the dinner she was making for you. These kinds of mistakes should not be punished with demotion because, despite her mistake, she is investing time and effort in you. You can think of a suitable punishment and repayment for your lost shirt without going to the extreme of knocking her down a rank.
Instead, demotable offenses should be offenses that are an affront to your dignity, your authority, or to the time and effort you have invested in her.
Offenses can be intentional or unintentional.

Unintentional offenses will usually come in the form of some indiscretion on her part, as she slowly loses attraction for you, her conscious effort wanes, and she slips back into her natural hypergamous state.

Some examples of unintentional offenses are:
Unconsciously being too flirty with another guy (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Failing to keep an important promise (usually by neglect or poor-planning), the consequences of which cost you a substantial amount of money or ANY amount of reputation (failing of respect, this offense will happen at Level 2 or above, since you don't entrust these matters to girls below Level 2).
Neglecting some important duty that you have assigned to her (failing of respect, typically occurs at Level 3).

Frequency of sex decreases, and she absently evades when you try to initiate sex (loss of attraction, can occur at any level).
Committing an unintentional offense should typically result in the demotion of the girl by one (1) rank.
Intentional offenses are far more vulgar than their counterparts. Intentional offenses are usually targeted shit-tests meant to re-assess your fitness. In some extreme cases they might even occur in the presence of friends and family, making them vindictive attacks against your reputation or dignity.

Some examples of intentional offenses are:
Consciously flirting with another guy, trying to arouse jealousy in you (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Openly insulting you (shit-test, can occur at any level).
Frequency of sex decreases, and she consciously and vehemently evades when you try to initiate sex or talk about it (loss of attraction, can occur at any level).
Committing an intentional offense should result in the demotion of the girl by two (2) ranks. Committing a vindictive attack against your reputation should result in a loss of three (3) ranks.

Now, this next part is important, so pay attention:
Once a girl has been demoted, her current level becomes the maximum level she can ever be again. She can only climb the ladder as long as she is flawless in the execution of her womanly duties. Once she commits a serious offense, she is demoted, and she can never rise again.

Some examples of transgressions and appropriate punishments:
A plate (level 1) who fails to provide sex on demand drops one rank to level 0, and she is replaced by a plate who will.
A friend-with-benefits (level 2) who remorselessly loses your expensive digital camera drops one rank and becomes a plate forevermore.
A girlfriend (rank 3) who drunkenly humiliates you in front of your friends at a party drops three ranks to level 0, and you quietly disappear and move on.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Permanent plate status? Walking away for good? Aren’t these punishments pretty severe?

In reality, the offenses outlined above will generally only occur for one of two reasons:
You’ve slipped up in your duties as a Red Pill man and her attraction for you is beginning to wane.
She doesn’t have the sense to recognize her unworthy behavior because of a failure of parenting that occurred long before you met her.
If it’s reason 1, then you’re at fault, and you’re better off starting from scratch with a new bitch then trying to salvage a relationship that’s on a downward slope. If it’s reason 2, then the girl was never worth your time to begin with, and you simply didn’t know it until now. You can’t turn a ho into a housewife, so don’t even bother trying to reform her.

In general, you must be uncompromising whenever you punish your bitch. Remember what we’ve already established: girls look to you for cues on what’s okay. If you don’t crack down on bad behavior when it happens, a girl’s only assumption is that you are perfectly okay with whatever she’s done. Hypergamy is selfish by nature, and it shows no mercy. Tough love is the only effective response.

There’s also another benefit to being ruthless: meting out uncompromising punishment helps to keep you in abundance mentality. An uncompromising approach helps you to avoid the risk of developing oneitis, and it prevents you from being manipulated by women who are all too good at tugging at your sympathy to get just one/two/five more chances.

Keep your life drama-free by dropping troublesome bitches. With so many eligible bachelorettes out there looking desperately for a strong man like you, no single one of them is worth your grief.

Strategy: Naturalizing the Process

As you learn the rhythm of using rewards and punishments to keep your bitch enthralled, you’ll develop an intuition for how to play your part of the game. The process will become second-nature to you. You’ll naturally become bored with women who fail to show you the proper appreciation, and gravitate towards the ones who make your life more pleasant.

That’s the ultimate goal here: to make you a natural. You’ll never say to your bitch “You’re a level 1 plate now!” or “You’re going down a rank for that shit!” This system is for YOU – so you can have an abstract model with which to understand the game, until managing bitches becomes as natural to you as breathing or blowing a load on her face.

Final Thoughts

The key trait of the modern western woman is her absolute lack of concern for the desires of men. Our cuckold state has all but replaced men as husbands and providers, and so it would seem like the traditional relationship is basically obsolete – that women will never again need to concern themselves with OUR wants. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Though a woman can subsist off the benefits paid for by our taxes, the government cannot give her the love, the attention, the stability, the masculine reassurance, and direct intervention that are so crucial to her emotional well-being. A woman feels vulnerable in a role of leadership, and she feels lost without a masculine leader to boldly claim responsibility for confronting all of the challenges that terrify her. No government can provide that for her. For that, she must come to us.

And for that, we must demand a price.

My hope is that this guide has helped you realize just how much leverage you have in the sexual dynamic – much more than you once thought. Let this guide help you to capitalize on that leverage – for the sake of your happiness, and for the happiness of any woman who works hard enough to earn your time and effort.

u/[deleted] #sexist #fundie reddit.com

[Unironic Post] How s-x causes violence in thought and behavior and why it need to be banned

[Unironic Post] How s-x causes violence in thought and behavior and why it need to be banned
First off, I am very glad I found this board. I have been campaigning against s-x my whole life and am glad others are joining the movement. The creators of the content here are geniuses.

S-x is nothing more than an act of violent domination over another human being. This is not very difficult to figure out if one spends significant amounts of time browsing through p-rn sites (I do NOT recommend that you do this). Most s-x acts involve some sort of violence against the recipient, and I don’t want to go into detail about this because I want to keep this post NSFW. However, if one of you is familiar with what I’m talking about, it is very easy to understand what I mean. Indeed, in some cases it goes to extreme lengths involving some sort of simulated enslavement of the recipient.

This is not a coincidence. If you observe the animal kingdom, you will see that most mating rituals involve some sort of violence. This can be particularly observed in species of birds such as ducks and chickens. Our ancestors were not much different, and in a time when we did not have stable laws, forced s-x was very common. In a lot of cases, this was simply out of necessity, as a man’s s-xual urges are often uncontrollable because of the pressing biological need to reproduce. It was also a display of dominance, since women generally prefer strong males in order to produce similarly strong and healthy offspring.

So s-x is very often nothing more than a dominance display. The fact that the majority of women have fantasies about forced s-x and domination proves this, and most men are happy to oblige. It is not simply a means of reproduction, at least not today. With modern contraceptives, s-x is usually some just to fulfill base animal instincts instead of simple reproduction. Furthermore, we are now developing means to develop children without needing to resort to s-x. It is therefore completely unnecessary.

When one has s-x, he releases his base animal nature which causes him to act violently in other areas of life. Once one has already committed to one violent act, he finds it much easier to do so in other spheres of life. It is no coincidence that history’s mass murderers were all s-xhavers, while some of history’s most revered prophets and teachers of peace were celibate. It should therefore be forcibly discontinued among humans.

S-xual desire should be treated as a mental disorder. One could say that this is not right because it is natural, but other disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar, OCD, autism, etc. are natural as well. S-x makes people unhappy as it is something that can never be satisfied and people want more and more of it, therefore causing suffering. Therefore, it is clearly a mental disorder, and can be treated with medication to inhibit desire. Procreation of the species should be accomplished artificially. Once this is done, we can enter an age of eternal peace where men and women are treated equally and would enable us to travel the universe. We would do so peacefully, without intent or desire to conquer alien species. A universal age of prosperity would then be achievable and all would be content and fulfilled.

Thank you for reading.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy lovethetruth.com

Evangelist Lester Roloff saw clearly over half a century ago that that three evils would destroy America—drunkenness, abortion and homosexuality. Please hear, “Steps In The Degeneration Of Our Nation” (MP3 sermon by Brother Roloff). The answer to America is not more guns or the willingness to use them. We've already seen where Civil War leads, between 1860-1865! I do support gun ownership, as deadly force is sometimes the only language that tyrants understand. The 2nd Amendment is our only protection to ensure that the government honors the other nine amendments in our Bill of Rights. In 1936 Spain, “The people found themselves helpless... forced to register & surrender arms!” Watch the video clip, as the Communists shoot innocent citizens in the head, and their bodies fall into the graves which they literally dug for themselves!!!

And by the way we are U.S. “citizens,” not military “civilians.” The people of Spain never should have surrendered their guns to the government! The Bloody History Of Communism Over The Past Century (a 2:08 hour full documentary). Do you know the name of the only European country who were left alone during the World War II conflict? It was Switzerland. Yes, the Swiss, who were known for their infatuation with guns. Shooting is a family activity in Switzerland. From the earliest age, Swiss children are taught to respect, handle and use firearms!

History always repeats itself! If you don't think that your American wife and daughters couldn't be gang raped by invading thugs, and your American sons tortured and murdered, and American fathers enslaved as caged animals, think again my friend!!! Please read Dr. Ron Paul's insightful article, “IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!” Shameful secretary of state, the butcher of Waco, Janet Reno, said it is not a matter of if, but when, American's guns will be confiscated. You should be very worried why the government wants to take away your guns so badly! Now it looks like Hillary Clinton will be our next commander and thief in the White House in 2017. She is Janet Reno's lesbian clone, and she will take away everyone's guns, at gunpoint if necessary! All of these false flag public shootings; such as Sandy Hook and now it appears also the Orlando incident, will be used to demonize gun owners and confiscate their weapons.

Know this friend, unarmed citizens effectively have no rights in America! Remember that! Likewise, if you cannot afford to pay tens-of-thousands-of-dollars to hire an attorney, effectively you have no rights in the United States! If Child Protection Services (CPS) targets your family and accuses poor parents of neglect, you are not entitled to a free attorney (as provided for in your Bill of Rights). The thug government gets around the 6th Amendment by charging parents with neglect, which is not legally considered a crime. The state fully knows that hardly any parents can afford to hire an attorney (which are ll very expensive), so by charging the parents with an administrative offense instead of a crime, they can easily confiscate your children and put them up for adoption, drugging and then raping them (even in government custody). There's a special place in Hell for CPS thugs, judges, lawyers and everyone involved who ruin families! You have seen the definition of “evil” until you've met an administrative CPS judge! What scum and filth! America has one of the worst legal systems in history, caging human beings like animals, and then calling it “humane treatment.” Proverbs 12:10, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The average animal at the zoo in America has a much better life than the average incarnated inmate. God will punish the punishers!

kastdenawaybrugerfor #sexist reddit.com

School students responsible for creating a event hired a stripper for "party event" She STRIPPED More for the Chad Guy Than The Person She Was Hired To Strip For

At a boarding school, I barely have a name for it in English, it's a school were you are doing sport or music without normal education, for ages 17-25 really great. (Højskole)

But students were in social groups were they often made fun stuff together, and every group had to arrange a party, well a group decided to arrange a fake marriage, after all the normal marriage stuff we guys went out to the streets all following the guy that was going to be "fake marriages" after some fun on the streets they have hired a night club before it opened for the public, there a fully nude stripper had to strip for the guy.

The thing was she spend almost more time stripping for the Chad spectator than the person she was supposed to strip for, and he was the only other guy she personally got close to other than the "marriage guy"

So even when a woman is paid, she fails at not going after Chad.

Have pictures if people claim fake.

paspartuu #homophobia reddit.com

[on having a queer disney princess]

it absolutely should not be Elsa, because she's been presented and marketed as not-gay, she's become iconic as assumed straight (honestly, especially with Disney the normal baseline IS straight and characters are assumed to be so unless otherwise stated), has been very popular for years and years - and suddenly turning her gay now would feel like a bait-and-switch, a bit like a dirty trick.

I also can't help but feel that for many, it's not really about Elsa as a character and her in-story personality, but about her being so popular and iconic, and thus making her gay would have more impact than getting an all-new gay character. So it feels like if Elsa would be turned gay now, it wouldn't be because it's what the writers think she is - everyone would think it's just WDAS caving under pressure, that they fundamentally changed a character due to fan demand, which would sort of ruin the character and the franchise.

And no, I don't buy the claims about "we don't know what her sexuality is, we don't know what the writers envision her as". I'm fairly sure they wrote her as straight because it's a Disney princess film

supersport #fundie curezone.com

homosexuals should be thrown in jail like in the good ole days....maybe we could let them pick up trash on the side of the road while they're all linked together with chains. At least that way Aids would be confined to prisons as opposed to infecting the rest of society and dragging everyone else down with them.

Laura Lowder #fundie mercatornet.com

I was deeply moved by Julie Hinds’ story, recently told on MercatorNet: “Alternative Truths: A wife’s view of a gay coming out”. I am another ex-wife of a homosexual. Our stories have been too slow to come to light.

In the 30 years since Bill left me and embarked on the gay lifestyle, I’ve struggled to recover from the deep wounds left in the wake of his deception.

...

A man concerned only with having a wife as a public face is not inclined to treat her as his spiritual and intellectual companion, any more than as a lover. This was my experience.

Billy and I grew up together, started dating after high school and married while still in our teens. We’d been married two years when, during an argument about his non-communication and lack of attention, he broke down and told me he’d been seduced, at age 14, by an older man. “I’ve always been afraid that, if you hadn’t fallen in love with me and married me, that’s where I would have ended up,” he told me. There was not a word about his loving me.

I was young and naïve, I wasn’t close to my parents, and in my community in the 1960s and 70s, nice people just didn’t talk about some things. I was afraid my pastor would contact Bill’s boss if I went to him, so I didn’t get any sort of counseling until Bill eventually left me. In fact, after being physically sick for several days after that revelation, because it was just too much to deal with, I tried, rather too successfully, to put it out of my mind. We had three children (because I refused to take No for an answer, if you want to know), and we were active in our church all that time.

When, after 11-and-a-half years of marriage, Bill announced his intention of leaving me, my immediate reaction was relief. I’d grown to hate him, over the years, for not taking me seriously as a woman, as a human being. Bill has never been able to see that I possessed any real value or interest in my own right. Most of our arguments were over that. I didn’t or couldn’t remember his earlier admission about the seduction, and he always tried to deflect the blame for his lack of attention back on me: I wasn’t a good housekeeper, so he was too uptight to be affectionate or companionable, or some such thing. But I couldn’t leave. Our religious beliefs, as I understood them, prohibited divorce. I was also afraid of being alone. But now he was leaving. I was going to be free, at last.

I didn’t realize until five months after he moved out, and I ran into him and his partner at the grocery store, what had been going on. The electricity between the two men was palpable. I realized, They’re in love with each other! and remembered the disclosure he’d made years before. Oh, thank God! I thought. If I’d been perfect it still wouldn’t have been enough!

But there was also shock and fear. The realization of just what it meant, that Bill was gay, was a terrible blow. I had been, in gay slang, a “beard,” a false front to give him an acceptable public identity. Everything I had thought was true about myself and my world was suddenly proven false. I didn’t know what was real in my world, any more, or who I was in it. I teetered on the brink of a nervous breakdown for several years after that night, and only slowly recovered some sense of normality.

My work during the first few years of being single had me connecting with a variety of mental health professionals in our city. I wanted to understand what had happened to me – and to Bill; I asked them, Is there any literature about the impact of a husband’s homosexuality on his straight wife? No, they said. Thirty years later there still isn’t. This is why our stories are so important – they comfort us in our basic shared experiences, they assure us we are normal.

Maybe, some day, the psychological community will decide we deserve attention, and studies and papers, too. I’m not holding my breath: an industry that has defined its terms based on politics (as happened following the 1973 American Psychological Association convention, which decided to remove homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders) is not likely to give credence to a point of view opposing that position.

Our struggle is made harder than it ought to be by several factors. The lack of available information about what has happened to us is one. Another is the current political climate that lionizes homosexuality and dismisses us. Our gay husbands are so courageous, so heroic for coming out and claiming their truth . . . They are the important ones, they deserve so much respect and esteem just for being gay.

“Don’t you want Bill to be happy? Doesn’t he have that right?” a gay co-worker asked me at one point. His own partner was formerly married with two children.

“What about my right to be happy?” I countered. “He made me promises. Don’t I have a right to see those promises honored?”

“I’ve never thought about that,” he admitted.

Additionally, when we do share our stories on public media, we get attacked. Comment boxes are full of contemptuous responses: “Sour grapes,” are blamed for our dissent from the celebration of gayness. Misogyny is rampant: we can’t be rational creatures with legitimate, carefully-considered opinions; we can only be harridans seeking revenge.

At the same time, and often by the same people, our tragedy is used to promote gay marriage: “This is why we need gay marriage. If these men could have married, then none of these sob stories would have happened.” This is a false conclusion and an obfuscation of the truth.

The desire for a traditional family is a natural one. Marriage is a uniting of complementary opposites, beginning with the fundamental opposites of male and female. Gay “marriage” does not resolve the deeper wounds of same-sex-attraction and its impact on wives and children, but it does insult our unique identity – our inherent value as woman and as wife. It is also an affront to Christian morals and to natural law. For these reasons I do not recommend some of the online resources like the Straight Spouse Network – their support of gay marriage is counterintuitive to self-respect and healing.

Even worse, for many of us, is that the churches where we ought to find refuge and help are places that foster confusion and a false sense of guilt. My own church and pastor at the time of my initial discovery would have been most supportive and helpful had I had the clarity of mind to seek help. I’ve since converted to Catholicism, which recognizes that homosexuality is a grave impediment to a sacramentally valid marriage. But many in the evangelical and fundamentalist communities encounter a legalism founded on poor theology that employs guilt and coercion to wrongly assign responsibility rather than to support hurting spouses.

Some women decide to stay with their gay husbands, and, in my opinion, there are some very good reasons to stay, if that is agreeable to the spouses. I’m not sure it’s healthy, but there are extenuating circumstances which deserve respect. One woman I know has a disabling condition; her husband has chosen to remain married to her so his insurance is still available to help her in her illness, and their relationship is such that she has found that agreeable.

...

But we can’t win for losing. Even staying in the marriage, women face criticism. An article in the Huffington Post expresses great empathy for the gay husband’s sufferings in coming to terms with his attractions. But not a word does the article offer regarding the sufferings and the deep loneliness experienced by the woman married to him; in fact, the article tacitly blames wives for adding to the difficulties their husbands face, or for choosing to remain married to them even knowing the truth.

....

First of all, it’s not inevitable that the marriage will fall apart. Men who are willing to brave the hard work of reparative therapy – not “praying the gay away,” but a wholistic combination of recognized and respected therapeutic techniques – can find wholeness and a deep happiness in marriage. Of course, men who want to call it “trying” when they merely show up to cohabit at the same address are only fooling themselves. From my experience, Mr. Rymel gives the gay husband far too much credit, and his premise is insulting to us wives.

Moreover, husbands can manipulate us, too. Lying about his homosexuality, or about the nature of his relationships is common. And even when a man is straightforward with his wife, promises to work a program, promises to “be good” can fall apart when a man decides there’s no point any more and vacates the marriage. In such a case, a woman might well be justified to “call foul and take the martyr’s role.”

....

Besides, whether she stays or goes, or is left, a wife suffers. When the most intimate of her relationships is warped, when she is found fundamentally undesirable – again, in every dimension of relationship – she is wounded, and those wounds go deep and are hard to recover from. The memory of Bill’s recoil from ordinary gestures of affection lingers with me to the point I have feared resting my hand on my friend’s shoulder or forearm. I’m still deeply humiliated by the memory of his telling someone what a let-down he found our wedding night and the consummation of our marriage: “. . . disappointed . . . don’t know what all the fuss is about.”

But there is healing, and there is peace. It’s not an easy path, and there are too few resources for us. I found Wives’ Healing Journey enormously beneficial, but this is the only program I know of. While our gay husbands have public support, networking, and other venues available to help them transition into the gay community, there is almost nothing for the wives they left in pursuit of self-fulfillment. That must change. And I expect it’s going to have to change with us.

Being the ex-wife of a homosexual does not have to dominate our lives. It does not define who we are. But we must support one another, and our voices deserve to be respected.

Laura Lowder is a freelance writer who lives in the US. Her website is www.survivingtherainbow.com. Presently she is working with another ex-wife to develop a network for the support of other women and families affected by a loved one's homosexuality, transgenderism, and other related issues.

Stefanie Nicholas #fundie #homophobia #transphobia onepeterfive.com

I immediately recognized the painful truth of these words in many regrettable actions I have undertaken in my own life. When Eros becomes a god himself rather than being submitted to God, we give him powerful sway over us. He can lead us to do the unthinkable out of this hollow feeling of intense love — and perhaps even more dangerously to society at large, he can lead us to justify the unjustifiable in the behavior of others.

Mere decades ago, the cry of love became an argument for couples of the same sex having relationships together, with a demand for “marriage” following soon after. Is it so hard to imagine that most people in the not too distant future will find themselves able to stomach “consensual” ephebophilia and pedophilia, slaves as they are to this unchained Eros? The foundation for this acceptance is already being laid.

It’s easy to view the LGBT lobby and especially the pedophilia-as-sexual-orientation faction purely from the perspective of carnal desire. Even aside from the most sex-crazed antics of “Pride” parades and gay bars, they base their entire existence as group on the erroneous concept of “sexual orientation.” We need to understand once again as a society that sexual desires may be complex and nearly infinite, but chastity in spite of temptation is simple and universal (and, with the aid of grace, possible!). This must be emphasized, particularly now, as we see the push for severely disordered pedophilic tendencies to be recognized as an “identity.”

However, though it is undoubtedly important, it is not enough to control what C.S. Lewis calls Venus — sexual love. We must think broadly of Eros, of romantic love, as well in order to truly understand the actions of these confused human beings, particularly when we consider just how many of them are victims of sexual abuse themselves. They, like us, live in a world awash with free pornography, immodesty, and contraception, which no doubt fuels their disordered inclinations even further. Instead of speaking the truth in charity, we await their evil actions with open arms, closing our hearts to the person whom God has made in order to embrace a ghost crafted by human hands. We’re all looking for love, in one way or another, and it is those most starving for love whom Eros is quickest to devour.

