Similar posts

Quacks and antivaxxers #fundie sciencebasedmedicine.org

Kennedy, Fisher and Bigtree: a triple dose of anti-vaccine injected into upcoming chiropractic conference
Even as the flu rages, chiropractors will be stoking their anti-vaccination ideology at a March conference with speeches from anti-vaxx Illuminati Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Barbara Loe Fisher and Del Bigtree.

Even as the flu season, with its consequent hospitalizations and deaths, rages on, chiropractors are outdoing themselves in promoting anti-vaccine ideology at this year’s “Freedom for Family Wellness 2018 Summit Washington, D.C.” (but actually in Reston, VA), scheduled for March. While in previous years so-called “chiropractic pediatrics” conferences have invited anti-vaccine hucksters like the disgraced and defrocked former British physician Andrew Wakefield and Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine [Mis]Information Center, this year will feature not only Fisher, but also “Ranting Robert” F. Kennedy, Jr., fresh from his disappointment in not being named head of a proposed, but never realized, vaccine safety commission by fellow anti-vaxxer, President Trump, and Del Bigtree, producer of the widely discredited “documentary,” VAXXED. Attendees will get 24 hours of chiropractic continuing education credit in 37 states (so far), as well as D.C. and British Columbia.

The Summit is hosted by the International Chiropractic Pediatrics Association (ICPA), which promotes straight subluxation-based chiropractic treatment for pregnant women, infants and children. Well, actually, for anyone with a pulse, but that’s who they concentrate on. Its 2014 conference headliners were Fisher and Wakefield.

“Chiropractic pediatrics”

Before we get to the upcoming conference, let’s review the field of “chiropractic pediatrics,” its affinity for pseudoscience and hostility to vaccination. The ICPA is just one of three chiropractic pediatric groups, all of which support anti-vaccination ideology and promote chiropractic diagnosis and treatment of infants and children for both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions, including:

otitis media, asthma, allergies, infantile colic, . . . enuresis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, myasthenia gravis, ADHD, and Tourette syndrome. For the most part, treatment for all of these conditions is based upon detection and correction of vertebral subluxations, . . . [even though] there is no scientific basis for the contention of chiropractors that subluxation correction will restore or maintain health or that such subluxations even exist.

In addition, pediatric chiropractors promote “wellness care” for children, advising that children should visit a chiropractor 6 to 12 times a year to be checked for phantom subluxations.

Another pediatric chiropractic group, the International Chiropractic Association’s (ICA) Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, featured Wakefield at its 2016 conference, as well as a showing of VAXXED. In 2017, the ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics conference participants were shown portions of the film Vaccines Revealed, essentially a parade of well-known and thoroughly debunked anti-vaccinationists, in some cases being interviewed by other anti-vaccinationists, produced by someone whose past work has promoted anti-vaccination views, who also spoke at the conference.

Chiropractic education in pediatrics consists of one 22-hour pre-clinical course in “pediatric topics” and chiropractors can graduate without ever having seen an actual pediatric patient in clinical training, which chiropractors themselves admit is inadequate. The ICA’s post-graduate courses (they don’t do residencies) which allow one to call oneself a “Diplomate” in chiropractic pediatrics, consist of less than 400 hours of classroom training in a series of weekend courses, sometimes in airport hotel conference rooms, with no hospital training and no contact with diseased or injured children. The ICA’s recommended books on vaccination contain plenty of anti-vaccination propaganda.

The third chiropractic pediatrics group, the American Chiropractic Association’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics promotes “the acceptance and advancement of pediatric chiropractic care.” Although it does not have its own training program, four out of five Council Board members are ICA “diplomates” in pediatric chiropractic, one Board member describing the program as a “3-year post-graduate course of study,” conveniently leaving out the part about the weekend courses and lack of clinical training.

The ICPA offers its own certification (200 hours) and diplomate programs (an additional 200 hours), under the auspices of the Academy of Chiropractic Pediatric Practice and is “endorsed and certified” by an organization called the Academy of Chiropractic Family Practice. Like the ICA, the ICPA teaches its courses in hotel conference rooms.

The ICPA also sponsors a certification in the Webster Technique, which is based on the biologically implausible and unproven notion that a chiropractic “adjustment” will “reduce the effects of sacral subluxation/SI joint dysfunction” facilitating “neuro-biomechanical function of the pelvis,” supposedly leading to an easier birth, even to the point of turning a breech baby (all the while denying that this is what they are claiming).

Chiropractic anti-vaccination ideology is not limited to chiropractic pediatrics. It is long-standing, firmly entrenched in chiropractic philosophy, and well-documented in the medical literature.

Anti-vaccination attitudes still abound within the chiropractic profession. Despite a growing body of evidence about the safety and efficacy of vaccination, many chiropractors do not believe in vaccination, will not recommend it to their patients, and place emphasis on risk rather than benefit.

One study found a correlation between seeing a chiropractor or a naturopath and lack of flu vaccination in pediatric patients. Another study found that children who saw chiropractors were significantly less likely to receive each of three CDC-recommended vaccinations. Yet another found that student anti-vaccination attitudes actually increased in the later years of chiropractic and naturopathic programs. Anti-vaccination attitudes among chiropractors have been documented by the mainstream media as well (also here and here).

It is thus that Kennedy, Fisher, and Bigtree find their ideal audience: a group preconditioned to uncritically accept their anti-vaccination message, impervious to science and evidence, yet perfectly positioned to spread their misinformation to patients and parents via their unlimited license to diagnose and treat any person of any age with virtually any disease or condition, thanks to state chiropractic licensing laws, aided by a closed loop, chiropractor-controlled system of education and regulation.