It would be foolish to ignore him in this clash of mores, thinking that once we sort Venus out, all will be well. Eros is not to be underestimated. He’s a lot harder to keep on a leash.

1984 #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

A Day in the Life of a New World Order Slave

-Wake up,

-Brush Teeth with Fluoride Toothpaste,

-Shower with Industrial Fluoride Waste in Public Water,

-Microwave Breakfast Sandwich destroying the protein in it.

-Eat a GMO "food" bar full of cancer causing grain/Oil from Corn, Soy, Cotton, Canola, Wheat.

-Check the Weather on Microwave Radio Frequency Cell Phone that tracks your Location, Texts, Conversations/Contacts/Associations and Web Traffic/searches All the Time.

-Check balance on Debit Card so the NWO knows where you are and how much money you don't have.

-Pay at the Pump for Gas with Debit Card so the NWO knows When, What and how much you filled up.

-Drive to Work in City with Skycop Cameras so the NWO knows how you get to work.

-Clock IN so Employer can record your hours worked and "Take Out" Fed,State,Local,Social Security,Health Insurance Money from YOUR Pay.

-Drink a GMO Soda filled with Mineral robbing, Disease Casing (High Fructose Corn Syrup, and sometimes Human DNA Flavor modifiers, Industrial Fluoride waste put in Public Water, Sodium Benzoate, Brominated Vegetable Oil, Artificial Colors, Artificial Sweeteners and preservatives)

-Absorb Radio Frequency Radiation all day long from Cell Phones/towers, WiFi routers, Smart Meters, Remote monitoring data systems, WiFi Computers and Electronic devices like 2way Radios, Inventory/tracking and anti Theft systems.

-Use the Restroom full of Toxic Cleaners and Disinfectants and Air fresheners, Wash hands with Toxic Soap full of Chemicals that get absorbed through the skin.

-Use Company provided cleaners without reading the lables telling you not to touch, inhale or absorb product.

-Eat some snack food full of "GMO" Corn, Soy, Cottonseed, chemical preservatives.

-Eat Lunch full of GMO's, Fluoride from City Water, Fried Food full of Cancer causing Oils and crispy "browned" meats and vegetables, GMO Soda.

-Watch NWO Corporate News/Sports during Lunch so you know little or nothing of anything that will significantly affect you or others in the REAL world.

-Drink a Energy Drink full of Caffeine, Artificial Sweeteners, colors and preservatives, to stay awake

and keep going to the end of work shift.
-Clock out so they know when to stop paying you, and taking away (withholding) your pay.

-Drive Home while constantly being tracked/Recorded by Cell Phone, ONstar or other Vehicle Tracking/monitoring system while listening to Music full of lyrics promoting Sex, Drinking, Revenge, Divorce, Fighting and loosing control.

-Eat a processed Food Dinner lacking any good Nutrition and full of GMO, Preservatives and Herbicide and Pesticides absorbed into the food.

-Watch T.V. "Programming" to space out, relax and absorb what the 5 or 6 mega media corporations want you to believe is the world you live in like:(
Schools are where you go to "Learn"
Drugs treat Disease and make you better.
Vaccines prevent Disease.
Humans are Animals and there is No God, or Sin.
War, Drone strikes and Abortion is Not Murder, just getting rid of a problem.
"Food" is what you buy and eat from a Restaruant, Grocery Store or vending machine.
Your Elected leaders do the will of the people, and you get to pick them.)

Paul Abramson #fundie cseblogs.com

Only a few short years later, the teaching of evolution over Genesis began to take its toll. In 1962 and 1963, prayer and the Bible began to be removed from the classrooms. Premarital sex, divorce, drug use, violence, and general rebellion filled the 1960s as evolution’s conclusions were taken and applied en masse.

No longer could one neglect to lock their home, auto, and business. Evolution in practice encouraged “survival of the meanest” and “survival of the most deceitful” instead of “honesty is the best policy”.

Then “no fault insurance” became the norm as enough persons (believing evolution, whether consciously or subconsciously) decided to lie when recounting an auto accident. Wall Street deals used to be done on a handshake. No longer. Eventually it has become necessary to have drivers pay for gas first, then pump, as evolutionary tenets took hold in men’s hearts and minds.

Nathan “Leucosticte” Larson #sexist #psycho rgif.is

Hey chicks, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take any responsibility for your sexual decisions at all?

Let's suppose we lived in a society where your dad forced you to get married to a man of his choice at 13, and it was forbidden to refuse your husband sex, and the penalty for having sex with anyone but your husband was death. So from cradle to grave, your sexuality would be totally controlled by your owner.

Think about the advantages. You'd never have to worry about being called a slut or a whore (except when your husband is putting you in your place by reminding you how worthless you are compared to him, because ultimately you're just a sexual object for him to fuck whenever he wants, surrendering to whatever degradation he chooses to inflict upon you).

You'd never have to worry about making a dumb sexual decision, or that you're going to fall in love and then get abandoned, or anything like that, because your husband would be like, "Why would I ever give up perfectly good pusѕy that I can fuck whenever I want"; you'd have a harmonious relationship because you wouldn't have the right to deprive him of what he needs to be happy in the relationship. You'd be protected from your own destructive whims and their consequences.

You wouldn't have to worry some man is just going to use you for sex and then discard you; you'd be secure in the knowledge you'll be taken care of forever because all those years of enjoying your body whenever he wanted are gonna be imprinted on his memory and he'll associate the sight of you with all that pleasure he's had. There won't be a lot of unpleasant or hurtful memories of how you acted like a bitch toward him and he couldn't do anything to curb your behavior, because he was always able to spank you or choke you to make you stop, and obey instead.

Just surrender to objectification; it has a lot of benefits. It's gonna create more passionate and harmonious relationships. You'll get to raise your kids together with your husband in the comfort of the marital home, because you were prevented from leaving him even when your female emotionality made you want to during tough times. And you'll be able to respect him as a dominant man rather than being allowed to follow your rebellious instincts to disobey and humiliate him, as so often happens once men give up their autonomy by getting married.

You were meant to be a man's pleasure-toy, his sex-slave and baby factory; just accept it, that's your role in life. You were meant to have all decisions made for you by a male authority figure, and never have to face any consequences or guilt or regret for anything, but remain in a permanent state of childhood, essentially; of being treated as one who must submit to a man who, although imperfect, is still stronger and wiser than she. Think of it, you'll never have to get in any fight that just drags on through the whole marriage; if you don't obey, you get spanked and raped and that's it; no more conflict, because if you won't stop nagging and bickering, he'll just smack you across your whore mouth till you shut up. What's not to love for both parties.

FullofFaith #fundie fstdt.com

Jewish Food Tax

On every pantry shelf in America, lay dozens of canned and packaged food products which have a tiny "K" or "U" printed on the label.

This symbol informs Orthodox Jews that the items have been checked by a rabbi, to make sure that they have been prepared in accordance with "Jewish Dietary law", as set forth in the Jewish Talmud -(the real "bible" of the Jews.)

American food companies are forced to pay multi-billions of dollars to several Orthodox Jewish organizations, just so an estimated 10% to 20% of Jewry, (or 800,000 to no more than 1.2 million Orthodox Jews), will buy their products. Please bear in mind that this is a country of 270 million people, and we are all forced to pay this Kosher Tax, just to appease LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION!

This comes out of your pocket !

Beware: Each nation has its own symbol. Check in local Jewish publications, to find out what mark of the beast, is being used in your own country.

This is strictly a religious tax, which millions of non-Jews unknowingly pay each time they buy a basket load of groceries! What would happen if a group of Christian ministers or priests got together, and demanded that all companies pay them a similar tax? They could use a "C," symbol (for Christian), or a cross, (for Christ), threatening that those who refuse to print such a label on their products would be boycotted by Christians.

If that happened you would hear an enraged outcry from the ACLU, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Anti-Defamation League, etc. They would be filing suits to stop this "violation of the Constitutional provisions providing for the separation of Church and State." But, because of the Jews' centuries old claim of being "a poor persecuted people" along with the Christian fear of being accused of "anti-Semitism," there is a deafening silence on this problem. Note: Modern Jews are not Semites, or the Jews of the Bible.

ONEGod #fundie christianforums.com

Liberals insisted that abortions were a "right" (certainly not for the baby involved) then demanded the public (Feds) pay for it.
Liberals insist that embroyonic stem cell research must be made legal, except it already is commonly legal. What they want/demand is the public (Feds) pay for it.
In both cases i think they desire that the blood of the innocent be upon the nation to incur the wrath of God

Doug Mainwaring #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Versus Diminished Lives

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

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

What Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Anonymous #conspiracy dataasylum.com

What is the Purpose of Chemtrails

Chemtrails are a huge logistical operation. Larger than the hoover damn, trans-alaska pipeline or moon landing. It's large. And expensive. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming there is only one reason for chemtrails. There are about five or six reasons and possibly more. The top six are listed below with a brief summary. This web site is concerned with the last. A visual overview may help by reviewing a flowchart here.

•Blocking the Sun: This is the standard reason given to fools in the government. We need to secretly stop global warming, so keep it a secret that we're spraying. Global warming is the catch all con for everyone in the government. If you're smarter than this they'll give you a better reason.

•Blocking the Sun (Again): A reduction in sun light across the planet works well to decrease or manipulate crop yields slightly. This is part of the requirement to engineer a food crisis and bring in a famine. You can dismiss this.

•Superheating the Atmosphere: In order to create earthquakes and steer hurricanes (for example hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) the atmosphere needs to be more conductive for electricity so installations such as HAARP (HAARP is just what they want you to see, HAARP has nothing to do with anything) can work their magic. So the chemtrails spray barium and aluminum among other things to create a more conductive upper atmosphere. In The Phoenix Rises (2012) they tell you exactly this @ exactly ~16:00 in the movie as they specifically talk about chemtrails. For your information barium has nothing to do with the BioAPI, nano-fibers or nano-tech at all.

•Health Erosion: As a side effect everyone's health and immune systems become slightly compromised. This is usually not an issue for most healthy people. Older people on average will now die sooner and any health complication is slightly more likely to be fatal. This is both a side effect of spraying and intentional.
Climate Modification: To help or hurt crops, keep skies clear for a major event (like the Olympics), cause a typhoon, steer super storms, etc.

•Nano-fiber Propagation: To universally install a BioAPI in everyone they need to spray nano-fibers. These fibers cannot be put into the food supply or given in some other way, the uptake across the population would take forever and not propagate very effectively. It's much easier just to spray everyone like an insect; and because it's happening to everyone the universal herd mentality of the unwashed masses then justifies it.

Nano-fiber Basics

Nano-fibers specifically are a transport mechanism. Nothing more. They hold a payload for delivery. A payload that would otherwise be compromised by the sun or atmosphere or not make it to its destination (your body). Such as viral RNA code, metals such as aluminum, nano-components, etc. The fibers are (surprisingly) quite harmless as everyone has them. Examples of these fibers can be found all over the internet or in the physical examples section of this site. The fibers must be independently sprayed, if they we're added to the jet fuel the extreme heat would destroy the payload.

So it's not the fiber that is critical, it's the payload.

Why?

This is a complicated question. The people creating and doing this are trying to force biblical principles onto the populace (including themselves) through technology. For example the seven deadly sins. They take a basic human requirement (food, sex, a specific emotion) and quantify it (within the BioAPI). If the result is to extreme (for example you eat too much) or you do something not approved of then they decide that you're not worthy of life or judge you accordingly. In the alternative your are added to a program. The possibilities for the BioAPI or nano-tech in general is endless. Therefore you should not focus on any one reason as being the end all purpose. It's too dynamic. It's to complex. As I mentioned on the top of page 5 of the media references - 'the BioAPI is the greatest revelation in human history'. For example see the last paragraph of the description for Vexille (2007), specifically the trailer for H+ mentioned in it. Data Asylum is only giving you one angle of the BioAPI - the nano-tech disease and all the implications that encompass it.

Also see question #9 of the frequently asked questions for a brief explanation on how this (and chemtrails) are (mostly) lawful.

Who?

The same group of people that brought humanity HIV in the late 1970's. Also see FAQ question #15.

BioAPI Phases

There are essentially two phases involved with the installation of the BioAPI. I categorize it as phase 1 and phase 2. If you can imagine a new laptop computer, all it has is the operating system like Windows, so it's kind of useless. This would be the equivalent to phase 1. So a new computer can be remotely controlled (aka phase 1, see Surrogates (2009)) by your IT tech support guy, but that is all. There are no programs installed (provided by phase 2) to do much else with it. These names of a phase 1 and 2 are not necessarily just random nonsense I made up, see the clip and movie for Control Factor (2003) in which they use these exact names in the exact same context; because they are telling you everything.

•Phase 1: Everyone on the planet is affected and involved in this phase. Everyone to some extent has the nano-fibers within their body cavity, and therefore wired ['I'm wired too.' - Michael Hall, Gamer (2009)]. Side effects include a clicking sound from within the skull and basic annoying body complications like aching joints. This phase provides complete remote control of your speech and thought patterns through suggestion (partially subconsciously). I guess about 99% of the populace of the entire planet has this phase complete.

Phase 1 could be construed as positive and beneficial to you, at least in the future. See John Hodgman (2012) for more information. You should also see question 9 of the FAQs.

•Phase 2: This phase must be triggered (by nano-trigger-bots) and is extreme. It completely compromises your health and can do anything from kill you to simply monitor you. This phase cannot be forced onto you like phase 1 (technically it can but they don't do that yet). This involves multiple nano-sensors from ocular to heart and everything in between. I figure about 2% of the population has gone through this phase. If this phase is triggered in you they consider you evil as shown within the media examples page of this site. You must do something to trigger this phase, including eating cheap red meat, kissing specific people, using specific corporate health care/beauty products, etc. The objective they are (partially) reaching for here is to connect each event with a deadly sin of some sort. For example morgellons would be connected with vanity because your skin goes to hell. Ultimately this phase provides complete remote control of your body and mind, including the monitoring of your emotions, thoughts, body functions and everything in between. Phase 2 then can be considered a nano-tech disease (as clearly shown in the Family Guy clip) in which the contagious aspect can be switched on and off. For example I have phase 2, but I am not contagious, but I can be if they decide to make me contagious in some way - typically kissing. This allows them to completely control the transmission/vector or spreading of the nano-disease. If you want to get specific, the nano-tech or nano-implants that compose phase 2 of the BioAPI is actually just the vehicle they use to monitor, torment, test and hurt people. The disease itself is actually one of dishonor. The more dishonor you demonstrate, the more they hate you, the worse things get for you. They do not want people to figure that out. See Meeting Evil (2012) for clear details. Phase 2 can or is definitely detrimental to your life. That is the point of it. A cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

You can 100% confirm if you have phase 2 or not by seeing an eye doctor and asking him to look for anomalies exactly where the ocular implant is located. The implant is still a camera and therefore must conform to the laws of physics and optics still so it must, just like your eye has, have a concave lens which it does. You might be able to slightly feel it at night when your falling asleep when your eyes are dryer and you move your eyeball around with your eyes closed. More information on the implant's location is available here.

Also see the clip for Contracted (2013) which specifically covers the contraction of phase 2 and the physical side effects there from. Pretty Dead (2013), no clip provided, also does a good job at covering multiple aspects of the contraction of the nano-tech disease and BioAPI in general, both good and bad. They show a couple triggers (meat and hard drugs) which makes her sick, complete with heavy zombie overtones. They also show a possible positive aspect such as accelerated healing. The entire movie, every scene, becomes like a documentary.

Nano-Fiber and BioAPI Side Effects

•Phase 1 & 2 - Cranium Clicking/Screeching: A phase 1 side effect goes back as early as 2001. Exactly what is happening is not completely known but involves some sort of nano-chip being installed/operated in the cranium (your head) of the host. This is probably the equivalent of a CPU of some sort. The actual clicking/screeching sound observed is usually at night on average once a month and only lasts for a few seconds. Completely painless and easily ignored or passed off by the person. The entire purpose of the movie Shutter Island (2010) is to discount this. The nano-implant that is specifically and clearly responsible for this side effect is symbolically referenced in the second clip for Surrogates (2009). I suspect over time they have improved this side effect.

•Phase 1 & 2 - Aching Joints, Headaches, Fatigue, etc.: The saturation of nano-fibers has different effects on different people. The sheer numbers involved results is a random combination of health implications. Most people will not notice anything, or pass any slight symptom off as getting older. Other people who have more of a reaction will go to the doctor and get diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a catch all disease that was created about a decade ago to give doctors something to tell the patient when they complained. The doctors can't accurate diagnose or understand what or why a patient is feeling a certain way, so the corrupt medical establishment gives them this nonsense to spew. These side effects are primarily phase 1 but are a constant problem across the board. Notice the root word of fibromyalgia is fib[e]r, it's not a coincidence. This Family Guy clip indirectly references Fibromyalgia.

•Phase 2 - Itching: For whatever reason they may force harsh itching on you when they do not agree with what you are doing or how you are behaving. You probably will have no idea it is phase 2 at the beginning. This is shown in Flash of Genius (2008) when they show her typing and zoom in on her hand (@ 44:50 in the movie) when she itches it. She's presumed to be a bad wife for leaving her husband (no clip is provided; screenshot here; you'll have to read this whole site to understand this). The exact same concept is shown in Lay the Favorite (2012) where Bruce Willis itches his forearm clearly and intentionally after referencing it a few seconds earlier (screenshot here). Why? Why would they put that in? I mean millions of dollars are spent on these scripts and production thereto. This happens in real life to countless people around the world all day long, he's being warned. Why? Because in the movie he's thinking about cheating on his wife with the hot blonde that just walked in. In people with phase 2, the BioAPI is monitoring thought and emotional patterns which if conflict triggers an itch; it's automated. For example lust + guilt (because he's married) do not go together. Think Pontypool (2008). So they are judging you (or more accurately people with phase 2 who are pre-targeted). Itching is also shown in Fast Zombies with Guns (2011), as they turn into zombies [contract phase 2 in real life] they itch a lot. Again, why show this? Because it's real. Most targeted individuals will understand the extremely itchy forearm. So itching is not a side effect in the common sense of the term; it is instead intentionally inflected via the BioAPI as reflected in the aforementioned references as well as loosely shown in A Scanner Darkly (2006) @ 0:44 in the clip/trailer.

•Phase 2 - Burning Smell: Phase 2 encapsulates the person's ability to smell, so they can read/write scents. It's used to help warp the reality of someone they have specifically targeted (aka Black Limousine (2010)). When inhaling or specifically exhaling quickly its often a burning/smoke smell that is noticed. This is an unwanted side effect - or more accurately to encapsulate any neuron in the body involved in sensing (for example, smell, taste, etc.) there ends up being be some minor side effect. Interestingly when I cry the smell is amplified and it smells like buttered popcorn of all things. An example of how the media discounts this is demonstrated in the movie Bandits (2001).

•Phase 2 - The Left Eye: One of the concepts they push in the movies is the left eye is evil for some reason. Or to a lesser extent use the eye as a gateway to demonstrate functionality such as with Technotise (2009) or Gamer (2009). In phase 2 an actual nano-camera will be installed in the left eye. People with this might comment on how they feel like there's a small bump in their eye under slightly drier conditions such as when going to sleep at night. This is documented in the physical example page. Note if you figure out you have a camera in the left eye they will probably install something in the right eye too. Clips referencing this concept are now available here, here and here and now also Doomsday Book (2012).

•Phase 2 - Permanent Metallic Taste: Some people will comment on a metallic taste in the mouth. Typically when going to sleep it becomes prevalent. In the alternative, the temporary compromising of taste buds is shown in the clip for Contracted (2013) @ 2:18. It is not a side effect of medication, that's the typical response a doctor will give you. If you are not on medication and otherwise completely healthy and all of a sudden have a permanent metallic taste in your mouth, you are being recorded (but not watched) 24/7 as per the trailer for A Scanner Darkly (2006).

•Phase 2 - Morgellons: Morgellon's can strike anyone. It's a direct problem from the nano-fibers, whether intentional or accidental. The body's immune system can't see or recognize the fibers at all. So when the body can't accept the fibers anymore it beings to push them out through the skin. But the skin is a barrier because the fibers are too large. So the skin breaks up which is why people get lesions. Note that technically everyone has morgellons (nano-fibers), the actual mogellon's symptoms are when the person's body tries to get rid of them the only way possible. Some more conclusions can be seen here and examples within media references including this.

Chemtrail nano-Fiber Examples and Evidence

Ultimately you need some proof. This is very difficult, as we all don't exactly have nano-tech labs in our basements. The only thing possible at this point in time is to put out the physical evidence that is known and back it up with media/movie supporting clips. A complete list of unbelievable things this technology can do is listed here, also make sure you see the real life body & mind control examples in Media References.

Janet bloomfield #sexist judgybitch.com

Brock Turner is a rapist but not the kind that frightens me.

A guy I train with told me a funny story about mixing martial arts with alcohol. Like me, he’s not really interested in martial arts as a sport, but more in terms of real world applicability. He’s a fighter more than an athlete. He was training with a group who felt the most likely environment in which they would encounter real violence would be a bar, and alcohol would likely be involved, so they convinced their sensei to run a simulation that involved everyone doing tequila shooters, to test their reflexes and muscle memories under the influence. Could they drink tequila and still be able to handle real world violence? They turned the lights down and the music way up, which is not that unusual for a dojo. Lots of stress drills are done in low light, noisy conditions.

And then guzzled tequila.

Everything started out fine. Everyone was jokey and boisterous and having fun with the drills and even singing along to the hokey death metal band. And then tequila 2.0 arrived. When the full effects kicked in, people started getting hurt. The fight took on a whole new dimension. Wrist locks got brutal. People didn’t notice their partners tapping out. Choke holds were a little too enthusiastic. No one waited for a secure hold before reaping. It was mayhem!

It’s funny to hear him tell the story, because from the outside it seems like a terrifying drunken brawl, and it was, but the fighters enjoyed every minute of it. It was fun. Sensei had to cut the class short because people were getting hurt. Being drunk, they didn’t really realize it, and were thoroughly enjoying themselves. The next day, people had bruises and sprains and fat lips and black eyes and swollen joints and stuff that should never happen except by pure accident when sparring. Someone even dropped a 12-6 elbow between his opponent’s shoulder blades, which is pretty much a nuclear elbow strike you don’t pull out lightly. It’s actually sort-of illegal in most martial arts, but perfectly acceptable in self-defense. The fighters agreed to never drunk spar again, although I suspect that was a very effective lesson in teaching them just how much alcohol impaired their ability to use proportional violence.

The real point is that while the sparring was happening, the fighters were having a blast. They were doing what they do: fighting. I’m sure getting out of bed the next day brought a few regrets home, but in the moment, it was fun. The whole story made me think of the Brock Turner case – the Stanford athlete convicted of sexually assaulting a drunk woman outside a fraternity.

Let’s get a few things out of the way right off the bat: do I think Brock Turner is a rapist?

Yes.

Yes, I do. Turner claims he went outside with the woman and they were making out and I believe him. They were both drunk, but she was sloppy drunk and she passed out cold. Turner dragged her behind a dumpster, removed her panties, somehow managed to get rocks and dirt in her vagina, shoved his fingers in her, left her with scrapes and bruises and only stopped assaulting her when a couple guys noticed what he was up to, and then chased Turner down when he ran. Bystanders held Turner until police arrived.

Please note that this is exact opposite of feminist rape culture, in which rape is treated like a joke and condoned by the wider society. No one (except Turner’s father) thinks Turner’s action were amusing or acceptable. The Stanford police were involved right off the bat, the woman was found and taken to hospital, charges were laid and Turner was prosecuted successfully and sentenced to jail, even though the victim can’t remember a single thing about the incident. That doesn’t sound like condoning, celebrating or accepting rape to me. Or to Ashe Schow, who has written a nice explanation of rape culture as it relates to Brock Turner.

But of course, feminists are mad. They’re always mad. They’re mad at Brock because being sentenced to life isn’t harsh enough. Yes, you read that correctly. Turner got a life sentence. No, not in jail. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail, and will likely spend 3 months there, but he will spend the rest of his life on the Sex Offender Registry. That is punishment untempered by mercy, yet not punishment enough to satisfy feminists, ecstatic that they finally found an actual rape victim to get behind.

According to Emily Horowitz, who wrote [i]Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us[/i], sex offender registries don’t keep anyone safer. Speaking to Slate’s Christina Cauterucchi, Horowitz says. ‘Are sex offenders destined to reoffend? Not according to any research—sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than almost any other type of offender. Punishing [Turner] forever and destroying his life doesn’t make anyone safer.’

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know that feminists don’t care. Read the comments. They want Turner to suffer for the rest of his life. They want him to pay for his idiocy for the rest of his life. They want revenge, not justice. It’s so rare for an actual, unambiguous rape victim to emerge, feminists are practically in shock. Whipping women up in frenzied fear, feminists have convinced almost 100K people to sign a petition to remove the judge who decided to temper Turner’s life sentence with reduced jail time. Justice must not have mercy? I’d be really careful with that demand, feminists. It could bite you in the ass, pretty easily.

The reality here is that Brock Turner is like the fighters who beat the shit out of each other while loaded. Turner has no reputation for being criminally sexually aggressive, but he is a predator. Like all athletes, he channels his natural desire to compete and triumph into a sport, and he was very good at winning. Competitors and predators come down to the same thing. No one wants to tie. It’s a zero sum game. I win. You lose. Civilization is the story of channeling this aspect of human nature into creation, rather than destruction. Brock Turner got drunk and behaved in a criminally foolish manner. An equivalent would be a drunk sparring partner who knocked his partner out and then kept hitting him. It crosses every line and deserves sanction and punishment.

Rapists like Turner don’t frighten me. Avoiding him is as simple as not getting black out drunk and refusing to go make out with him outside, in the dark. The trouble with feminist definitions of rape is that they confuse drunk couples who go outside and have mutually consensual sex, having fun in the moment, with actual rape. That is exactly what happened at Occidental College. Both individuals were drunk, both agreed to have sex, but she regretted it the next morning. If they had both been drunk, and agreed to spar, could she charge him with assault and battery the next day? Occidental says yes.

I say no.

People do stupid shit when they’re drunk. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is a key reason people like to drink it. But it doesn’t fundamentally change who you are as a person. The fighters my friend and I talked about did stupid stuff when fighting drunk they would never do sober, but none of them crossed the line into brutally beating an unconscious partner. It was just a kind of crazy, wild playfight that left a few people bruised and bleeding, but no criminal lines were crossed.

Most drunk sex, no matter how much one party or the other might regret it in the morning, is not rape.

What Turner did is rape.

Feminist definitions of regret=rape are now starting to trap women, too. When Rose grabbed herself a drunk guy and fucked him, she thought it was just a good time, had by all. And it was. In the moment. But when morning came and the guy saw he had just boned a fat chick, he turned campus rape laws on her and had Rose expelled.

This is nuts.

And awesome, at the same time. Turnabout is fair play, ladies. If you are going to expand the definition of rape to include sex one person regrets, you’re going to have to accept the uncomfortable truth that men make poor decisions when plastered, too, and stick their dicks in women they wouldn’t glance at twice when sober. If we’re going to call drunk sparring ‘assault’ and criminally prosecute it, any woman who downs a shooter and steps in the ring can be charged.

Is this really the world we want? Young men and women expelled from college, their futures blighted, because they got drunk and did something dumb? No one should be expelled from college for hooking up while drunk. Drunk sex is not rape. Rape is rape. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. Turner is a case study in campus rape. And even he doesn’t deserve a life sentence. He is extremely unlikely to reoffend.

Justice without mercy is cruelty. Is anyone surprised feminists are howling for exactly that when it comes to Turner, and by extension, all men accused of rape? The real danger here is that cruelty can be contagious. I sincerely hope the courts do not bow to the pressure of feminists and remove this judge. That will spread the contagion of feminism and we are already at critical mass.

Never forget that feminism is cancer.

What we really need are a few more fat bitches to get charged with rape. A few brave men are needed, to take one for the team. We need to show everyone the insanity of feminist ideals of ‘justice’.

Any volunteers?

Lots of love,

JB

double o negro #racist niggermania.net

I lived in a high rise apartment for seven plus years in Denver with all Latinos. Every once in a while i had to pound on a door at 3 a.m. and scare some dumb ass kids into turning down the tunes and usually drink a shot with them so we didn't hate each other later. I lived in a rooming house in downtown Madison, Wisconsin for seven years or so and it was o.k. except when they'd bring in a random nigger or coal-burner who brought in niggers. I even had a wannabe pimp living across the hallway from me until i took care of that problem by putting signs all over the neighborhood advertising his business and he was evicted. I had to get rid of some drug dealers too by scaring them (can't talk about that) and doing stuff to their property with paint off a balcony. I even opened the front door once and dumped a garbage can full of water onto two niggers sitting on the steps who were bugging college girls walking by.

The worst part i think about living with niggers was watching the white people who basically became niggers too by associating with them, doing drugs they bought from them or traded sex for their addiction problems. One of my biggest pet peeves is listening to a cute white girl talking ghetto because they live around niggers and try to act like them. You know its going to end bad for them and they'll end up at the womens shelter down the block pushing a stroller around with a little halfroid whose life sucks from th3 beginning. This was a house that took in people on SSI but not old people, just shitheads and shitskins. I worked the nightshift so i missed out on all the nights activities. I was able to work three saturdays overtime each month to pay the rent and the rest went in the bank.

This whole thing ended when two different people brought in stuff off the street with bugs in them and i had to throw away stuff and move. I'm in a secure building with many requirements to get in and the few niggers in the building are lesbians and one old couple and he works nights so it's just magic niggers that don't want to live with niggers. I will work two jobs again or be homeless again just to avoid living with niggers. I have a friend who worked in the Chicago projects for years as a maintenance man and he has nothing but horror stories. Sorry about the random order of the paragraphs i was adding stuff in with my phone as i was writing this. Time for a nap and then some nigger-free night musky fishing.

Tina Toon and Ben Garrison #racist grrrgraphics.com

image
The third world invasion of the West is relentless.

In Europe, the globalists want Islam as the one-world religion and so they continue to allow ‘migrants’ to pour in and change cultures. In America, we are told we are immoral for not letting children of lawbreakers reunite with their parents and come in without consequence. In effect, globalist politicians such as Pelosi are demanding open borders. They know open borders will allow more and more ‘refugees’ will pour in and demand free stuff.

No need for them to respect our country’s Constitution, laws or culture. No need for them to learn English and try to blend in and succeed when we’re giving them free stuff and services. They will vote for Democrats, and globalist socialism. They will vote to take away our guns. That’s all that matters to Pelosi’s ilk.

Fight the unhinged Left and MSM with Cartoons that bite! Support us

World populations continue to grow. Africa is expected to reach 2.6 billion people by 2050. That will no doubt mean a lot more human suffering. Is it the west’s duty to take them all in? It all boils down to egalitarianism. The left consider themselves morally superior to conservatives. That is, they want to ‘help’ people. They are good because they want to help everyone all over the world. They want globalism first. They tell us we are bad (“Nazis!”) because we want America first.

The collectivist left are very good at virtue signaling. Right now they’re aiming their self-righteous outrage toward President Trump for ‘hurting immigrant children.’ Never mind the fact that Obama had the same policy.

Since a child’s suffering is the most unbearable, we must let in all children from anywhere in the world—along with their parents. We must have open borders because someone somewhere is in need. That’s the left’s attitude.

It must give them a God-like sense of power that they’re able to help so many people. Only they don’t do it directly. They always enlist big government force to extract money from taxpayers to make that endless stream of have nots ‘equal’ to the haves. In the end, such socialism makes everyone becomes equal by making everyone poor.
image
image
It’s time to build that wall!

Signed Lock Them Up! Order Now

Post by Ben- Cartoon by Tina

Share a “coffee” (small pay pal donation) with Ben AND Tina

Sunshine #fundie rr-bb.com

Run, Do Not Walk, Just GO!!!
June 25th, 2018, 05:40 PM
https://creationmuseum.org/
https://arkencounter.com/

Went to wedding in Ohio. We stayed in a La Quinta outside of Cincinnati and drove over the border into Kentucky 2 days in a row. First day we went to The Ark. Second day to the Creation Museum. I was so shocked. I had really not heard anything about these 2 places. They were AWESOME. At Creation Museum attended a 1 hour talk by Ken Ham entitled "How to take the Gospel to our Secularized Culture" and then was in the audience for the 1/2 hour programme of "Answers News". These 2 events are included in the price of admission. I was so shocked because my husband works at a large church and we have never heard about these places. I have tried for years to get my husband to pay attention to the awful teaching/preaching of very popular pastors/teachers and he has refused to listen. Oh, my goodness. Ken Ham in the 1 hour talk showed 5 videos of Andy Stanley saying just really unbiblical stuff. Kevin was really shocked. I said to him afterwards "Do you see why I try to show you all this stuff?" and he said yes. He asked me to find these video clips on Andy Stanley and I did on Ken Ham's website and sent them to him. He is going to review these with 2 pastors at our church. I finally feel like I have had a breakthrough getting my husband to understand what is going on.

Of note at the Creation museum....they have an exhibit on what happened at Mt. St. Helen's. Eleven years after it blew they did Potassium Argon dating of the lava spills and the results said that the event happened about 250,000 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the 11 years actual interval.

The Ark answered so many questions and shows that what Genesis describes can actually be built. So, much for children and young adults to learn. Ken Ham said that the day we were at the Ark a boy was saved after watching one of the two movies they have.

I wish I could drag my whole extended family there. Go there everyone and take as many family members as you can!!!!

Oh, and the reason I say "Run" is that Ken Ham says the LGBT etc. faction is trying to shut down both sites. So there is no guarantee that they will be there say in 3 years.

FIGU/Billy Meier #ufo #crackpot creationaltruth.org

There is indeed on Erra, on the central planets of Pleiadians/Plejaren, also some larger cities with multi-story houses, however no apartment blocks are to be found in the form of multistoried buildings or skyscrapers or the like, where the human beings must live packed together. Between the individual residential buildings oneself finds expanded park- and garden-plants, which with clean attached footpaths are looked after. Also is to be found well-regulated on central point landing points for personal- and special-flight-bodies, the entire overall ownership corresponds and can be used by everyone according to demand. Roads of any kind are completely unknown, because Pleiadians/Plejaren use absolutely no land-vehicles. Thus all populated areas are purely pedestrian zones, where no noise, no traffic chaos and no environmental pollution through exhaust gases etc. are given. The majority of the Pleiadians/Plejaren prefer, to live not in cities but rather apart from these in the green, i.e. in the country, and indeed in single family houses, which exhibit a hemispherical or spherical form and a minimum diameter of 21 meters.

For the main thing the building material consists of very resistant metal alloys or of plastic, which are gained from the soil, mainly from sand. This plastic is similar to our silicone. Each single family house stands by itself however on a fruitful property, that as a rule is a hectare (10000 square meters [2.471 acres = 1076.391 sq ft] = 100 x of 100 meters [328 ft. x 328 ft.]) in size. The group houses, i.e. families on these properties themselves strive, to be as self-sufficient as possible, accordingly each dwelling e.g. possesses its own water and power supply, which are dependent on no public system. For the domestic requirements each family or other housing unit on these properties plant their own gardens of fruit, vegetables, herbs and flowers, which in each case is with great joy worked on, nurtured and cultivated. Entirely completely every fertile area of land is used for natural food cultivation and therefore made arable and cultivated.

A homestead is to such an extent built and sized, that it provides a place for a family of five and no more, because the guidance issued maximum number of descendants amounts to no more than three children per wife. A guidance of the 'High Council', that, like all other guidance, is followed. For peace preservation reasons etc. parents-in-law should not live together with their standing-in-partnership, i.e. marriage-bonded children in the same household; a rule, which is consistently uniformly kept. Parents-in-law can however live on an adjacent property in their own single family house, themselves should however in no wise interfere in the concerns of their children, when these are married or grow out of the education age. Also this is a rule, like many others also, that is completely kept. At the age of 14 to 16 years the children leave the parents' house, in order to be educated in small groups and in the community of the same age ones.

Since the man is polygamous in the contrary to the predisposed monogamous woman, this is taken into consideration by Pleiadians/Plejaren in the form, that one man can marry up to four wives, which also prevents the prostitution, which among these extraterrestrials already from time immemorial is no longer given. When in accordance with this rule one man therefore has two, three or four wives, then they are often resident in a so-called quad, which consists of one correspondingly great property and of two, three or four single family houses, therefore each wife has her own refuge and consequently her own habitation and her own household.

Regarding the buildings is to still be mentioned, that these are created absolutely earthquake-proof against the most severe vibrations. Also they are absolutely protected against lightning bolt and elementary storms etc. All buildings, also when they are still thus large, are seamlessly manufactured from one piece, have as a rule only a few stories and possess a spring system, a type of floatation chamber.

Belva Post #fundie facebook.com

Oh my goodness, if you continue to try and pull that Pledge of Allegiance baloney, I am going to get angry. Don't you DARE try and make this a patriotism issue. YOU are demanding EXTRA SPECIAL rights and telling me I am not being AMERICAN???? REALLY? I am not telling you any reason why you should marry someone that you don't love. Don't get married if you don't like guys. But Don't tell me that I HAVE to support homosexuals DEMANDING extra and special rights just because they do not like the legal definition of marriage. HOnestly, give me a break.

You CHOOSE who you want to have sex with. If it isn't about sex, then live with your roommate and stop trying to make this a sexual issue. I don't want to know who you have sex with or what you CHOOSE to do in the privacy of your own home, but stop DRAGGING your immoral choices into the public eye and DEMANDING extra rights.

XenonII #fundie perspectives.com

[He's known on the board for being an asshole and a bible thumper, and we usually mock him willingly. But you do NOT mock Martin Luther King Jr!]


"Martin Luther King was a liar, a cheat and a filthy commie. He is not the sort of person that America should be paying respect to or honoring by dedication of a national holiday. Quite the contrary in fact. REPEAL THE HOLIDAY FOR AN EVIL COMMUNIST ADULTURER NOW! Stop glorifying a depraved person who lived a satanic lifestyle!"

Hunter Wallace #fundie occidentaldissent.com

[From "CofCC: Under the Microscope"]

OD now reaches around 30,000 unique visitors a month. Last month, Occidental Observer had 90,000 unique visitors and TOQ Online reached 18,000. At a minimum, Stormfront, Amren, and VDARE combined must be reaching over hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month. The other pro-White sites in America reach tens of thousands of more unique visitors and cater to any number of diverse sub-cultures within the movement.

Here’s the rub: with such a huge online media presence, why are so few people involved in pro-White organizations? I’ve lost count of the number of people over the years who claim they want to do something. Most take a look at the existing organizations and find some objection that deters them from joining. The ubiquitous splinter groups in the White Nationalist movement and the social penalties that follow from membership aren’t exactly inspiring.

This troubling fact raises important questions. The long term plan here at OD has always been to spend a few years building up a huge online media presence and then create an activist wing down the road. With pro-White sites already reaching so many people, why aren’t more Americans coming out from behind their computer screens? What is the point of reaching more people with more media if the extent of their involvement is limited fighting with each other on internet blogs and forums?

CofCC

In this post, I want to take a hard look at the Council of Conservative Citizens. I’ve known of the CofCC for seven or eight years now, but until recently I haven’t paid much attention to them. What are the strengths of this organization? What are the weaknesses? Where is the CofCC headed in the future? What are the objections to joining? What are the counterarguments?

This is a whole can of worms that hasn’t been explored here. I believe this is the first post in OD history (correct me if I am wrong) about the merits of a pro-White organization. It is a small mystery in itself why we have talked about Red Jeffrey and Guy White over a dozen times, but until now haven’t discussed the ways in which we can get involved in the real world to bring White Nationalism out of the fantasy realm and into reality.

Pros and Cons

1.) I would rather start my own organization.

One of the most demoralizing aspects of White Nationalism are the thousands of splinter groups that have one or two members, do absolutely nothing, and wither and die within a year. It gives new recruits the impression that the movement is hopelessly disorganized and will never get its act together.

[...]

This is probably the greatest strength of the CofCC. They have been around for twenty years now under that name. Their roots can be traced to the Citizens’ Councils of America which fought integration in the 1950s and 1960s. CofCC has a fifty year legacy of resistance to integration and multiculturalism.

In a manner of speaking, CofCC is the oldest bank in town. It is a safer place to invest your time and resources. Of the existing pro-White organizations, it is the largest and most stable.

2.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because they are full of cranks, kooks, losers, or sub-cultures that I would rather not associate with.

I’ve been involved in pro-White discussion groups for almost ten years now. This is the major reason why I stayed on the sidelines for so long. My impression of the movement was that it was full of individualists who cared more about parading around in white sheets or flaunting their swastikas than making a serious effort to preserve our racial and cultural heritage.

[...]

CofCC has managed to ward off most of these types. They have done a better job of this than any other comparable pro-White organization. If you want to be around sane, normal, ordinary Americans who are concerned about their racial future, I can’t think of a better established organization.

3.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because I can’t afford the membership dues.

The cost of joining the CofCC is $25 a year. That is trivial. Anyone can afford that. It is equivalent of two cases of Bud Light or eating a steak dinner at a chain restaurant.

4.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because I want to protect my identity.

Use a pseudonym. If you join under your real name, the information is confidential and your privacy will be protected.

5.) I’m still not ready to join an organization.

Every White Nationalist should determine his or her own level of involvement. If you aren’t ready to join an organization like CofCC, there are still things you can do.

You can show up at events. You can donate. You can write articles for the newspaper or blog under a pseudonym. You can buy things like books and t-shirts. You can participate in online blogs and discussion forums. You can advertise and recommend pro-White organizations. You can invite people to the relevant Facebook groups.

6.) I’m a White Nationalist, not a faileoconservative. Why should I join the CofCC?

I’ve had this debate several times with Matt Parrott. I consider myself a White Nationalist. He calls himself a “conservative” and “White Advocate.” When you get beyond these labels, there isn’t much difference between our respective views. This is mostly an argument over semantics.

There are lots of White Nationalists involved with CofCC. At the 2010 CofCC Conference, Sam Dickson bluntly described himself as a racial nationalist in his speech. Everyone involved in CofCC is pro-White and anathema to mainstream conservative circles.

Personally, I want to create a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America. That’s why I call myself a White Nationalist. Moving beyond that minimum, I flesh out the details:

– I want to see a White ethnostate created in the American South.

– I want Anglo-Celtic Southerners to be the ethnic core of the White ethnostate. In other words, I want the White ethnostate to be a Southern homeland.

– I want to restore the Confederate States of America as an independent nation.

– I want the South to be South again. I want to return to traditional, authentic Southern culture. This means doing away with the garbage that is pumped in here through print, radio, and television.

– I want a healthy Protestant Christianity to be the predominant religion of the South: old school, middle class, sensible and sturdy Christianity, not the Evangelical nuttiness that spread like kudzu here in the twentieth century.

– I want a federal national government and a constitutional republic. The states should have more of a say in their own affairs than they do now.

– I love Confederate monuments. I was raised to believe that Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis were heroes. There is no conflict between White Nationalism and wanting to conserve the history, heritage, and tradition that made the South great.

The moral of this story is that there are plenty of things about the South that I wish to conserve, namely, our race and culture. I’m simply of the belief that revolutionary action – a dissolution of the United States – is the indispensable prerequisite to any Southern racial and cultural revival.

7.) The CofCC isn’t strongly enough opposed to the Jews.

There is no shortage of Jew-awareness in the CofCC. Everyone involved knows about the problem and understands its significance. Get involved and you will see for yourself.

The Jews played a prominent role in destroying the Jim Crow South which the CCA fought so hard to preserve. That fact has hardly gone unnoticed. At the same time, most people in the CofCC are intelligent enough to recognize that they are all sorts of factors pushing American decline. The Jewish Question is only one aspect of a larger problem.

8.) The CofCC is hostile to Westerners and Northerners.

This is not the case. The CofCC has chapters in New York, Indiana, and California. They are based in the South, but are eager to expand into a national organization.

It would be great to take back the whole country. I’m all for it. If I had to choose between a Southern or American ethnostate, I would choose the latter. I don’t think it is practical or possible to take back all of America, but we should certainly try, and Northerners and Westerners should be actively building chapters in their own states.

9.) The CofCC is Christian. I am not a Christian. We should be attacking Christianity which is a Jewish religion.

There is no religious litmus test for membership. I think attacking Christianity – the religion of 85% of White Americans – is a complete non-starter. Instead of attacking Christianity, we should encourage Christians to return to their roots.

For 300 years, American Christians didn’t have a problem with “racism.” If Christians examined their own religion, they would find that mainstream churches didn’t embrace anti-racism until the twentieth century, and then on dubious theological grounds. The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t embrace anti-racism until the 1990s.

10.) CofCC is a bunch of old fogies. We need a brand new organization that caters to White Nationalist youth.

I’ve already explained why a new organization is a bad idea. In the podcast, I explained why the age ratio within CofCC favors younger members: simply put, there are plenty of opportunities to advance. Within twenty years, younger CofCC members will be leading the organization.

CofCC has evolved in the past. In 1988, it changed its name to Council of Conservative Citizens from the Citizens’ Councils of America. What could Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers with the CofCC? That day will inevitably come.

11.) I want to get involved in mainstream politics.

CofCC is the largest pro-White organization and the only established organization that has any influence in state politics. If you live in the South, CofCC is the logical organization to join.

Conclusion: It is better to join an established organization and make your mark than to launch a risky new start up with zero name recognition. Of the established organizations, CofCC is the largest, oldest, the most normal, the most tolerant and flexible, and offers the most opportunities for young people (in particular, Southerners) to advance. They already have connections to the political mainstream. See the image and caption.

OD reaches thousands of racialists in Virginia, Texas, and Florida. We have a lot of people in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and North Carolina as well. Shouldn’t we join existing chapters or start new ones where they don’t exist? What is the purpose of pro-White media aside from promoting pro-White activism?

matthewr1 #fundie christianpost.com

[On the alleged evils of church promotions involving gas buydowns, free gas cards, etc.]

"He called the gas promotions in general 'a clever tool.' 'There are a lot of worse things that people can be doing in life than getting people to come to church'"

I agree, such as offering 'free prescription medication', now that's just enticing people to come. Oh the desperation of a crossless church without Christ. A church where biblical standards have been, all but by name, been thrown out. A church who's rule of measure is Heathendom!

Oh the sore tides of judgement are rolling in! Any church who's built their foundations on the sands of Heathendom will be washed away in the sea of the kingdom of Antichrist. Repent, therefore or perish!

Linda #fundie topix.com

It's time to vote for 2010!

We were promised to have more new jobs, now we have ZERO Jobs available for all americans except the chosen gays who own all the money, wealth, live in mansions, drive luxurious cars while we americans are suffering to pay our rents!

They have years of free time to take us to court, sue us for anything, rape our little kids in our public school systems while we americans struggle to pay our rent, pay for gas, help our kids to go to summer camps, and pay for christmas gifts!

Now, all I see is gays protesting, breaking windows, shouting they wnat special righs to rape others and force their chosen life-style upon our INNOCENT kids!

This is not civil rights but evil-rights!

I am tired of the -00000.1% of the population of america who have chosen to be gay demanding more special privileges for their hyper-active chosen gay rich life-style!

This is absurd to force us americans to give your special rights because of the way you perform your personal sexual acts on your private time!

Those 18,000 who got married will not be "valid" in the new election 2010 for the new congress that will be all voted in!

Sylvia C #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[How will gay marriage ruin society?]

it will bring God's judgments on the nations, how are children suppose to obey the commandment "honour thy father and mother, so that thy days maybe long in the land the lord your God giveth you?" when they adopt children. So are they hoping that mothers will give up their child so that they can foster it? that is like waiting for someone to have the pain of giving up a child It ruined marriage between a husband and wife, as they make a mockery of it, Also it ruined for two women who arent lesbians to walk down the street together as friends. or for two women to share an apt. People now look askance at those situations. where at one time, no one thought anything of it.

Ben Garrison #conspiracy grrrgraphics.wordpress.com

image

Here is a cartoon inspired by statist thinking:
Tea Party Caveman Cartoon


It shows a stinky caveman with a club telling the viewer that he is self-sufficient. ” ‘Zog’ not need government, taxes, healthcare, socialized services, public schools, police and libraries. Zog hunt, gather and barter. Zog not need civilization!”

The cartoon is titled “Tea Party in Historical Context.’ I guess we are to have contempt for the ignorant cave man representing those who want freedom from big government. Apparently ‘Zog’ lacks the proper egalitarian instincts and love for his community the cartoonist thinks he should have. Without government, how would Zog evolve and pay his taxes, which go for important stuff we all need–such as the things he lists. This is why we especially need the income tax. But wait a minute–a lot of that income tax money goes toward paying interest on our un-payable $14 trillion debt. That means the income tax they extort from us by threat of a gun and imprisonment (how civilized!) goes directly into the pockets of elite bankers who are able to remain discreetly private. It is taxation without civilization. Oh, but they get away with it because they print and control the money. They own the money. Congress can stop them, but they own Congress. They own us.

Schools, libraries and police funding comes from property taxes. Roads come from gas taxes. Sales taxes, fees and fines pay for state and city projects. The military (they can’t account for trillions of dollars that goes missing nearly every year) gets paid by corporate and income taxes. Health care currently comes from overpriced insurance premiums or bankrupt Medicaid. Social services? All that money we send in and they get only 30 percent.

The cartoonist implies we can’t do away with the Federal Reserve. Without our masters we’d have to barter! That’d be scary–almost like anarchy! (Anarchy is what statists call it. I call it ‘freedom). Statists think we can’t go back to gold and silver that held its value over long periods of time. A return to dark, archaic ‘olden’ times with less government is abhorrent to them. Come to think of it, barter would be preferable to the Federal Reserve slave system and their thug IRS agents. They hold a much bigger club than Mr. Caveman. Don’t pay your taxes and they take your stuff. If you resist, deadly force can be used.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers for their own profit and their system of money has robbed us and robbed our children’s future. Do we enjoy paying taxes that help kill innocent people in foreign countries in order to maintain the banker-rupt empire? That hardly seems ‘civilized.’

But my point is this: His cartoon suggests that ‘government’ IS ‘civilization.’ In which case, Pol Pot’s society was very civilized. So was Hitler’s…etc.

Following this logic, apparently in order to get more civilized we need bigger and more government. The bigger the better. Maybe even WORLD government which will make sure the entire Earth becomes uber-civilized. Unfortunately that’s what we are getting, but somehow getting zapped or groped at an airport isn’t making people feel more civilized. What’s actually happening is we’re becoming more domesticated. We are owned and they’re conditioning us to that fact. Our elite owners are now telling us how to live, what to think, what light bulbs we can use, how much heat we can have, what to eat, what we can say and what health care we need. And when we’re old, death panels will tell us we have outlived our usefulness and will tell us when we must die. Big government will be there at the cradle…assigning them up to the grid. Big government will decide what shall be taught. Big government will decide what jobs we shall have. Big government will watch, record and monitor us to make sure we’re not speaking out against their system. That would make us terrorists! And most of all, big government will keep its property–its people/cattle– ‘safe.’ We The tax cattle People will pay for our own enslavement, of course.

Toward the end, when we’re all so poor we can barely exist…then perhaps we’ll look like our ancient ancestor in the cartoon. But at the very least we’ll all be extremely ‘civilized’ thanks to big government.

With all this in mind, I decided to draw this cartoon as a retort. I was also inspired by an episode of Star Trek, in which naive, simple people depended on a scary tiki-like god named ‘VOL’ to solve all their problems and keep them safe. “VOL makes the grass grow…he put fruit on the trees!” And so on. The controller god in my cartoon is called “GUV.”

A final reason I drew this was due to a recent conversation I had with a friend who thought that not to support the government was somehow ‘unpatriotic.’ Wrong! True patriots believe in the Constitution and condemn the government when it abuses the people. It’s our duty to do so. People have become afraid to question the government as it tries to condition citizens into believing that less government leads to ‘anarchy.’ I guess anarchy is another word for ‘freedom.’

Cody #fundie baptist1611.com

If you are a feminist, God will punish you. If you disobey your husband, then you are a feminist. If you are a Christian couple and you drag your husband through a heathen court system, then you have done great evil against your man. God will punish you in eternity. Communism wants to destroy your marriage and your family; but it cannot unless you play their game. They may steal your kids, and there's literally nothing you can do except hire an expensive lawyers (and you'll pay tens-of-thousands of dollars). But the only way they can ruin your marriage is if you let Satan do so. The worst thing you can do is involve other people in your marriage, because nearly every time they will advice divorce. People are like rats. Church people are no better. In fact, they're more dangerous because you tend to let down your guard around them. The divorce rate is just as high amongst so-called Christians as it is amongst the wicked unsaved heathen world. You can make all the excuses you want in your evil little heart (Jeremiah 17:9), but it won't make any difference in eternity, where you will be judged by God's unchanging Law.

High Priest Hooded Cobra 666 #fundie josministries.prophpbb.com

What's a more fitting word than this to begin this?

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them."- Satan, Al Jilwah.

Now I know many people invent all sorts of fancy reasons and problems to 'isolate' themselves. Partly because of one reason or another...However this is the enemy that implies that this should be used as a false reason to completely isolate someone entirely.

This is obviously the enemy, as they basically want to corner people all the time. They will not like the fact you are a threat to them...So they try to minimize this threat by isolating Satanists. Satan, the Gods, or even you, will have no voice, no say, and no power, if his people are scattered and living in their own fantasy land alone. This is the recipe of damnation for the self and the whole accordingly.

There is a rule in nature, the rule of unity. We can see this with the enemy and their Islam and everything else. They are a cancer, eating the planet alive. Wrongly, unjustly, they don't even have common sense, logic, or any serious plan, or anything. They are a literal CANCER that lives and breathes...

But they are doing it TOGETHER and therefore, they are strong. Isolation is the most certain to drain someone down the swamp.

The human soul has 7 chakras. The "Ego" is only in the 3rd, Solar Chakra. There are other things in life. The highest forces and mightiest powers lie in unity, not in strict isolation. These people can at best, only benefit themselves. Greatest powers do not come strictly from the 'self', but from higher aspects of one's existence that deal with higher and united forces.

To do anything functional in reality, one has to band up and work by other people, and all these together, we express the power of Satan. Greatness of any 'ego' and advancement of such, is fundamentally linked to working with other beings.

One man is in the jungle, alone. They don't know crap. How 'great' are they? Maybe they have a skill for breaking coconuts, or eating bananas. What's there to glorify anyway here?

Satan shares knowledge and blessings in the group, and people who don't even bother, will not receive. This is rejection in more than one ways.

One question all people know the answer to. Just how many times one asks from help the Gods, and they guide them to a specific post, or a specific thing within the groups? This makes it easier for them to help all of you out. Otherwise, this can take a lot of time and effort for the Demons to reach someone in an environment with zero 'leads' to answer them. This is only one example...

Being around here does not imply or consist of doing things that make one uncomfortable, doesn't force association with people one doesn't want, or anything uncomfortable like this. However, it implies that one knows when the wolves are to flock and fight so to say. You do not have to like people you don't like, get along with anyone, or whatever else of that nature that may cause discomfort.

Unity does not imply taking others as your 'gods', and those idiots who try to only for their own 'self', some particular failed cases, abuse other Satanists and try to uselessly make them their 'groupies' or whatever else.

Here we understand that unity is halfway, individuality is halfway. One cannot exist without the other. We are not a mass of sheep, as sheep are dumb and useless, but wolves are also worthless if they are not working in unity, for example.

I had many people who only care about themselves, complain over why they are not receiving any help. When you make your choice to only work for YOU, and include nothing and nobody in your existence (except of course to be their parasite for personal gain, how jewish of you) from just WHO do you expect "HELP"? Aren't you working on your "own", anyway?

Those who think of this only halfway, are in for a very rude and damaging awakening. Many have taken this false route down before, and this never ends good.

Why? Because Satan's focus is to enlighten, protect, and empower his followers. This can happen only by unity on a mass level. Otherwise, say goodbye to Spiritual Satanism, and allow everything to go extinct, to name one example.

We are Satanists and it's important we are united and we stand as one. There may be some disagreements, and sometimes, incompatibilities even. This is natural, and we understand this, same as Satan understands this.

There are however some fools who refuse to work with others, because they consider themselves an isolated 'god' or something. What these people don't understand is that the "God" power can be accessesed on the mass level. Our unity here and who we are, in other words, affirms the power of Satan better than anything, let alone solitary individuals.

This does not imply friendship with mismatching or damaging individuals, or parasitic relations (as many people have serious deprogramming to do), let alone for VIPs and more advanced people to associate with people who are in the beginning stages. What it means however is co-operation, working for empowering purposes for everyone involved, and showing our power and participation, long story short.

It affirms something simple. What Satan's Will is, for his followers to be UNITED and be in the same war and in one army. This way, we are invincible, and we can never be taken down.

Lastly, for the brainless idiots (jews excluded for this is in their racial nature and they cannot help it) who call themselves "Satanists" of any "sect", but attack the biggest and most powerful bastion of Satanism, the only one that fights for Satan as a real and recognizable being, that reflects Satan Will in the most total way...

You can seriously just consider leaving behind this madness. The 'rabbinism' and all the jewish gimmick behind and finally follow Satan without jewish observation glasses. This is not Satanism. This does not advance the individual, and this does nothing but generate either atheism, or Rabbinical Judaism under a new name. Both are equally damning, and unreasonable, and will not really help a Gentile who seeks spiritual understanding and anything further than 'atheistic beliefs'.

This is not only demeaning to Satan, but this is also damning for Gentiles who go into this rut.

The jews do this purposefully to destroy people who want to follow Satan and the Pagan Gods. Let's not mention all sorts of other dangers, many of which involve destruction of the individual by stupidity espoused by these so called ((("Satanic Groups"))).

Remember, Satanism is not about 'serving' or anything like that. But Satanism is a religion of intelligence, civilized nature, and highest advancement. This cannot happen only by 'solitary' advancement, there has to be massive advancement and expressed power through focused lenses, because we have enemies to conquer if we are to exist peacefully one day.

Those "Satanists" who know nothing to do than disunite, and do anything else to Satan. Are basically following the advice of Jesus.

Matthew 12:26

25. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
26. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

Those who follow the path of breaking unity, and trying to parasitically damage Satanic Unity, for their own tiny 'muh feels' or anything like that, or other jewish and more sinister purposes (like jews did since time immemorial to Satan anyway), are going to invite and receive Satan's Wrath.

First of all, by isolation, these people are rendered powerless, and second off, if this phenomenon persists, the Gods decide what is to be done, which it's not in my office to conversation about. One can understand by putting one and one together.

Your individual advancement, or our advancement as a whole will never come by scattered, 'know it all' elements, and people who refuse to give back to Satan even the slightest thing he requires from his followers. Satan gives everything. The least his followers can do is actually do what he says.

Why? For our safety, empowerment, and so that we can successfully crush the enemy.

Even if you are the most selfish character of all of them, just remember, the only way to retain this 'individuality' is by banding out with others. In short, even for the most selfish pricks, it's not in their interest to play this that way. Even if your reasons are that low, still, it makes perfect sense.

Sun or lightbulb, if alone, the light can be turned out easily by parasites, enemies and black holes. It's when we come together that we are the most powerful spiritual force on the planet. Those who behave lower than animals (since all the intelligent animals in nature KNOW when it is for them to band together and fight) are on their own.

Satan, and the Gods, fight together. They are all in their level, office, and organization, and they all benefit from the mass and inconceivable power that is raised from the benefit of all. This is how real powerful individuals are born, and this is how things that nobody can ever make on their 'own' happen.

Poor are those who can't see beyond their nose, blessed and mighty those who have both a sense of self and sense of unity. This is the recipe of success.

-High Priest Hooded Cobra 666

Kevin MacDonald #racist caesartort.blogspot.com

[Chechar quotes white nationalist author Kevin MacDonald on Jews]

TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[...]

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

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

Mack Major #fundie facebook.com

Dear Christian: What happened to your power???

One of the reasons why Christianity harps more on 'love' than they do on 'power' these days is because love is a very nebulous concept. Anyone can define love in any way they choose to. It's difficult to quantify.

So the modern Christian, lacking true spiritual power and without any idea on how to obtain any, uses clever reasoning and persuasive arguments to preach the concepts of love and grace as a substitute for the real gospel message.

But when we study the Bible, it wasn't Jesus' love that won folks over to the Kingdom of God. It was His message of POWER! He didn't walk up to Peter or Andrew, Thaddeus or Bartholomew and say:

"Hey you gruff fishermen - do you know how loved you are? Put down those fishing nets; come from underneath that fig tree, and learn about My great love for you!"

Somehow I'm not convinced that's how the story went. Those men forsook all to follow Jesus because Jesus taught and preached with POWER - the likes of which neither had ever witnessed before.

"When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing?" Mark 6:2

Even the disciples of Jesus who followed after Him operated in this power:

"Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, performed amazing miracles and signs among the people." Acts 6:8

"Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ to them. The crowds gave their undivided attention to Philip’s message and the signs they saw him perform. With loud shrieks, unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed, and many of the paralyzed and lame were healed." Acts 8:5-7

Paul said in Romans 15:19 about his own ministry - "I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obedience by WORD AND DEED, by the POWER of signs and wonders, and by the POWER of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ."

How did Paul fully proclaim the gospel? Was it in word alone, like we often do today? No - it was in word AND power! Again he said:

"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

Paul was about that life! This is the thing that today's Christian must understand: no matter how persuasive your speech or arguments are, they can never take the place of the supernatural raw power of God!

It's the POWER of God that convinces the non-believer that you hold the truth - not your attempts at convincing them how loved they are.

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of POWER." 1Cor 4:20

Until they have a living encounter with the power of God, people can never understand the depths of His love. Many of you have been following a fraudulent Christianity; because it lacks any real teeth or power. It looks official on the surface - but it lacks one thing that makes it 100: POWER.

This fake Christianity we've been living can't even stop us from living a lifestyle of sin! So if I'm a sinner observing your life, why should I give up my fun enjoyable sins just to still end up as powerless as the Christians I see around me?

Christians can barely even keep their marriages together these days! So how can we preach against adultery, gay marriage and divorce when we're one of the biggest offenders ourselves?

At least the gays are willing to fight to get married! Christian folk won't even fight to stay together to save their own marriages.

And the main reason for this is because we've been relying on worldly power, clever reasoning, college degrees and general psychology - instead of putting our faith in the Living God. It's time to turn back to real authentic Christianity - the kind that comes with tremendous POWER.

Folks need to live a clean life and start seeking for the power of the Holy Ghost once again. Because if it doesn't have any power, it's not genuine Christianity.

Stop following that counterfeit Christianity and listening to that Gummy-bear gospel. That stuff is spiritually neutering you. The true gospel message releases power into the lives of the believer that causes transformation and change.

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek." Romans 1:16

If you're sick and tired of that gummy bear gospel and that weak powerless Christianity, refuse to settle any more! You have a right to God's power; you have a right to see the miraculous; you have a right to experience the book of Acts right now in your life today.

All that's needed is the determination to have the real thing. God bless.

The Parkus Empire #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(full exchange posted here quoted is the other poster)

Marriage makes someone your family. All the griping about how gays need marriage without even knowing what is, smdh

wut?

I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important


Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

[unnamed] #fundie reason4living.com

What is submission?

There are a lot of misconceptions about submission and submissive people. Before we can intelligently consider what the Bible has to say on the subject of submissive wives we need to clear these misconceptions out of our way. Let me begin with a few simple statements about the nature of submission:

Only a strong person can be submissive.
Submissiveness is not timidity, it is not servility, it is not subservience, it is not docility, it is not degrading, it is not a sign of weakness.
Submission is a sign of strength, not of weakness and a greater degree of submission requires a greater degree of strength of personal character.

Submission is an act of the will — it is the result of a choice, a decision. The act of submission can only come from a choice that a person makes. Submission cannot be enforced upon a person. Either a person submits of their own free will or they do not submit at all. Submission is a gift that one person chooses to give to another person. By contrast oppression is the act of extracting something from a person against their will. Submission and oppression are, therefore, opposite qualities of a relationship and not even remotely similar.

The submission of a good wife is a glorious thing that is intended to help her and her husband to have a contented life together. Problems in life and in marriage are more or less inevitable but when a woman is submissive to her man it is much more likely that those problems can be resolved harmoniously, without unpleasant quarrelling and without bitterness and resentment. Those people who look down on submission as if it were something demeaning, degrading or humiliating are merely showing that they have no understanding of what submission is and that they are quite ignorant of its power.

If you are a Christian wife who has been feeling uncomfortable with the Biblical demand that you submit to your husband then, I hope, these statements have perked up your interest and given you a glimpse of the bright cheerfulness ahead. Being submissive to your husband does not mean, as so many ignorant detractors of submission seem to think, that you should be an empty-headed bimbo, or that you should have no opinions of your own, or that you should be like a doormat.

If you are a Christian husband I hope that you will take care to understand the nature of submission and be careful to understand your responsibilities in response to your wife's submission to you. A submissive wife is not a justification for an abusive husband. God commands men to love their wives with the same kind of love that he [God] gave to his people ... that's a pretty tough assignment to give a mortal man and it doesn't include the possibility of abuse.

Usually when I am asked to comment regarding the submission of wives, I find myself in a debate where somebody is trying to prove from scripture that women do not really have to submit to their husbands or obey them. In this article I will attempt to demonstrate the error in such thinking. The argument is not especially difficult but it does tend to focus on the negative side of life rather a lot and consequently doesn't make submission sound very desirable. So, before I get into the detailed passage-by-passage arguments I would like to try and explain why a wife who is submissive towards her husband is such a glorious and powerful component of an earthly family and of the Christian family at large. The Christian message is, after all, “good news” and hence a reason for delighted cheerfulness and joy, but in these focused theological debates it sometimes seems that the Christian life is all long faces and dour clothes and instructions towards restrictive behaviour.

A submissive wife is one whose heart is inclined towards satisfying her husband and who has made a choice to be led by her husband, to accept his authority and to be his helper in the broad biblical sense of that word. She does not seek to please her husband because she is afraid of his rebuke or rejection or punishment, but because she delights to please him and finds satisfaction in doing so.

For a man, a submissive wife is a pleasure to be around because she helps him to feel peaceful and contented, she is a reliable helper who can be depended upon. He can trust her with his deepest desires and fears because he is not afraid of her scorn or her rejection or her anger. He can relax with her because he knows that even when he makes mistakes, she will be working with him to put them right and minimize the consequences rather than using them to prove a point or as an excuse for rejecting him in some way. A man who has a submissive wife acquires a greater sense of self respect because he knows that she respects his authority in her life and she is not in any way trying to belittle him.

A submissive wife is one who makes a choice not to resist her husband's will. That is not to say that she cannot disagree with him or that she cannot express an opinion. Indeed the submissive wife is, by definition, a strong woman and will usually therefore have her own opinions and these may often be different to the opinions of her husband. Can she express them? Of course she can, and indeed it might often be wrong for her not to express them since she is, after all, supposed to be her husband's helper, not his slave or doormat. Expressing her opinions and giving advice and suggestions will often be a valuable part of the help that she gives her husband.

Let us see how this works in life by using an analogy of a road for life and junctions in the road for each of life's decision points of choices. The married man and woman set off walking along the road of life and at each junction they choose which road to take next. Sooner or later they will arrive at a junction where they each desire to take a different road and hence there is a disagreement:

In the disharmonious family there is a quarrel, there is cajoling or bullying, there is intimidation and bitter words. The quarrel might last for the rest of their lives with neither giving ground and thus they never move on or, finally, either the husband and wife continue along one road together with one of them feeling resentful and both of them feeling bruised and wary of the other, or if they could not even obtain an unpleasant agreement then the marriage might simply fall apart and they separate, each taking a different road. None of these outcomes is pleasant or desirable.

When a submissive woman finds that her wishes conflict with those of her husband she has little or nothing to fear. If her husband is respectful then they will discuss the matter together agreeable, frankly and cheerfully and through the discussion they might reach either a compromise or one of them might change their mind completely and accept the other person's wishes. If this happens then they can then continue along the road they have now agreed upon with no sense of bitterness and without having expressed any angry words. However agreement might not be reached so then what? If they cannot reach agreement then the submissive wife needs only to obey her husband and accept his wishes graciously. Having done this there are now only a few possible outcomes, all of which have positive aspects and none of which is particularly terrible. In the first possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects and, in due course they will discover that they have chosen a good route through life and both will be happy. In the second possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects but, in due course, they discover that it was not such a good choice after all. All they do is turn around, go back to the junction and take a different road; there has been no need for argument, nobody has felt disrespected or belittled and they have not bruised one another. Although the husband's choice turned out to be a bad one, they have discovered the mistake together, discovered it quickly, and swiftly got back onto a better road and, in the process, they have strengthened their bond by having been able to disagree with dignity and mutual respect. They are not stuck in a perpetual argument at the junction, they have not separated and the process of finding a mutually acceptable road has not weakened their marriage.

If the submissive woman has a husband who is not respectful and who is inclined to abuse her gift of submissive then still she has little to fear. The worst possible outcome is that they will travel a bad road together until the next junction. Although the road might be bad it is good to remember the positive aspects of the situation: They have still remained together, they have kept alive the possibility of improving their relationship as they make their way through the troubles of life, they have not wasted time and damaged one another in a bitter quarrel and they are not still standing at the junction locked in argument. They have moved on, and therefore given themselves the hope of another choice later. This, remember, is the worst possible outcome. Even with a selfish husband it is still possible that he will acknowledge that the road is bad and that they will turn back to take another route.

I have mentioned this example of a road journey to try and illustrate that submission can bring real and worthwhile benefits to a marriage. The scripture also indicates that the act of submission by a woman is able to influence a bad man to change his ways but even if he doesn't change, her choice of submission will still allow her to avoid the worst of the possible problems that a bad marriage and husband might bring.


The key text concerning the submission of wives to their husbands

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery -- but I am talking about Christ and the church.

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Taken from Paul's letter to the congregation at Ephesus, chapter 5, verses 22 to 33.


Submission in the Christian world

Submission of one person to another is described in various forms in the Christian faith. There is the submission of wives to husbands, of slaves to masters, of Christians to one another, of Christians to the ruling authorities, and Christians to God. If my own experience is anything to rely on, then it seems that we Christians do not much like the idea of submission and, if we think about it at all, then we do so on order to reduce its application to our day to day lives. In this document I hope to redress the balance slightly.


We don't really like the idea though ...

In the “Western World” of the twenty-first century, the form of submission that is perhaps most frequently contested is that of wives to husbands. It has been pointed out on several occasions and by various people that the scriptures do not say that wives are to obey their husbands — only that they are to submit to them. Now, each of the clauses in the preceding sentence is true; the problem comes with the word “only” that is used to connect the two clauses. The women (and many men) who want to limit the authority of a husband over his wife are seriously mistaken if they think that a husband can expect less compliance from a submissive wife than from an obedient one; the truth is quite the reverse. Obedience is easy. Submission is hard. Obedience demands little. Submission demands much. It is not possible for a wife to submit to her husband without also being prepared to obey him; a submissive wife is also an obedient wife.


The meanings of the words "submit" and "obey"

If I obey then I do what those who have authority over me tell me to do. There must be an explicit command given before I can obey it and consequently if no command is given then it is not possible for me to be either obedient or disobedient. Obedience does not of itself require me to be cheerful, willing, co-operative or contented. I can be surly, rude, bitter and unhelpful and still be obedient. I do not have to be willing to be merely obedient because mere obedience can be forced upon me. For these reasons, obedience is easy when compared to full submission.

In order to submit to a person who has authority over me, I do not need to wait for an explicit command but instead I can attempt to anticipate the commands and thus avoid the need for them to be given. Anticipating the commands does not mean that I can substitute my own agenda or my own will but rather that I am trying to imagine what the person in authority will want me to do next; I am trying to make my will conform to theirs. Attempting to anticipate the commands does not allow me to disobey any command that has been explicitly given — those I am still required to obey. If I am to be truly submissive I must also learn to be contented, cheerful, willing and co-operative even if I do not like doing what is required of me. Finally submission is a choice that I must continuously make. It can be seen therefore that submission is far more demanding than merely obedience and requires much more of me than does mere obedience.

It is also worth repeating that submission is NEVER enforced upon a person. Submission is the opposite of oppression. In fact submission is a gift that one person gives to another. In a marriage, submission is the wife's gift to her husband. If the husband is wise he will treasure that gift and handle it very carefully because his own happiness depends on it. Submission is a gift that must be renewed each day or even each moment.


Trying to wriggle out of the obligation to obey

It has been claimed that a wife need only obey her husband when her husband's will conforms to the will of God and that is right for a wife to disobey her husband when what he commands is wrong. At first sight this argument seems to be very reasonable but unfortunately it leads into chaos and emptiness and also leaves the wives in a very cruel “no-win” situation. It is true that all husbands are fallen and sinful and it follows that they will make mistakes and that they might desire and command what they ought not desire and command. It is also true, but more frequently overlooked, that all wives are fallen and sinful and it follows that they will make mistakes and that they might desire what they ought not desire. God knew both of these facts when he arranged for scripture to be written and yet he still gave wives the instruction to submit to their husbands. He knew that husbands would wield the authority that he gave them imperfectly and he knew that wives would respond to that authority imperfectly. It is a terrible wrong for husbands to abuse their authority but it is no less terribly wrong for wives to reject or usurp their husband's authority.

Some of the people who claim that wives have the right to selectively submit to their husbands have put much emphasis on three New Testament passages - Acts 5:1-10, Acts 4:19 (and a similar passage in Acts 5:29) and Ephesians 5:21. It is worth looking at these to see what they add to the debate.

Hanz-Willhelm #fundie imdb.com

Interesting.

To the concept of following God being a boring life verses a life a sin being a fun life.....I'd say that is actually a falsehood. God's laws are here to protect us and to let us live a fuller freer life, many have fallen for the misconception that a life of debauchery is fun.

Probably the strongest form of this is sexual sin. Many believe God's laws are boring, sexual sin is fun and you'll live a fuller, life with more fun if you live it up sexually.

Well, if God created sex, created our bodies and created our need for sex and he tells us it is reserved to be between a husband and wife in a lifetime covenant it is interesting that everyone thinks they know better.

A Godly marriage of openness, respect, sacrifice and love will lead to a much more intense intimacy than any of the flings of sin. A faithful, lifelong partner will be a life free of sexual disease, pain over each other's sexual past, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, broken homes and children growing up without both parents, single parents trying to raise kids and earn an income, pain of being used for sex and than being abandoned by someone you cared about. People act as if free sex with no "rules" is so much fun with no dark side.

The same thing with abstaining from drugs and too much alcohol. "How boring". I think many believe that flippantly, without acknowledging the truth about how many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives that are destroyed with substance abuse, probably more like millions who get addicted to alcohol or some drug......all thinking it was fun to try it out and to get wasted at parties, never intending to actually get hooked but getting hooked all the same as it is difficult to use the stuff and not to physically build up some dependencies on it. "I can handle my liquor!", well, maybe you are. That doesn't negate the endless story of those whose lives were destroyed because life is just "more fun" with a little bit of drug to enhance things.

I believe the truth is that living within the healthy boundaries God laid out is a more happy, stable fulfilled life than those who think it's fun to live it up. Come back and visit these people in 30 years and see who often these things which seemed so fun at one point are looked back at with regret and have ended up damaging their lives.

These boundaries aren't given to deprive people of life/fun but for our own good and to increase the abundance of life.

Ezra #fundie disqus.com

(on same sex marriage)

Ezra:
Actually Colin they are "forcing" us to listen an affirm their evil deeds OR ELSE they will mock, revile or (if they could) kill us because we tell them the truth and they hate the truth.
Do you have a dog in the race?

Colin Rafferty:
Kill you, really?
Maybe you believe that you are required to affirm or deny a couple's marriage. You always have the third choice, which is to ignore it, because it doesn't actually involve you.
But if your beef is that you are being mocked and reviled, maybe you ought to think about why.

Ezra:
Did you fail to note the parentheses, lol. It is the institution that should be affirmed (for myriad reasons) and the institution has since its dawn been the joining in body, mind, spirit and in law between a man and a woman (a good case may be made that another institution is "friendship" between two men or two women even, but that institution is not marriage).

Oh my, there is so much you fail to understand- Christians consider it a blessing to be mocked, reviled, hated, abused and even killed. Our Lord was treated thusly and we ought not to think ourselves better than he. But the goal is to save the unwitting from eternal death - that is the love that the world eschews in favor of its own lusts.

Colin Rafferty:
Really, you don't have to say anything when two consenting adults do something that you would choose not to do. No one is looking for your affirmation, I promise you that. All anyone is really looking for is for people to not butt their noses in other people's private lives.
And please spare me the BS about the historical sanctity of marriage. Historically, it's about paying someone to take your daughter off your hands, or forging bonds between two powerful families.
But really, right now, there are two very different concepts of marriage: the religious one, which gets to be defined by whatever religion you follow; and the legal one, which defines who gets to have legal benefits of being married. And that second one demands it give equal protection to all people.

Ezra:
You are so naive Colin. You are right I can forego the opportunity to state the life-saving truth, but then I would be called to account by a higher authority than Man on Judgment Day (i.e. Why did you not throw the life preserver to those drowning men, Ezra?)
And I promise YOU that indeed they are looking for affirmation. Do you think that if they were not looking for it and for people to "butt their noses into their private lives", as you so quaintly put it, that they would have put it onto the social net. Puhleeze, do not think we rolled off the potato wagon this morning. It appears from context that they are reveling in their new-found notoriety.
The two reasons you gave (though perhaps jaded) are certainly valid in some societies - but there are far more. And it is a falsehood to claim that marriage is just religious - most pre-religious social orders observed it. And legal benefits came about for a very good reason that I'll bet you were not taught in school.

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

God says he wants young women to get married to a man, bear children, guide the house and then keep the dirty-laundry in the family. God specifically commands wives to avoid doing anything that will give people reason to judge and criticize. So many young wives go running to the neighbor's house when there's a marital argument, then the neighbor's take sides, call the police and you've got a 3-ring circus going. Ladies, you need to learn to take a walk when you're angry, and don't going crying on someone's shoulder, because they will ruin your marriage if you let them. People are destructive. It's not their marriage, so they've got nothing to lose. I'm so sick and tired of busy-bodies minding other people's business. If you want people to help ruin your marriage, there are millions of them standing in line waiting to do so. All they're waiting for is a foolish wife with a bitter heart whose sinful enough to abandon her marriage vows and quit. We are living in a world of fools. Don't throw your marriage away.

Watch Your Mouth Ladies

And another thing ladies, watch your mouth. More husbands snap because of a wife's big mouth than anything else. I remember a story in the news many years ago when I lived in Chicago. The incident happened in one of the suburbs. An elderly couple were sitting in their old car and the man's wife made some comment about their neighbor's brand new car. The man snapped, pressed the gas pedal and drove their car into the neighbor's swimming pool. When the police and fire department came, they found the couple alive sitting at the bottom of the pool underwater. A woman's mouth can really make a man upset.

?Jayden's? ??Mommy?? † #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior.

Subliminal Portal #fundie emmatheemo.wordpress.com

Laws aren’t designed for individual exceptions, they’re based on the average or even lowest common denominator. My twelve year old is ready to drive a car, but most 12 year olds can’t, so he can’t legally.
MOST thirteen year olds are not emotionally mature by any extent of the imagination, which makes them more easily exploitable and impressionable. In medicine there’s something called informed consent and I think it’s applicable to age of consent as well.


But you know something, Liz? I don’t think this whole age of consent thing is as black and white as Americans would like for it to be. Society too often thinks that adolescent girls having relationships with males older than what their parents might normally approve of is something always doomed from the start, whereas same-age adolescent relationships can never go wrong. I beg to differ.

Take the example of actress Tippi Hedren who starred in the 1963 Alfred Hitchcock movie “The Birds.” When her daughter, actress Melanie Griffith, was 13 years old, Tippi Hedren starred in a movie with then 22-year old actor Don Johnson back in the early 1970s. That is how Don Johnson met Melanie Griffith. Shortly thereafter, Melanie Griffith started dating Don Johnson despite their age difference. Much to her mother’s disapproval, when Melanie Griffith was 14 years old, she moved in with Don Johnson. Eventually Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith got married. Tippi Hedren could have pressed criminal charges against Don Johnson any time she wanted to, and he would have gone to prison on a conviction of “statutory rape” in that event and served many years behind bars. However, she didn’t, because, unlike many other American parents, she had at least the decency to talk things out with her daughter and not make any snap judgments that might have ruined her parental relationship with her daughter forever.

Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson’s relationship may not have been the most conventional one at first or perfect one, but they were together for a long, long time both on and off. They were even married at one point in their relationship as I mentioned previously. Even Oprah Winfrey expressed no objection to this relationship upon mentioning it to her audience, when she invited Melanie Griffith onto her TV talk show, which is quite rare on Oprah’s part, because she has always been so hell-bent on opposing adolescent girls being in relationships with adult men no matter how close in age difference they are, particularly ones that involve intimacy.

Then, on the other hand, you look at the fact that Macauley Culkin and Rachel Miner were both 17 years old when they got married in 1998. Everyone thought that they looked so cute together and would say, “Awwww. They grew up together. Don’t they make such a cute couple? Like two lovebirds in a tree. High school sweethearts in love.” Well, their marriage ended in disaster after 2 years (legally after 4 years). Macauley Culkin eventually became a train wreck, and since then Rachel Miner has been in mostly Class B roles where she either has played a trollop or a deranged individual. At one point, it was even rumored that Macauley Culkin had died two years ago, because he was so messed up on drugs. Now when you look at Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, even though they had their fair share of bumps on the road of life, they both have had very prosperous acting careers and they turned out pretty good. Macauley Culkin and Rachel Miner didn’t. So the point is, Liz, that the Puritanical establishment is not always right about these things, and people have the right to question the age of consent laws in our country.
Now people here in the United States of America have been making a big stink over this one couple over in the People’s Republic of China whose relationship began on similar circumstances as Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson. Two years ago when 24-year old Chinese pop singer, Zhang Muyi, began dating 12-year old Chinese-Canadian model Akama Miki, American news commentators were all over it and Americans were posting hateful remarks about it everywhere on the Internet. I mean, this couple lives clear on the other side of the world, and yet Americans are up in arms about them. This Chinese couple has one of the most formal courtships I’ve ever heard of, and yet accusations of moral turpitude are still flying at Zhang Muyi from all directions, mainly from Americans, even after two years that they’ve been together. How did so many Americans get to be this hostile about this sort of thing?

Everyone can’t marry their same-age high school sweetheart like Macauley Culkin did. And who would even want to be Macauley Culkin? His marriage to Rachel Miner represents the crassness and shallowness of many same-age adolescent relationships in the American culture. I mean, at least Zhang Muyi seems like he has more going on in the brains department than Macauley Culkin could ever have in a lifetime. Macauley Culkin is about as goofy in real life as he was in the movie “Home Alone.” If his aunt, actress Bonnie Bedelia, hadn’t been in show business to open doors for him in the entertainment industry when he was a little kid, his acting career would likely never have seen the light of day.

I don’t mean to rain on your parade, Liz. However, if you’re on a quest for an age-appropriate Utopia where adolescents can grow sexually with their own peers, I can guarantee you that you’ll never find it, because it doesn’t exist, except mostly in the minds of those who choose to go on living in a white picket fence fantasy world. Perhaps this logic worked back in 1957, but it doesn’t work anymore. And why would society even want go back to 1957? That was well before my time and most likely before your time. That decade’s value system has been obsolete for a long, long time. Call me a bleeding liberal if you must. However, whenever I come across a story like the one about the above Chinese couple, I find myself following the lyrics of this song here faithfully.>>>>Click onto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcowVi2AP-8
Also this song too.>>>>Click onto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqGIwX8BG4

Finally, the criminal justice system has been given too much power and authority over the private lives of many people here in the United States of America. The Draconian age of consent laws in our country are greatly to blame for it. At the same time, the real criminals are getting away with everything under the sun, because they have the entire system figured out and the system has been allowed to spread itself too thin in society’s efforts to make us into this perfect civilization that resembles a re-run of “Father Knows Best” or “Leave It To Beaver.” As much as I regret to say it, it’s the truth.

The “Proud Boys” Idiot Bunch #wingnut #conspiracy #ableism wonkette.com

[WONKETTE HEADLINE: Proud Boys Tore Down A COVID-19 Memorial, Because Caring That People Died Is For Commies ]

In recent weeks, the covidiots have turned. Now, those at anti-lockdown protests are not only demanding their right to defy stay-at-home orders and social distancing protocols, they're not only asking that they get to risk other people's lives, they are demanding that everyone else join them. They grab at the masks of reporters who cover the rally and at those belonging to counterprotesters. They get in people's faces. They scream. If they were leftists this would be a super big deal and Tucker Carlson would have had a thousand fainting spells by now, but they're not.

One thing that would be very big news if these people were liberals but is not because they're not is that last week, during an anti-lockdown rally in Spokane, Washington, a bunch of Proud Boys trashed a memorial to COVID-19 victims. A memorial made out of crosses meant to represent people who have died from the novel coronavirus, two of which they broke. Crosses. You know, like the one Jesus hung on?

The memorial had been put together by activist Tom Robinson, who runs the Stronger Together Spokane Facebook page. Robinson also attended the protest as a counterprotester, where he planned to simply stand with his memorial and not bother anybody. This did not work out as planned, because these people are the biggest assholes on earth. A video posted to the group's Facebook page show the protesters harassing Robinson, screaming at him to take off his mask and otherwise acting like the school bullies in a John Hughes movie.

The primary antagonist in the video was a Seattle Proud Boy who called himself "Milkshake," but whose real name is Daniel Lyons Scott. "Milkshake" wore a midriff bulletproof vest and a Hawaiian shirt — aka "big luau," get it, official shirts of "Boogaloo Boys," the far-right fanatics hoping that the pandemic will lead to a race war.

image

Here’s the video
[Sadly I couldn’t post a video link]

The video also features a man old enough to have grey hair taunting Robinson and claiming that he "knows" that this is all a hoax and a very aggressive woman wielding a flag. Here are their pictures, should you happen to live in the area and want to avoid people who will probably infect you with COVID-19. Or, you know, if you work in human resources.

image
image

Tom Robinson told the Spokesman-Review that he felt afraid for his safety and so left the area. When he returned, he found his memorial had been destroyed.

Soon after, Seattle area Proud Boys Zac Staggs, Josh Hanks, and Daniel "Milkshake" Lyons Scott posted a video to TikTok in which they actually bragged about tearing the memorial down, writing "Antifa made a fear propaganda cemetery. We cleaned it up. We don't stand for COMMUNIST FEAR" as a caption on a picture of it. The image then switches to a picture of the crosses in a pile on the ground, with a hand doing the "OK" symbol now associated with "White Power" over it. Because of course.

[TikTok of the fromage-for-brains doing just that. Jerks.]

Charming people, no?

Robinson has since put the memorial back together, replacing the two crosses broken by the Proud Boys in their attempt to stamp out "communist fear." Most likely, unless these douchenozzles keel over and die from COVID-19, everyone involved will remain at an impasse. Because that's just how things are now.

Ronnie Barnes #racist rawstory.com

A Louisiana man could spend up to six months in jail after he was charged with attacking a 12-year-old black child over the weekend.

The 12-year-old boy’s mother told WAFB that she sent her son into the Good To Go convenience store in Clinton on Saturday to pay for gas when 54-year-old Ronnie Barnes targeted him because of his dreadlocks.

According to East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Office, Barnes asked if the boy was a girl and then pulled down the child’s pants.

Surveillance video shows Barnes backing the boy into a shelf after pulling down his pants. Investigators accused him of using the N-word and then hitting the child in the head.

Barnes was initially charged with simple battery, but the District Attorney’s Office upgraded the charge to a hate crime after investigators conducted additional interviews.

“The sheriff takes race issues very seriously, and if someone you know commits a crime against someone because of their color, because of their sexual orientation, because of any reason, then we are going to do our best to fully investigate it,” East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Office Det. Kevin Garig explained to WAFB.

“Because a simple battery occurred and because it occurred because of racially motivated issues, that’s what makes it a hate crime,” he added.

Garig noted that just calling a child the N-word was not a crime.

The boy’s mother said that the incident made her worry for all of the children in the community.

“I haven’t slept since. My son hasn’t been sleeping either,” she said. “We can’t even be safe in a store to pay for gas. It makes me afraid for all the black children in the community.”

wardaddy #racist freerepublic.com

[From a thread on the coming "civil war 2," which is Freerepublic crypto-racist for "race war." This whole thread is excellent.]

Ain’t never been much melting

A bunch of Europeans from similar cultures who looked sort of alike blended together to a fair degree

The other groups not so much

Only groups mixing much across racial lines are at the bottom as a rule and it doesn’t involve marriage

Exception....white boys....oriental chicks...some are fine too

various WGTOWs #sexist reddit.com

Re: I think WGTOW and MGTOW have a *lot* more in common than both sides think, and I would argue that both group's fights are the same.

(fatfinger357)
I am quite satisfied and happy as a WGTOW but then the MGTOWs keep coming in to this sub and start brigading and hating on us. We are just women going our own way and these MGTOWs come here and they are not going their own way.
There is too much misogyny in MGTOW for there to be any peace. It is far better to just block them and shield them from life. It's far too risky to be with men, especially the MGTOW kind. Once they know you're a woman, the abuse and harassment is on you, and in real life men are more or less the same, trying to dominate you and take over and control you. It makes sense of course because men naturally produce testosterone, so that makes them violent and abusive, so it's not exactly their fault, but I feel as a woman it is safer to protect myself with WGTOW than bother with useless things like relationships.
Of course for a fat person, the "no pain no gain" principle applies. A fat person needs to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, high fiber, and they need to exercise a lot, and for a lot if people this is not easy, so they need to go through pain in order to reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.
However, men are different. Men are not like losing weight. Losing weight actually achieves something. However, with men, if you put in a lot of effort to apply makeup and appease men and make them feel good and give them intimacy, then what do you get from them? Nothing. Most women spend so much time and effort on others than she neglects herself so that, as she grows up, she ends up with less wealth. I'd rather just focus on myself and do what I want rather than sacrifice myself for men. For too long women have sacrificed themselves for ungrateful men. We need to listen to what we want.

(violetreva)
That's where you're wrong! I'm sorry to disappoint you but this is a liberal fantasy and I have no intention of reassimilating into male society ever again. Women are not men. Men are not women. We are not in the same boat. Men oppress women. We do not belong together in any capacity. They can have mars and we can have venus, quite literally. Separatism FTW.

(day01x)
I was just thinking about this on reading a post in another WGTOW thread. One in particular mentioned that "men cannot conceive of a non-transactional relationship", and that everything is about "value" with them. This is the exact language used in MGTOW, too.
Men and women are 'valued' for different attributes, but they are both valued ruthlessly. You can debate the details of which particular group of people have it worse, and while that discussion may be worth having, that's not the point I want to make here.
I think what MGTOW and WGTOW have in common isn't just personal experience, it's a reaction to how brutally dehumanising society can be.
It's as though the idea of the "free market" has entered into sexual relationships. We've adopted the consumer mindset in our social lives. Social media and dating websites exacerbate this, but the mentality was developing long before. We ignore the substance of a person in favour of a good profile. We pay attention not to how they make us feel or think but on an abstract collective value, as though the only measure of their worth is how much others want them.
Think of the kind of relationships that would result from this setting. Imagine what happens to the people who don't, can't, or won't fit into that kind of environment.

(DangZagnut)
I don't hate women, I don't even hate feminism, not that I won't shit post about women or feminists posting outrageously bizarre things into the internet. I also do it with stupid men doing stupid things.
I just prefer to be by myself and traveling the world and having adventures, rather than marriage and children. Children smell and marriage seems like it limits everyone in that equation to a life of exceptional mediocrity.
I've never had a bad relationship. Sometimes they end, and in my relationships, maturely and with both sides realizing its time to move on and no hard feelings.
I encourage WGTOW to go their own way and not be bound by societal conventions. You don't have to be bitter to be WGTOW any more than you have to be hurt and bitter to be MGTOW. Sure, some come to a MGTOW conclusion because they've been hurt, and I'd wish they embraced it from a more positive place, but to each their own.
I don't see any "solution", because I don't really see any "problem" in the first place. To say that either of those exist implies that there's something inherently wrong with going your own way in life, and setting your own path to happiness.

(CasualPie)
There's a bit of difference between "I'm tired of the system because it sucks" and "I'm keeping the hell away from the system because it could legally ruin my life".
In your listing of the disaffected guys, you forgot to list the ones legally destroyed through divorce settlement, child custody arrangement, false rape/assault/abuse accusation, etc.
One of MGTOWs reasons for GTOWing isn't just that the game sucks, it's that the game is mortally dangerous and supported by the legal system.
Hunger games, relationship edition.
I am not disaffected by personal experience. I am MGTOW because of all of the failed, fucked up, and ruinous relationships I've seen in others.
Being in the army, I've seen countless relationships destroyed from women cheating and/or abusing their power of attorney while the guy is deployed. I've seen guys in college get thrown in jail for decades for hooking up with girls when they were both wasted drunk. I've heard countless guys complain that they can't do what they once loved doing because their SO/fiancée/wife doesn't like that they spend so much time on it, hell, my own mother is on her third marriage (I love my mom, but it's hard to believe in marriage when your own mother changes them out every 10-20 years)!
Worst of all, I've heard girls joke about this stuff. "Oh, if it sucks I can change my mind about it, I always have a few glasses of wine to loosen up", "if he breaks up with me I'll tell everyone he was abusive to me", "not paying attention to me is abuse right? : yeah it is!".
When society can casually joke about throwing people in jail over poor personal choices and changed minds, I will eagerly avoid it.

Xx Lil Holly xX #fundie gaiaonline.com

I wait at a busy bus stop to go to school every day.
Everyday, this cripple guy would sit there and beg for money.
Every. Day. For the six years I would go to the bus stop to go to school.
There's not a single day I didn't see that man asking for food and money. He had a sign that said, "Help me pay for better legs"

So, last year, I was at the bus stop. Everyone was walking around and being busy and stuff, I wasn't paying so much attention to the cripple.
This guy and his friend walked up to the cripple, and asked, "What's wrong with your legs?"
"I don't know, they've never worked good." The cripple responded.
One of the guys grabbed the cripple's arms.
"What are you doing?!"
"In the name of the Lord Jesus, STAND UP!"
The cripple just stood up. Just as the guy stood up, my bus came.

And the guy could stand. I myself didn't believe it. It took a few weeks for it to register in my head, it was just so incredible. That's not the only thing.

A few months after that, my family took me to the zoo. (Which was disgusting) A guy had a snake on display, it was wrapped around his hand. As the man was talking about the snake, it just suddenly slipped down and started to slither everywhere, hissing.
This lady scolded the snake in the name of God. (I don't remember what she said, but It was still awesome. I was in the back, so I couldn't see a lot) The snake, amazingly, went back it its owner, and stopped hissing. It wasn't staged, why would they put zoo visitor's lives in risk if it was staged?

So ya, I finally decided there had to be God if things like that happened so much. After I started believing, my life got so much better. I could overcome the bad times more, and since my parents are atheists, they didn't drive me to church, so I started walking. God was my answer. smile

I'm not trying to shove this down anyone's throat, I'm just sharing my story on how I went from a committed Atheist to a devoted and faithful Christian. Feel free to choose

Zealous Zeth #fundie fstdt.com

The only good thing with depressions or over-sensitiveness is that many of Christ's enemies are into it. It is laughably easy to crush atheist American scum over the internet using only words, especially gay ones. It's a bit trickier here at home, since swedes are not that sensitive, most swedes do not care for insults and not too many are depressed.

Also, Jessica, you little modernist heretic: There is no reason at all to be "respectful" to atheist scum. They are not "respectful" themselves, nor does the Church demand that such p.c. "respectfulness" should be shown towards these filthy self-proclaimed apes. The internet is not some kind of politically correct tea party!

And being "hurtful" (please don't use these politically correct lol-words, I can't take you seriously) is only a good thing when fighting atheists. This man is evidently a true crusader, and you ought to respect him.

Bankuei #racist donotlink.com

The more I see of these bullshit ass “kumbayah we’re all in love” kind of pictures, the more I realize that the underlying message they’re TRYING to convey is, “The true picture of love, is loving white people”.

Notice you don’t ever see two POC together as some sort of anti-racism ad.

You don’t hear the stories where the white person in the couple ditches the POC when they decide they want to “get a serious relationship”.

You don’t see the part where the relationship goes fine until the parents of the white couple pour out enough racism, and the white partner either decides to give up on the relationship (finding other “reasons” of course), OR, refuses to check their parents and just asks the POC to endure the unbearable.

You don’t see the part where the couple raises a kid and the white parent is ill-equipped to teach the child about what they need to do for survival against the bullies, the teachers, the strangers, the police.

You especially don’t see any part where this fucking magical kiss changes police violence, health care disparities, differences in pay rates, differences in hiring rates, differences in promotions, microaggressions, bank loans, murder rates, or incarceration.

But hey, a white person is kissing you, don’t you understand that the Heavens have parted, the Divine has come to Earth, the Good Word has poured forth and why would you worry about living safely, in health or wanting to be paid for work - shouldn’t you be grateful that THE WHITENESS HAS DEEMED YOU WORTHY?

The Kumbayah Myth is built on white supremacy.

As long as white supremacy is part of your idea of a relationship, you don’t have respect, or love, involved in any actual way.

TED #fundie moonbattery.com

Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, they believe no one should have one.

If a Conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A Liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a Liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a Conservative is a minority , he sees himself as independently successful. Their Liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

If a Conservative disagrees with a Liberal president, he is called a racist. When a Liberal disagrees with a Conservative president, it's patriotic dissent.

Canino1997 #sexist

Marital rape doesn’t exist it is a lie to enslave beta men

When a man marries a woman, there’s a tacit exchange of resources where he offers her protection (both physically and financially) in exchange for her body. If a woman isn’t constantly consenting to her husband doing whatever he wants with her then she is worthless as a wife. In situations like these, the man should be allowed to stop spending money on food and clothes for his wife and kids because the social contract between them has clearly been broken. Doesn’t matter if she’s sick or has back pains or she’s tired. Does the man get to stop paying for his household’s food and have his family starve to death if he’s “tired”? This absurd double-standard where women are allowed to avoid their own wifely duties, while husbands are still expected to uphold theirs, is why the west is fucking DEAD. What’s worse is that even if the contract is ended (through a divorce) the man is STILL expected to uphold his duties through child support and alimony.
The only reason “marital rape” exists as a term is so women get to marry some beta bucks for financial security and never have to fuck him. Even if a woman chooses to take this route and marry some liberal beta cuck she can always just divorce and live off alimony/child support bux. It’s a complete violation of a fair and honest system that was established to help both men and women. Marriage has been completely ruined in the west. If I were ever married and my wife refused sex with me, I swear to God the sheets would bleed that night; my children would be woken up by the bloodcurdling screeches of my wife’s final moments.

FOR A BETTER INCEL NATION, WE STAND UNITED!!!!!

BlkPillPres #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

BlkPillPres #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Jared Taylor #racist #psycho rightwingwatch.org

U.S. white nationalist Jared Taylor wrote the foreword to “Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War,” a new posthumously published book by French “New Right” and “identitarian” writer Guillaume Faye, who died in March. A note from the publisher acknowledges that the English title is a toned-down version of the French, which was “Guerre Civile Raciale”—Racial Civil War.

In his foreword, Taylor, founder of a white nationalist think tank, describes his long friendship with Faye, who he says was “among the very best-known spokesmen for the survival of our people.” Taylor declares “Ethnic Apocalypse” to be “the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written” and “a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.”

Taylor admiringly quotes Faye’s articulation of three possible consequences of non-white immigration into France: “submission,” or collapse without real combat; a “racial civil war resulting in the defeat of French natives and other ethnic Europeans”; or “a victorious civil war with incalculable historical consequences.”

Taylor responds:

This is pure Guillaume Faye. While others fail to grasp the extent of the problem—or even the form or nature of the problem—Faye cuts straight to the fateful choices we face: submission, defeat, or victory. He writes that there is no other choice because a ‘convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.’

Taylor adds a fourth possibility—“voluntary, peaceful separation,” but finds it hard to imagine that happening in France, where, he writes, “an alien population with a ruthless will to power and united by a triumphalist religion threatens the native population and the entire country is at stake.”

In pondering the possibility of “submission,” Taylor writes, “A similarly contemptible collapse is likewise possible in my own country. If our people awaken and build for themselves a future as glorious as our past, it will be thanks to the efforts of brilliant, tireless men such as Guillaume Faye.”

In Faye’s introduction, he wrote that he hoped that “an unpredictable spark may yet cause our natives (meaning THE WHITES—let us state the facts as they are)” to “organize themselves and ultimately launch a counteroffensive.”

Faye’s overt racism caused a split between him and another “spiritual father” of the alt-right, Alain de Benoist, according to BuzzFeed’s Lester Feder and Pierre Buet. “I believe in the civil war,” said Faye, “He is against the civil war.” Both de Benoist and Faye have influenced the alt-right and white nationalists in the U.S., and both have appeared at Taylor’s American Renaissance conferences. As RWW’s Jared Holt reported, American Renaissance appears to be grooming the next generation of racists, including young white nationalist YouTubers and podcasters, via its conferences and other outreach.

In 2015, Faye addressed the annual “Become Who We Are” conference sponsored by the National Policy Institute, led by white nationalist Richard Spencer. According to one account of Faye’s speech, he said three things are destroying the white race: immigration, abortion, and homosexuality.

Taylor is one of the people to whom Faye dedicated “Ethnic Apocalypse,” as is Sam Dickson, a former Klan attorney. In his foreword, Taylor says he is honored to have the book dedicated to him, adding, “I also rejoice in his having jointly dedicated the book to my comrade Sam Dickson,” who Taylor writes “has faithfully and courageously fought the forces that would transform the West.”

During the 2016 presidential race, Taylor recorded a robocall backing Trump before the Iowa caucuses and told a fellow white nationalist radio host that he was “hugely encouraged” by the growth of white nationalism. “The most visible manifestation of this is the support for Donald Trump,” Taylor added. “Donald Trump is an opportunity for ordinary Americans to say they are fed up. And one of the big things they’re fed up about is the racial changes going on in the United States and they think Donald Trump might actually do something about it.”

In May 2016, Taylor predicted that if Trump were elected he would hire people “at all sorts of levels in his administration” who “think the way we do.” At the time Taylor said Trump was saying the kind of things he’d been saying for years, but couldn’t be ignored the way the media ignores Taylor:

And when people start thinking in those terms, Well, wait a minute, are Muslims really of any use to the United States? Then the next step, of course, is to say, Well, are there any other groups that are of no use to the United States? What do, oh, Guatemalans, for example, bring to our country? What do Somalis bring to our country? What do Haitians bring to America? Do we really need 30,000,000 Mexicans living in this country? When you start thinking in terms of group differences, then the camel’s nose is under the tent. That opens the door to all kinds, all kinds of anti-orthodox, subversive thinking. And so Donald Trump has played a huge role in breaking down the gates of orthodoxy and making it possible to raise these questions in a way that they’ve never been raised, at a level at which they’ve never been raised ever before.

When you consider the administration’s actions and Trump’s own words, it’s hard not to think that Taylor had a point about the president.

Brett Stevens #fundie amerika.org

When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment.

...

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

(=Part two of Anne Kennedy's Glenn Doyle Melton rant=)

So yesterday I got through half my thought. To recap, Glenn Doyle Melton recently announced on Facebook that in the wake of finally separating from her husband, she entered into a romantic relationship with another woman. Yesterday I began to answer the question What is love? Insisting, rather lamely, now that I go back and look at it, that self love is not really “love” in a true sense. But in this brave new world self love is the hope and the dream.

Of course, I’ve used the word “love” without really defining it. So let me do that now.

Love in our modern context means something like having powerful lovely feelings for something, someone, or oneself.

Love, however, in a biblical context is the verb used to articulate the nature of God who is One in Being, but Three in Person. God Is Love because the Father eternally pours himself out for the Son who eternally pours himself out for the Father. And so also the Spirit. The three live in a perfect unity of the giving of the self without holding anything back. That is a very different thing than, “what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.” Glennon’s articulated self love, so usefully insulated from the world’s criticism, being grounded solely in the rebellious and sin poisoned human soul is of necessity narrow and hard.

Whereas God’s love gives life to the world. As I like to say to my Sunday school children about Jesus, “He didn’t hold anything back from you. He gave his whole life, down to the last drop of blood. Not a single bit of who he was did he guard or keep away from you. How else can we talk about his body being something that we eat, his blood something that we drink?” This is the basis upon which any human being can give anything to any other human being.

If you are busy loving yourself you can only take, you can only demand. And so let’s look at what is demanded of the children in this picture. “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

Glennon is claiming a multiplication of love. Look, more people to love you. Me, your dad, his new person, my person, your grandparents. We are all here together with love. And we go to the parties together and everyone is completely happy.

And yet, because this has been a business of taking for the self, rather than self giving through death, there cannot really be happiness, in the ultimate sense. I would put cash down that these children have been cut to the heart by the father’s betrayal of the mother, and now the mother’s of the father.

Why? Because marriage is a picture of Christ and his Church. Jesus, who lived in the perfection of self giving love in the Godhead as the eternal Son, set that aside to come and gather us back into that perfect love. He set aside glory and honor and beauty to come and die as the ultimate act of Love. He gained, in his death, a bride, the church. Every marriage is a shadowy retelling of the triumph of the cross. And so each time a marriage fails, that retelling is spoiled. And the whole world feels it, knows it at the core, however much we may lie and say it is good. And the people who know it most are the children, the product of that troubled retelling. Multiplying “love” when something so essential is broken is not really “love”.

Really what the children have learned is that father can’t keep his promises and mother can’t keep hers. Each time a promise is broken “love” apparently abounds. Whereas, that’s just not true. Every time a promise is broken the love that Christ has for his church is lied about. And lying doesn’t really produce happiness. It produces misery and anger.

If lying produced happiness, humanity would be peachy happy and love love love. But we are liars by nature, determined to call good evil and evil good. And observe the roiling anger, the bitterness, the unbending intolerance of individual people for other individual people, the racism, the violence. Where is all the happiness? Where is all the love? It isn’t in the hard defiant gaze of Glennon Doyle Melton. It isn’t in the collective heart of a culture that hates God and loves the self.

As I implored yesterday, prayer is of the essence. But also Christians should cling tightly to the surpassing love of God that sets aside the self, dies to the self, abandons the self, holds nothing in reserve to grasp onto the one who is perishing. His blood and love is sufficient for every grief, every brokenness, every lie.

The_Brian_Factor #fundie imdb.com

[[About the girl who wanted to take another girl to prom and the school board who canceled prom as a result.]]

How stupid can you be? The school has every right to not let her bring her "lover" to the prom while wearing a tux. Like I said, if she can bring her lover to the prom then a guy can bring three dates, a goat, or a blow up doll, or a 12-year old to the prom. They are all the same. Not everything should be catered to homosexuals.

[[NOTE: he has by this point brought up the goat three different times in this thread, and has been shot down every time.]]

[[No they're not, you retard. An animal is not a human being, does not have nor deserve the rights granted a human being, and cannot consent to be in any sort of relationship with a human being. If animals had rights, we wouldn't slaughter them for our food. How fµçking clear do you need me to get on that point? Likewise, you can call an object whatever you want, but it has no opinions on things, is not a person, and cannot consent. A twelve-year-old is not mature enough to be capable of consent. These are all basic facts of life that anyone with an IQ above room temperature ought to be able to grasp, unless you live in the land of Oz, where animals can talk and objects come to life (which still wouldn't excuse thinking a 12-year-old is fundamentally capable of meaningful consent).

Stop spewing your fail over my thread.]]

Sorry, homosexuality is the same as sleeping with an animal, children, and an object but once again, you libs can't see that. Homosexuals need to understand that not everyone agrees with their choice of lifestyle. If she wants to bring her girlfriend and wear a tux, she should go do it at Harvey Milk High's prom.

[[Wow, this is an eye-opener.

You'd think being beaten up by a bunch of ignorant muscleheads on a daily basis would have helped get that point across, but...no...they just keep on believing that everyone agrees with their choice of lifestyle...]]

Oh please, gays aren't beaten up every day. Cut the dramatics. If this was the case then blacks can mope and complain all day too. Cue the damn violins. Being gay is a choice, you weren't born gay. Example, my sister, who was the biggest slut in NYC, ran through so many guys only to come out of the closet while married to some guy with a baby girl. All of the sudden she's gay? Not buying it.

yfae #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[Question:
So Christians, why do you follow the part of the bible that says gays can't marry but you don't kill us?
Is it a law of the land thing? Like if it were made legal would you be dragging us to the gas chambers again... or do you have some other reservations with the way your magic man wants things handled?


Reddo via contraho!]

Answer:

The Bible says to follow the laws of one's land, and I don't fancy jail time.

"Like if it were made legal would you be dragging us to the gas chambers again"

Yes. I would, quite honestly, but like I said... laws of the land.

HolymolyitsDok #racist reddit.com

[Comments under “Change my mind”]

@CityFan4

@HolymolyitsDok
@CityFan4
Authright in real life: libright with more rules
Authright on this sub: authleft but singles out JEWISH capitalist
I've seen authrights who unironically think authright means being economically left and socially right
I can have right unity in real life but not with the anti capitalists on this sub

Well I can tell you I won’t just single out the capitalists amongst the jews.

Imagine believe in collective guilt
You racial collectivists are cringe commies

Reply from HolymolyitsDok:
Oh no no no, you misunderstand me if you believe I think they’re all guilty. Some of them are, just like any other race, or group of people, there are bad ones amongst them that ruin it for the rest. I look at them like pests however, or weeds, you pull weeds up by the roots or they’ll just keep growing back. You exterminate an infestation of insects down to the very last or they will come back. Time and time again jews have acted as parasites, putting themselves in positions to directly influence and subvert the culture of the host to benefit nobody but themselves, those jews have ruined it for the rest. Diversity is not a strength, it blurs the lines just as we’re seeing now with the current attempt at a communist uprising. Black people stick with their tribe, no matter what, they do more for their most guilty than we do for our most innocent. Jews stick to their tribe as well. Asians stay with their respective tribes as do muslims. Why is it only white culture that is under attack? They’ve attacked our culture and divided us as much as they can to make their attempt at a communist revolution as easy as possible. There’s a reason they were driven out of so many countries.

Rich Hoffman #fundie archive.is

Guess what, Obama, MSNBC, CNN, Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the knuckle dragging losers of progressive politics? They thought they finally had a white middle-aged Republican man who committed a terrorist act—so that they could propose more gun control. Sadly for them, the shooter—Robert Lewis Dear—the lunatic who shot up a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic on November 27th 2015 appears to be a cross-gender loving pervert who shared much more with Obama’s LBGT community than the NRA loving American traditionalists. According to early reports from The Gateway Pundit shown below indicate Robert Lewis Dear identified as a woman, not as the man that he is. Bet you won’t hear that on the news networks. Sounds like he had some issues…………………………….have a look for yourself. Dear sounds like a cast member of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. That would explain his appearance.

This is just further proof that liberals make most of the problems in our society. They feed anger toward Planned Parenthood with immoral justifications then they create a loose society full of perverts, peeping Toms, and losers who are men who think they are women and women who want to be men. USA Today almost had an orgasm when they saw the pictures of the suspect, but quickly put on the brakes once the stories of this idiot became clear. They reported that the motive was unclear so the hard reporting will probably die now that Robert Lewis Dear has turned out to be a Bruce Jenner clone—a woman in a man’s body. Perhaps Dear was jealous that real woman were able to get abortions for casual sex while he was not able to commit such a vile crime—so he went on a shooting spree. That conclusion is just as valid as Obama’s early comments regarding the push to use gun control as a way to keep more idiots like this loser free to peek in our windows all in the name of a more “progressive” society of morally loose punks and general depraved nut cases. Gun control laws obviously didn’t work with this confused person. Robert Lewis Dear was a Obama kind of guy—a bewildered mess who didn’t know what he was. And when it got to be too much of a mess in his head, he went on a shooting spree, just like the radical Muslims, and dumb kids taught in public schools who take out their frustrations through violence in public places. All the mass shootings over these last few years embody one of those character traits and all of them are creations of liberalized educations and progressive society. Add Robert Lewis Dear to the list.

Sorry liberals, you won’t find many people in the NRA who fit the mental description of Robert Lewis Dear. They at least typically know what sex they are and aren’t the type of people who peek through windows at unsuspecting victims. NRA members have guns to protect themselves from people like Robert Lewis Dear. Again, if there were more armed people within the Planned Parent Hood clinic, they could have ended the standoff a lot sooner than they did, and more people might be alive. After all, what are they protecting—they are already agents of death? At least if they were armed they may have been able to save a few lives instead of exclusively being a place that takes them.


Robert Lewis Dear Apparently Identified as a Woman: What the news won’t tell you about Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting
November 28, 2015 / overmanwarrior

Guess what, Obama, MSNBC, CNN, Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the knuckle dragging losers of progressive politics? They thought they finally had a white middle-aged Republican man who committed a terrorist act—so that they could propose more gun control. Sadly for them, the shooter—Robert Lewis Dear—the lunatic who shot up a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic on November 27th 2015 appears to be a cross-gender loving pervert who shared much more with Obama’s LBGT community than the NRA loving American traditionalists. According to early reports from The Gateway Pundit shown below indicate Robert Lewis Dear identified as a woman, not as the man that he is. Bet you won’t hear that on the news networks. Sounds like he had some issues…………………………….have a look for yourself. Dear sounds like a cast member of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. That would explain his appearance.

Dear also lists his party as UAF.
Colorado Voters Info has Dear listed as a woman.
The Heavy reported has more on Robert Lewis Dear from Hartsel, Colorado:
Robert Lewis Dear, the suspected gunman, is from Hartsel, Colorado. According to KDVR-TV, he was previously a resident of North Carolina and is originally from South Carolina.
Dear’s age has been reported to as both 57 and 59, but public records indicate that he is 57. His family is from South Carolina, according to public records and his father’s obituary.
According to court records, Dear has an arrest record in both North and South Carolina. He has been convicted of several traffic offenses, but has been arrested several times on more serious charges.
His convictions include seat belt violations, driver’s license violations, operating a vehicle in an unsafe mechanical condition and driving a non-registered vehicle.
Dear was charged in Colleton, South Carolina, with two counts of cruelty to animals in 2002, but was found not guilty in a bench trial.
He was also charged in 2002 in Colleton with charges of “peeping Tom” and eavesdropping. Those charges were dismissed.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/court-records-colorado-planned-parenthood-shooter-not-republican-identifies-as-woman

This is just further proof that liberals make most of the problems in our society. They feed anger toward Planned Parenthood with immoral justifications then they create a loose society full of perverts, peeping Toms, and losers who are men who think they are women and women who want to be men. USA Today almost had an orgasm when they saw the pictures of the suspect, but quickly put on the brakes once the stories of this idiot became clear. They reported that the motive was unclear so the hard reporting will probably die now that Robert Lewis Dear has turned out to be a Bruce Jenner clone—a woman in a man’s body. Perhaps Dear was jealous that real woman were able to get abortions for casual sex while he was not able to commit such a vile crime—so he went on a shooting spree. That conclusion is just as valid as Obama’s early comments regarding the push to use gun control as a way to keep more idiots like this loser free to peek in our windows all in the name of a more “progressive” society of morally loose punks and general depraved nut cases. Gun control laws obviously didn’t work with this confused person. Robert Lewis Dear was a Obama kind of guy—a bewildered mess who didn’t know what he was. And when it got to be too much of a mess in his head, he went on a shooting spree, just like the radical Muslims, and dumb kids taught in public schools who take out their frustrations through violence in public places. All the mass shootings over these last few years embody one of those character traits and all of them are creations of liberalized educations and progressive society. Add Robert Lewis Dear to the list.
Sorry liberals, you won’t find many people in the NRA who fit the mental description of Robert Lewis Dear. They at least typically know what sex they are and aren’t the type of people who peek through windows at unsuspecting victims. NRA members have guns to protect themselves from people like Robert Lewis Dear. Again, if there were more armed people within the Planned Parent Hood clinic, they could have ended the standoff a lot sooner than they did, and more people might be alive. After all, what are they protecting—they are already agents of death? At least if they were armed they may have been able to save a few lives instead of exclusively being a place that takes them.
Oh, and what is the UAF? I’m glad you asked, it’s a front group to the Socialist Workers Party. Defiantly not a Republican group. It is possible that this voter registration was doctored but at this early stage, probably not. Take a picture. It will last longer.
Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

Waiting4Jesus #fundie rr-bb.com

Where DON'T I leave tracts? LOL, I leave them everywhere. I keep a supply in my car and everytime I get outta the car, I stuff a few in my pockets to leave around.

ANYWHERE is game!! I've put them inside library books...phone booths...benches at the mall...rest rooms...even lay one on top of the gas pump thingie while I'm gassing up. Everytime I grocery shop, I leave a few in carts, LOL, or even on the store shelves. image

The possibilities are simply ENDLESS!!!

And you do NOT have to buy them! Go to fellowshiptractleague.com and they will give you tracts for free. There are many to choose from. I always select the one entitled, "The Second Coming" myself.

Good luck!

C. Little #fundie rr-bb.com

1) We should fight terrorism every where it raises its ugly head. But I mean really fight it. Be as brutal as they are.

2) Fight terrorism w/ covert operations and assissinate their leaders when possible. If there's a training camp, blow it off the face of the Earth. If you're caught in our country, you go to jail until you die.

3) Sadam thing was fine with me, but why waste time w/ the trial.

4) Iran - nuke their nuclear facilities. Make a crater where they used to be. Overthrow their government and let the people decide what kind of gov't they want. We control the oil, but we'll make sure you get a lot of the profits unless you start screwin with us again.

Afghanistan - we should have completely leveled the mountains where bin laden is/was hiding on 9/12. No warning, no nothin', just had it rain nuclear bombs on the whole place.

Sudan - force the UN to go in with us and straighten the mess out.

5) see #1, hunt them all down and kill them or put them in prison until they die.

6) it's war, kill them

7) Iraq now - take care of Iran would be one huge step. Send enough troops over to completely blanket the place and hunt down all the bad guys. They can have their country back once we wipe this cancer off the face of the Earth, until then go to work and make something of yourself and your country.

8) Israel should be protected at all costs. Instead of giving up land, they should expand and take more land from the muslim countries. Every time one of the muslim countries steps out of line, invade them and take over. After you do that about two times, I'm sure the rest will behave.

9) Gay marriage - marriage is defined in the US as a man and a woman. Don't like it, move to France or Switzerland or wherever your little heart desires.

10) Abortion - well that's murder. Here's an idea, don't get pregnant. As in the case of rape, well let's just say that wouldn't happen a lot if I were in charge. We would have HUGE prisons and LONG sentences and very few paroles. Nip that in the bud right now!

11) Poverty - if you are able and willing to work get a job. There will be a lot of them, because we wouldn't have illegal aliens in my country and companies would face heavy taxes if they outsource to other countries. I would help educate and train people so they can get a job. After a few years, they should be able to support themselves. You get three years of welfare and food stamps, so you need to get busy.

12) Homelessness - see #11. Those that are mentally unfit to take care of themselves would be taken care of. A lot of homeless have mental problems, they need to be helped and cared for.

You didn't ask, but drug use would be penalized as harsh as dealing. Go ahead and smoke that joint, I hope the high lasts 5 years. Snort that coke, I hope the high lasts 20 years, because thaat's how long you're going away for. We'll cut the demand really fast.

Andrew Anglin #fundie archive.is

In the comments section of yesterday’s piece, there was only one troll, which was openly a woman, who did nothing but prove the entire point I’ve been trying to make – that women are purely emotional and so incapable of logical processes. There were a couple of white knights, but they are probably women posing as men.

The one openly female dissenter kept spamming a link to an article about how men marry Asian women at a rate higher than women marry Black and Latino men – I’d like to address that little issue, briefly.
Firstly, “marriage” is the key word there. Black men almost never marry, even to Black women. The actual rate of mixed-race relationships is exponentially higher among women than it is among men.

Second, following from the key word there – “marriage” – the men who involve themselves with Asian women are looking for a serious and traditional relationship. Women who go with Blacks and Latinos are looking for excitement.
Third, Asians are a vastly superior race than Blacks or Latinos, and the problem with breeding with them is esoteric, whereas the problems of breeding with the lower races are completely obvious. The problem with mixing with Asians is that it destroys the racial integrity of the folk and produces children who lack the better qualities of either race. Mixing with Blacks is obviously just disgusting and bizarre for an entire laundry list of reasons.
Fourth, feminism among White women is the reason White men marry Asian women – because even the White women who aren’t whoring it up with monkeys are still, for the most part, whores – or so fat as to be below the standards of any self-respecting man. It’s just a fact. There are some that have good fathers that aren’t, but they are rare and probably already married by the time they are 22, so not available at the bar or on Tinder or any of the few other outlets left for men to meet women.

This is your life.

The reality is that women are completely out of control. And yes, it is all women. All of them who are not in the control of some man are out of control. And very few are in the control of any man, at least in Anglo countries.
Men who marry Asian women are attempting to re-establish a natural dynamic – to re-establish order. They are not the problem. Women are the problem.
And yes, as always, I will put this part: the reason that women are the problem is that men have failed to be men. And the reason that happened was the same reason anything else ever happens: the Jews did it.

If someday in the future a fascist state emerges and removes women’s rights, it won’t take long for them to start behaving as they are supposed to behave, and they’ll be lining up to serve as wives for men who made this change happen.
And to you women who want to come on here and complain about how I characterize women – if you’re not like this, then what have you to be offended by? What need do you have to share a collective identity with a bunch of monkey-loving whores? If you want to prove me wrong, then go prove me wrong – go be a loving wife to a good man, and make his life easier rather than turning it into a living hell.

Your tears: They mean nothing to me.

And to you who want to whine about “but where will we get all the new White babies???” – this is simply a canard. Go look around in public. There are plenty of White babies. There are still men willing to ruin their lives by getting involved with some woman who is going to rip them off for everything they’ve got, and they are still impregnating women. There are also women over the age of thirty who have done their slutting around and trips to Asia who are having babies. The demographic crisis is about our numbers in comparison to those of the hordes. It isn’t about our actual numbers. There are still plenty of White people on the planet. Our numbers could be reduced to 25% of what they are now over the next hundred years and it wouldn’t really make any real difference. Given the rate of technological development, population simply is not an issue.

Bon, From the Land of Babble #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

We Whites growing up in the late 60s and early 70s were bombarded with not only Erlich’s odious messages and that of the feminists as well who told us a “woman’s place was in the workplace competing with men, NOT chained to a stove OR husband OR (God Forbid) screaming brats.”

The truly evil part of this was there that was absolutely NO counterbalance to this advocacy that Whites should limit the size of their families, or better yet stop having children altogether.

Those who didn’t live through it have no idea how pervasive Erlich and the feminists’ messages were to the White youth of America, it was everywhere. I recall as a young female bragging with all of my friends that we were NEVER going to have children because they impeded OUR lifestyle, dragged us down — along with ruining the planet. Our goal would be to remain child-free!!

No White churches countered this message. No White politicians exposed these lies against White people. No White academics were brave enough to challenge this.

I heard NO opposition anywhere at any time — only the mantra that Whites should stop reproducing because WE and WE alone were ruining the planet for everyone.

Looking back, I cannot think of or imagine a more evil message to blast to White youth that of their own extinction.

I have two children, BTW.

ikester7579 #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

But it's not like H*m*sexuals are knocking on your door on Sunday afternoons, handing you leaflets that say if you don't turn g*y you will tortured for the rest of your existence.]

You know where the trash can is, correct? If you don't want to read the stuff, toss it. It's your choice.

But h*m*sexuals do call churches and test them on what they allow to go on in their church. This is so they will record what they say pertaining to their lifestyle. And if they can make them say the wrong thing, they get together and file a class action lawsuit to sue the church right out of bussiness.

Now which is worse, the leaflets that can be thrown away?
Or being sued and your whole life ruined?

So don't try the guilt trip game here.

The Real Christian #fundie answers.yahoo.com

People that want gay marriage and say it won;t ruin marriage?
I think it will impact my ability to train my child in the way I think I should. I doubt this is terribly important to you, but it is a Biblical imperative for parents.

Honestly, I just think it's a sad end to a road for a nation with a distinctly Christian heritage to take. I will not debate our heritage with you, I know I am right. And if you wish to have proof, you may investigate the preamble or earliest clauses to every single state constitution

non-believers That say i am stupid guess what . I am secure in my intellect and my sanity. I'm old enough to recall a much nicer America and I bleed for our children. I'm sorry you are just too "sane" to give a rip about our kids and their futures.

And I think my rights as a Christian came before any rights anyone had to have sex with someone of the same sex in the US, and for you to call me a bigot makes YOU a bigot. lol

and those that say that sepration of church and state i sin the the constitution why don't you FIND "Separation of Church and State in the US Consitution." lol YOU CANNOT. Of course, you refer to the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment, but you never bother to refer to the freedom to practice religion in that same amendment, or the fact that this is a Christian nation. lol I am an attorney,

2016 FSTDT Awards

Nominees and Candidates

The Nominations #announcement fstdt.com

Here are the candidates and nominaitons for the 2016 FSTDT Awards!

Thanks to everyone who made nominations! Also special thanks to my husband and Pharaoh Bastethotep for their help doing tl;dr snippets of the quotes

When casting your votes on quotes — for either a Fundie of the Year candidate or for a Quote of the Year nomination — remember that the snippets provided here are intended to be a convenience giving you a general gist of what the quotes are about. If you decide to vote for a particular quote, then you should first click its quote-number link and read the original quote in its entirety to make sure you don't have any second thoughts. It is also a wise idea to consider your second pick as well and read its full quote too before casting your final vote: if you change your mind after voting, your vote will not get to change with it. All votes are final with the exception of typos or similar errors. If you find yourself equally torn between two or more candidates, then you should definitely always read their full quotes before deciding!

You don't have to cast a vote on everything up for vote. You may abstain from as many or as few things as you like, but remember that you lose your abstained vote; you cannot use it as an "extra" vote somewhere else.

—

[font=sans-serif]Religious fundie of the year[/font]

• David J Stewart – #122928: Leviticus selectivity, shellfish ok, gehs bad
• Sassy – #122088: "I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up? Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven? If Space is above the clouds where is heaven? You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven"
• cmdrjones – #121628: "Atheists have constitutional rights by being citizens, but by denying the existence of a creator no one with two brain cells to run together would trust that they would respect anyone else's rights. So, they simply should never be afforded political power... What with their miserable track record and so on. "
• kingjameswriter1965 – #122435: "Now they claim they can use this hadron collider to bring forth the Devil and all his fallen ones."
• Mack Major – #118255: "People who come from a voodoo or an old southern hoodoo background know about spirit husbands. These are actual spirit entities that become attached to a woman through ungodly sexual and spiritual activity."
• Catholic Nationalist – #117704: "Catholicism is objectively the coolest religion. So cool in fact that the word cool is not nearly sufficient. What other religion allows you to literally eat God every day?"
_

[font=sans-serif]Right-wing fundie of the year[/font]

• Abolish Abortion Florida – #121877: "The political committee Abolish Abortion Florida (AAFL) has launched a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution to punish abortion as capital murder."
• Donald Trump – #122148: [Donald's twitter tirades are, mercifully, already auto-summarized by Twitter's 144-character limit, but they are too numerous to list; we'll do a short vote on picking one if he wins. –shy]
• Jim (Jim's Blog) – #120562: "We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves."
• Roosh Valizadeh – #120431: "Punish Trump haters with your cock: Besides the punitive element of withholding your cock from a Trump hater, we can also look at it from a time-saving perspective. If you are masculine, you simply won’t connect naturally with a feminist who hates Trump."
• Students Against a Democratic Society – #116770: "We’ve done slavery (Issue 3), we’ve done lynching (Issue 11) – well, we haven’t done them, but you know what I mean."
• The Last Trump – #118465: "[Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Virginia Transboy Who Sued School District to Use Men’s Restroom] THIS, is one of the biggest issues of our time!? Sort of reminds you of Nero fiddling while Rome burned doesn't it?"
• Vox Day – #121392: "TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests."
_

[font=sans-serif]Left-wing fundie of the year[/font]

• nikkipotnik420 – #120947: "You defend trans 'women' because its just another way for men to force women to coddle males and put them before our own needs and its transparant as fuck."
• Mark Carey, et al. – #117469: "Feminist glaciology is rooted in, and combines, both feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies to meaningfully shift present-day glacier and ice sciences."
• Johan Nygren – #118613: "Diagnoses are the contemporary equivalent of racial biology. [...] It’s ADHD and bipolarity and schizophrenia and autism was used to legitimize wage slavery"
• University of Capetown Students – #122204: "They believe that [...] you are able to send lightning to strike someone. So, can you explain that scientifically" [Response: "It's not true."] "What you're trying to do is collapse the space and make it antagonizing, which we will not allow. This is a progressive space for people to say their opinions."
• National Union of Students – #118198: "The National Union of Students’ LGBT Campaign has passed a motion calling for the abolition of representatives for gay men – because they 'don’t face oppression' in the LGBT community."
• Aysegul Gurbuz (Labour Party Moonbat) – #118102: "If it wasn't for my man Hitler these Jews would've wiped Palestine years ago. Sorry but it's a fact. [...] Not hating on Jews btw"
• Bailey – #117389: "It’s not irresponsible behavior to not tell someone you have hiv [...] It’s not irresponsible to have sex with somebody without telling them."
_

[font=sans-serif]Conspiracy theorist of the year[/font]

• GLP Anonymous Cowards – #122457: "DO NOT GIVE IN AND MASTURBATE BEFORE THE ELECTION. It will lower your core energy to the lower chakra levels where that the demonic scum need the population to reside in for their ritual magick to be effective."
• Nicolas Maduro – #123066: "He added that the situation is an attack by Colombian criminal groups and Venezuela's MUD opposition coalition "combined with international mafias via an NGO hired by the US Treasury." [...]The NGOs, according to the official, hire criminal organizations to move 100-bolivar bills, the largest bill in circulation now, to Colombia and from there to other countries, such as Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Germany and the Czech Republic, where the money is stored in large warehouses."
• Alex Jones – #118606: "I’m pro-human so I say, black people, especially, stop killing your kids and get them in church, whatever, take them away from Beyoncé, who wants to eat their brain with the CIA, literally."
_

[font=sans-serif]Sexist of the year[/font]

• nikkipotnik420 – #120947: "You defend trans 'women' because its just another way for men to force women to coddle males and put them before our own needs and its transparant as fuck."
• sexselector – #101724: "Pain should never be considered a part of life. Being in pain is not a good evolutionary strategy. [...] Men’s choices in the patriarchy *created* women’s pain."
• Matt Forney – #117165: "It’s time to stop beating around the bush: feminists want to be raped."
• Saint Elliot – #122565: "The pussy of females can be used even 2 days after their death. Their sexual resources get wasted with the current system and people often die because there aren't enough organ donors."
• David J Stewart – #120671: "If your husband wants his cereal in a certain bowl or wants you to wear a certain dress in public... JUST DO IT! If your husband wants you to rinse his glass for 15 seconds or asks you to roll his socks into a ball... JUST DO IT! If your husband wants more grain in his meals... JUST DO IT! If your husband doesn't like the smell of certain foods when you cook them... then DON'T DO IT! If your husband wants you to put the twist back onto the loaf of bread... then JUST DO IT! If your husband wants the toilet seat up at all times... then JUST DO IT! It may not seem fair to you but it is YOUR JOB ladies to HELP your husband."
• Vox Day – #117889: "If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know."
• Navigator – #123052: "Rape should be legal. It is this simple. A woman is a sexual object."
_

[font=sans-serif]Racist of the year[/font]

• James Laffrey – #116723: "The jews say Adolf Hitler ordered a 'Final Solution' of extermination of the jews. But Hitler, a humanitarian, a vegetarian, an artist, did no such thing — although, again, he should have."
• Wotans Krieger – #117230: "In the Reich that is to come these bastardised noble familes will have no place of honour for they are enfeebled distortions of the once racially pure Germanic aristocracy. Thus we must begin again the restoration of the caste system. Building on the vision of the Rigsthula I propose that these reconstituted castes [...] The Rigsthula makes it clear that this caste was an alien one. The very presence of the Thrall in our lands represents a very real threat to our biological survival as a racial community. Some of these Thralls may outwardly appear to be people of our own blood but the obese, the sexual degenerate, the drug addict, the alcoholic and the career criminal should be regarded as part of this slave under class and the necessary corrective measures undertaken. They are the Untermenschen much prized by the liberal elite."
• Janet Bloomfield – #117222: "Don't ban [the burka]. Use it to pick the next one to deport. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #WhyWomenShouldNotVote"
• Vox Day – #121315: "As it happens, the ruination of the United States is the result of the 'contributions' of two groups of immigrants, Irish and Jewish."
_

[font=sans-serif]Single-issue wonk of the year[/font]

David J Stewart: Creepy-ass Taylor Swift fixation
• #123073: "This perverted screenshot of Miss Swift to the right only appears in this 3:54 minute video for ONE SECOND TOTAL!!!"

Mack Major: Witchcraft and the Occult
• #122812: "The biblical word for medicine in the New Testament is pharmakeia: and it means SORCERY. In other words witchcraft, occult power, black magic and potions. Why would Jesus Christ expect His followers to rely on the power of witchcraft or black magic to save them???"

Navaros: God's Holy Righteous Penis
• #121503: "You will have to face HIM in ALL of HIS MALE PATRIARCH KING FATHER HOLY RIGHTEOUS PENIS-OWNING GLORY!"

Ann Barnhardt: Made-up fundie disease "Diabolical Narcissism"
• #122361: "Diabolical Narcissism is of the most severe variety, what we refer to as “psychopathy”, and thus she [Hillary Clinton] is an Alpha Narcissist, very much desirous of personal power, all the way up to the national and even global level."

WorldGoneCrazy - Anti-abortion crusader
• #120192: "All I know is that if fetuses could defend themselves with a gun, there would be no abortions."

Vox Day - Evolution denialism
• #120508: [Eric Hovind is refuted by a sixth grader] "t is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor. [...] Frankly, I'd be surprised and a little disappointed if I didn't have the kid in tears and questioning his faith in science within minutes after asking such a pair of stupid questions [...] Destroy the interlocutor."
_

[font=sans-serif]Vulture of the year[/font]

• #122859: Mack Major – "Someone may ask 'Why are you using this tragedy to promote your ebook?' The simple answer is because it saves lives! Hate to say I told you so, but had those who were partying read my ebook, they most likely would not have been there in the first place [at the Oakland warehouse fire]"
• #119803: crunchymama – "My heart is heavy over every aspect of this. that some of those killed were believers[...] that everyone involved turn to Jesus, that our 2nd Amendment rights aren't taken away"
_

[font=sans-serif]Batshit-insane person of the year[/font]

• usachinanukewar, #117354: "This divine pneumonia time bomb in my lungs implanted by Jesus years ago is the best ever gift I’ve received from Jesus."
• ComeOnPeople, #122200: "I know longer believe what the government told me about the world. To me they have taken the biblical account and turned it upside down. Making everything revolve around the sun, which is contrary to what the bible says and what scientists and historical artifacts claimed up until nasa."
• Vox Day, #119003: "War destroyed the body, but it did not destroy the spirit and the soul in the way peace and prosperity have."
• Joe Eigo, #116613: "His sword cuts through what NEEDS to be TRANSMUTED by Lord Zadkiel of The Violet Ray which is the Ray OF TRANSMUTATION AND MERCY AND ALCHEMY. Lord Michael comes along FIRST and TRANSFORMS IT (IN EASIER TERMS ,CHOPS IT ALL UP (NOT RIGHT TERM) AND LORD ZADKIEL LAUGHED WHEN HE SAID LORD MICHAEL LEAVES HIM THE "MESS TO CLEAN UP WITH THE SWORD OF VIOLET FLAME HE WIELDS OF TRANSMUTATION.WE ARE IN THE VIOLET RAY AGE RIGHT NOW. THE AQUARIAN ONE. IT'S THE 7TH RAY."
• Saint Elliot, #123058: "Heck, I even considered having sex with a dog cadaver that died outside my window but sadly the janitor threw it away before I could go out and get it at night."
_

[font=sans-serif]Funniest quote of the year[/font]

• #106783: "We will use your leaning tower of pizza to throw off homosexual"
• #120864: "Of course, [FSTDT commenters] are all socks of Valri, so the logistics are not too difficult. :-)"
_

[font=sans-serif]Nightmare fuel quote of the year[/font]

• #119250 (Ryon Travis sov-cit house of horrors)
• #120032: "Recent discourse on child pornography falsely portrays it, like child sex in general, as a disaster for the child. [...] Yet there are many children seen in child pornography whose words, facial expressions, body language, and orgasms show that they thoroughly enjoy the sexual activity, sometimes enjoying it immensely."
_

[font=sans-serif]One-liner of the year[/font]

• #122830: "You don't know how much you should fear Jesus"
• #119953: "If I could be in the bedroom of every pro-choicer's when they have sex just to talk to them, I would. I could make them see how beautiful life actually is."
• #121425: "Beware the beast Hildabeast Clinton and her Vagenda of Manocide"
_

[font=sans-serif]WTF?! quote of the year[/font]

• #122633: "[STEM] Syllabi promote the positivist view of knowledge by suggesting that there are correct conclusions that can be drawn with the right tools [...] the syllabi reinforce the larger male dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use to make correct decisions."
• #123064: "[Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop] explained that his first name represents 'the explosion of awareness of the interconnectedness of the infinite love in the universe.' Doo-doo 'is the struggle of our daily lives with that awareness, that with love comes chaos,' and Zopittybop-bop-bop 'is the outcome of that struggle, which is often ironic, especially because all life ends in death.'"
• #120864: "Of course, [FSTDT commenters] are all socks of Valri, so the logistics are not too difficult. :-)"
_

[font=sans-serif]Incel quote of the year[/font]

• #122565: "The pussy of females can be used even 2 days after their death. Their sexual resources get wasted with the current system and people often die because there aren't enough organ donors."
• #121548 "Modern Western women hate respect. They hate consent. They love bloody beatings. They love death. [...] You are the ones who don't see what's wrong."
• #123058: "Heck, I even considered having sex with a dog cadaver that died outside my window but sadly the janitor threw it away before I could go out and get it at night."

[font=sans-serif]Board of the year[/font]

• /r/IncelHeaven
• Return of Kings
_

[font=sans-serif]Commenter of the year (winner!)[/font]

• Hasan Prishtina
_

[font=sans-serif]Troll of the year[/font]

• TimeToTurn
• Anonymous "enlightened seer" (see here for where the madness begins — one can only hope it's a Poe)
_

[font=sans-serif]Conspiracy theory of the year[/font]

• PizzaGate
• The Mandela Effect

David #fundie thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com

Polygamy is not promoted or condoned by the OT. There was nothing in the law about taking more than one wife or concubines. If fact, every case of polygamy in the OT led to negative consequences. Genesis 1 and 2 sets God’s standard for marriage. The rest of the Bible must be viewed in context of that. Polygamy in Genesis is always portrayed negatively, from Lamech (a representative of the evil of Cain’s descendents) onward.

Also, you need to understand the genre of literature the Bible was written in. The examples of polygamy are in the historical books. The historical books are presented as history. They’re recorded not because they’re promoting any characters as heroes we should emulate, but because that’s what happened. The only hero of the OT is God. Everyone else is presented as a messed up person, whom God used anyway. It’s history, not Aesop’s Fables. They’re not books of morality that provide us examples to follow. They’re the story of God’s covenant with Israel.

If the OT really promoted polygamy, why then did it disappear after the exile? Remember that after the exile, Israel stopped commonly practicing the sins for which God exiled them in the first place. Among those sins, apparently was polygamy. If the OT really promoted polygamy, why is it that Orthodox Jews today don’t practice it? If fact, they look down on it. To go further, it is actually in part, Israel’s influence on Western culture that causes us to look down on polygamy today.

David Barton #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Now discrimination today is always a bad word a hundred percent of the time, but it simply means making a choice between or making a difference between. And discrimination means I am going to discriminate and say I can tell a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian and therefore I only want Christians working on my church staff. I can tell the difference between someone who says they're homosexual and someone who says they're straight. A secular organization has a tough time discriminating, but a church needs to have the right to discriminate.

This is a biblical issue because Jesus has an entire parable in Matthew 20: 1-15 where he talks about a landowner who had a vineyard who went out to hire folks to work in his vineyard. And as he hired them he make a contract with them that said you'll work for this much or whatever and throughout the day he hired people and he made individual contracts with them and at the end of the day when he is paying them all off, the guy who got hired first said "wait a minute, that's not fair" and [the landowner] said "time out, we had a contract, didn't we? You agreed to work for a certain wage ... you should have gone down the street and found somebody else to work for that would have paid you different, but you agreed to work for that wage." And Jesus makes a great statement in Matthew 20: 15 where he says "don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?"

Now that's a great statement and that's a statement Jesus teaches to show the inviolability of contracts between employers and employees. That's why the government is not supposed to get involved in this stuff anyway. Government shouldn't be involved in employment contracts period.

derLinder #fundie rr-bb.com

Those currently in the political sphere, the media sphere, the 'hollywood' sphere, are currently the ones with the means and voice to name the tune.

Their current top ten 'tunes' are:

1. Abortion is ok
2. Gay marriage is ok - Both Genders: Living together without benefit of marriage is ok
3. Laws can be cherry picked on which ones to follow, i.e. federal and state illegal immigration laws are NOT to be followed or else you are a racist bigot naughty pants and no soup for you!
4. Using drugs is sort of ok, as long as it's 'only' marijuana or other 'recreational drugs'
5. Judging is bad
6. Being rich and successful is bad (there's currently 41 billionaires that have accepted a challenge to give 1/2 of their wealth away to charity! I need to give them my digits! LOL!) No owning gold is allowed either!
7. Competition is frowned upon. Everyone gets a trophy. Self-esteem at all costs.
8. Grading papers or putting grades on report cards is frowned upon
9. Christian and Jewish religions are 'hateful'. Islam/moslem/other Eastern religions are A-OK and not to be judged for any of their tenets or beliefs, no matter what, including 'honor killings', wife beating, etc.
10. Owning any kind of firearm, even your grandaddy's air pump bibi gun, is reason enough to be 'kicked off the island'.

No one wants to be kicked off the island, laughed at, banished, looked down upon, or ignored. so following the above 'rules' allows one admittance to a plethora of 'different clubs'.

Michael Snyder #fundie charismanews.com

What in the world is happening to America? Recently, I was asked to describe what we are watching happen to our nation. After thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that it is almost as if a "cloud of insanity" has descended upon the United States and much of the rest of the Western world.

From our top leaders on down, people are engaged in incredibly self-destructive behavior and are making extremely irrational decisions. Some would describe it as being given over to a depraved mind, and I would have to agree. It is almost as if some sort of severe form of mental illness were rapidly spreading through the air and infecting everyone. Virtually every day I am immersed in news and current events, and it can be difficult to shock me after all this time. But lately, there have been quite a few stories that have stunned even me. The following are a few of those stories:

1. A 27-year-old woman in Maryland is hoping to "normalize naked breasts" by running around in public without any clothing on the upper half of her body. So far, she says that she has not been arrested and no men have tried to touch her inappropriately.

2. It is being reported that "sex roulette parties" are becoming increasingly popular in the Western world. The concept behind these parties is that there is someone in attendance who is secretly HIV positive, and everyone engages in unprotected sex with others in the room without knowing who that particular individual is.

3. The obsession with body art in the Western world is officially getting out of control. A couple of the hottest trends right now among those that are into "body modification" are to tattoo your eyeballs and split your tongue.

4. A Catholic archbishop from St. Louis recently testified in court that he "wasn't sure whether he knew it was illegal for priests to have sex with children."

5. All over the nation, colleges and universities are holding workshops and events to promote "polyamory" as "an acceptable lifestyle choice" to our young people. According to Wikipedia, polyamory is "the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

6. With each passing year, the level of debt slavery in this country gets even worse. The average American household with debt now owes approximately $131,000 and is paying out about $6,000 a year in interest.

7. A dangerous form of synthetic marijuana is popping up in many American cities these days, and it sends many of the users into zombie-like states.

Investigators in Clearwater described a scene out of The Walking Dead; people slumped over in such a stupefied state they could hardly move or speak. It was a patrol becoming too routine in Crest Lake Park as officers respond to a growing number of Spice, or synthetic marijuana, overdose calls.

Police say dozens of calls have come in for people who have had to be rushed to the hospital because of suspected Spice use. Tampa medical and law enforcement professionals warned last week about a dangerous uptick in overdoses possibly linked to a bad batch of the drug. Clearwater investigators aren't ruling out a connection to the Tampa cases.

8. According to some progressives, identifying yourself as an "American" is now considered to be a "microaggression" and should be avoided because it might offend minority groups.

9. Even though we can see what socialism has done to Venezuela, North Korea and dozens of other failed regimes throughout history, young Americans are embracing it with gusto. In fact, one survey recently found that a majority of American young adults under the age of 30 say that they completely reject capitalism.

10. The Obama administration has just issued new "guidelines" that require public schools all across America "to allow transgender students to use the restroom and locker rooms that correspond to their chosen gender." So 55 years after President John F. Kennedy declared that we would put men on the moon, Barack Obama is declaring that we will put men somewhere else where they have never been before.

11. One anonymous member of Congress identified only as "Congressman X" is making waves by putting out a new book that explains what really goes on behind the scenes in Washington. The New York Post has published some new quotes from this book, and a couple of them are quite stunning.

Congress is too polarized and partisan to get anything done, by the congressman's account.

"There seems to be a complete disintegration of confidence in government. A fear that government is its own special interest," he says.

"America's on an irreversible decline and no one in Washington seems to care ... ."

When even members of the U.S. Congress start admitting that our nation is in "an irreversible decline," you know that the party is just about over.

12. When you look up the term "corrupt politician" in the dictionary, photographs of Bill and Hillary Clinton should be right there. Bill has a history of well-documented sexual escapades that goes back for decades, and both of them should be serving long prison sentences for a shocking series of horrible crimes that goes all the way back to the 1970s. But the American people are willingly ignoring all of this, and if the election were to be held today, it is almost certain that Hillary Clinton would be the next president of the United States.

Ultimately, we get the leaders we deserve, and I am not just talking about the White House.

If you look at Congress today, they very much reflect who we are as a nation, and it isn't a pretty picture.

One of the big reasons why there is so much craziness in America today is because there is no longer a shared set of values or morals that unites us. You would like to think that we should all be able to at least agree on the U.S. Constitution, but in law school I learned that courts routinely ignore the Constitution whenever it suits them. In fact, we might as well not even have a Constitution anymore because hardly anyone in the legal community takes it seriously these days.

Without any foundation to stand on, it is inevitable that our nation will crumble. The widespread insanity that we are witnessing is simply the acceleration of a process of decay that has been in motion for decades.

I would like to think that we could turn things around, but at this point, I am not very optimistic.

What about you?

Mike King #conspiracy realhistorychannel.org

This sad tale of a hospital assault over "social distancing" ™ is not the first verbal or physical altercation we've heard about, nor will it be the last. But it may be the first fatality directly caused by a confrontation related to this mass madness among masked morons. And now, we learn that "social distancing"™ can be destructive or even deadly in another manner -- indirect ways we hadn't considered before.

Just finished watching a compelling video interview of a Dr. Knut Wittkowski that one of "youse guys" sent me -- as well as doing some follow-up research on the subject of what virologists refer to as "herd immunity." Now, a few hours of research into a field "outside of my lane" may not an expert make -- but the lessons learned ring so true, so logical, so common sense-ish and so powerful that any layman should be convinced by the good doctor.

Of course, we here at Real HistoryChannel / ANYT have never been easily impressed by titles and positions; but for the benefit of any normies coming across this article, we thought we should say a word or two about his "credentials™." Dr. Wittkowski previously headed The Rockefeller University's Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design for 20 years (No, that doesn't mean he works for Rockefeller!) -- and he has held high muckety-muck science positions in his native Germany. The complete 42-minute interview is posted at bottom of page. What follows here is a basic summary of the scientific points which inspired us to make Dr. Witkowski known to our readers.

In a nutshell. Dr. Witkowski -- who agrees that we should take precautions around sick and elderly people during flu season -- argues

Various viruses come and go each year -- disappearing only after about 80% of the population self-inoculates by actually catching the virus. This is know as "herd immunity."
Most carriers will never have disease symptoms and never even know they had "the bug"
The policy of "social distancing"™ prevents the necessary and desirable rapid spread of the virus / herd immunity.
Children especially need to be in school spreading the virus among themselves as it is generally harmless for those with healthy immune systems
"Flattening the curve"™ represents a prolonging of the virus life cycle. A rapid spike followed by a rapid plunge is preferable
Going OUTSIDE -- not "sheltering in place"™ prevents / kills respiratory viruses. Having so many people locked in their homes will actually keep the virus alive.
The related policies of "social distancing"™ and "sheltering in place"™ could lead to a second wave of infection when we do go back to work and school because the nature-mandated herd immunity was never achieved. Wittkowski cites his kidnapped clothes at the dry cleaners as a hypothetical example of what might happen when the lock-down ends. He argues that it is theoretically possible that he'll bring CV from the clothes into his home, weeks from now -- when it ought to have died through its natural course weeks ago.
The testing of asymptotic people is a waste of time and money.
Self-isolation and economic losses will contribute to higher rates of depression, weight gain and poorer general health
The revised death projections are in line with deaths related to the annual flu season
Corona-related deaths in countries that did not impose "social distancing"™ policies or school closings are not any higher than normal flu-related death rate
Had it not been for media hype, no one would have noticed anything different this year
Government-funded "scientists" ought to be viewed with suspicion

How Satanically ironic! Bill Gates and his evil underlings Fauci & Birx insist that we vaccinate the world -- at a hefty profit for the Globalist Mafia. But were it not for "social distancing,"™ we could have essentially self-vaccinated naturally by now -- for free and without artificial side-effects!

Not surprisingly, as the truth of Witkowski's observations is starting to gain some attention, the usual suspects have begun to spew their usual venom at "Coronavirus Truthers." The snide attacks on the concept of "herd immunity" have actually been around for a while -- except, of course, if the herd immunity is to be achieved by vaccination. Then it's desirable.


The Bulwark: Knut Wittkowski: The Coronavirus Truthers’ Newest “Expert”
Financial Times (UK): The Scientific Case Against Herd Immunity
Business Insider: Infectious Disease Expert: Herd Immunity Will Not Work Against CV
Science Alert: Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From COVID-19
Global Health Now (Bill Gates-funded): The Myth About Herd Immunity

Sadly, one form of herd immunity that has already been achieved is the immunity to the healthy viruses of truth and logic. Masked morons fill the supermarkets -- some of which have been turned into one-way aisles for purposes of "social distancing"™ -- with colored tape indicating the direction of traffic for each aisle. Woe to the non-observant shopper who might go down a one-way and pass by some deranged, wrapped-up Suzy Soccer Mummy in the soda & snacks aisle! Better to get flagged, while high on crack, doing 100 mph in a school zone than that!

Millions of elderly remain locked-up in mind numbing / soul-crushing solitary confinement in the nation's nursing homes, hospitals and rehab centers. Millions of children and High Schoolers have had their baseball seasons taken away from them, and trained to be obedient slaves.

Gates and Sulzberger and Kissinger and Fauci and Birx and the whole bloody NWO crime syndicate have got to pay dearly for this mess. Anything less than televised executions -- savage beatings with tire irons would be ideal -- would be an injustice. Bastards!

Boobus Americanus 1: I read a book review in The New York Times today about a woman in a hospital who was attacked and killed by another patient because she wasn't social distancing.
Boobus Americanus 2: That's terrible. This deadly global pandemic has got everyone in fear of death.

*

St. Sugar: Sspeak for yoursself, Boobuss! I've already passed.
Editor: But your feisty spirit carries on in eternity at the publication which we founded together.

Veronica Chapman #conspiracy fmotl.com

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)