The “Summit”

Long-time anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who will be delivering the keynote at one evening session of the “Summit,” is no stranger to regular SBM readers. His crackpot ideas about vaccines, lies and conspiracy mongering have been the subject of numerous SBM posts. Kennedy continues to flog the debunked connection between thimerosal and brain disorders, including autism, long after thimerosal was, as a precaution, removed from pediatric vaccines and remains a trace ingredient only in some flu vaccines. Assisted by another person honored with an SBM post this very week, Mark Hyman, MD, he wrote a book promoting his discredited ideas. Our good friend Orac has extensively covered Kennedy as well. Among Kennedy’s anti-vaxx escapades:

* His article “Deadly Immunity,” an “anti-vax hit piece,” was riddled with so many errors that it was ultimately pulled from Salon’s archive.
* Calling CDC officials “criminals” because they area “poisoning kids” in an interview with fellow anti-vaccine crank Boyd Haley.
* Saying he’d like to see pediatric infectious disease physician and co-inventor of a childhood vaccine that saves thousands of lives, Paul Offit, MD, behind bars.
* Analogizing the CDC whistleblower manufactroversy to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment on black men, an analogy he dredged up again in describing a California bill (which has since become law) tightening vaccine exemption requirements, all the while cozying up to the racist and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam.

Well, you get the idea. But in case you don’t, Laura Helmeth nicely summarized Kennedy in Slate:

The short version of the vaccine conspiracy theory (if you are stuck on the phone with RFK Jr., you will be subjected to the long version) is that a vaccine preservative called thimerosal causes autism when injected into children. Government epidemiologists and other scientists, conspiring with the vaccine industry, have covered up data and lied about vaccine ingredients to hide this fact. Journalists are dupes of this powerful cabal that is intentionally poisoning children.

You’ve met Barbara Loe Fisher here on SBM too. In the heyday of the media’s penchant for reporting “both sides” of the vaccination manufactroversy, Fisher was the go-to gal for reliable fear-mongering about vaccines. She was, after all, a founder of the NVIC (a sponsor of the “Summit”), a source of vaccine “information” that claims to be neither for nor against vaccination, only for “safe” vaccinations and informed consent. Fisher’s talk is titled “Your Right to be Informed, Your Freedom to Choose.” By continuously moving the goalposts, the NVIC ensures that vaccination is never safe and that there is always a fresh supply of misinformation with which to scare parents from choosing vaccination for their child by exercising their (not the child’s) freedom to exempt the child from school vaccination requirements by claiming their (again, not the child’s) religious or philosophical opposition.

Fisher remains unrepentant after being excoriated by investigative journalist Seth Mnookin in his excellent book The Panic Virus (2011). Here’s how Mnookin described Fisher’s talk at a 2009 Autism One conference:

Barbara Loe Fisher, the grande dame of the American anti-vaccine movement, explained how vaccines are a “de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice” and said that doctors who administer vaccines are the moral equivalent of “the doctors at Nuremberg.” (That parallel, she said, had been pointed out to her by Andrew Wakefield . . .)

Finally, Del Bigtree will speak on “Finding our Freedom,” freedom apparently being a code word at the “Freedom for Family Wellness 2018 Summit” for “refusing vaccination based on bad science and debunked conspiracies.” Bigtree was recruited by Andrew Wakefield to make the “documentary” VAXXED, a film version of the anti-vaccination movement’s talking points, delivered by an all-star team of dedicated anti-vaccinationists. He then shamelessly fed on the African-American community’s understandable mistrust of medicine to promote it. Fortunately, the movie seems to have impressed no one outside of the anti-vaxx echo chamber. It was widely panned as propaganda, “fraudulent,” presenting facts out of context, “closer to a horror film than a documentary,” “paranoid,” and a “desperate attempt to hoodwink the public for no greater purpose than making money.”

As if that weren’t enough propaganda, Andrea Marconi, a chiropractor and the NVIC’s Director of Professional Resources, and Theresa Wrangham, the NVIC’s Executive Director, are giving a talk on “Efffective Vaccine Informed Consent Advocacy.” Marconi’s NVIC bio makes it clear that pediatric chiropractors are expected to be advocates for vaccine refusal:

she has the honor of working with the Chiropractic profession as well as other groups to educate and support doctors who are speaking with their patients and communities about protecting the legal right to exercise religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions to go to school, be employed and otherwise participate in society.

And chiropractors are stepping up to the plate, as a recent CBC investigation revealed, discouraging vaccination as well as other evidence-based care.

Apparently, one of the “other groups” chiropractors are working with are midwives, with whom they are promoting “collaboration” as the ideal pregnancy-perinatal team. While the science-based training of Certified Nurse Midwives might make them resistant to chiropractic pediatrics and its attendant anti-vaccination ideology, direct-entry midwives and naturopath-midwives, who lack medical training and come equipped with their own anti-vaccination proclivities, will be a softer target.

So, besides “wellness” through chiropractic “adjustments,” what do pediatric chiropractors recommend to ward off vaccine-preventable diseases? Another speaker provides a clue: Cilla Whatcott, a homeopath who holds a Ph.D. from the Kingdom College of Natural Health, will be giving a talk on “Real Immunity and Homeoprophylaxis.” According to Whatcott’s website:

The goal of [homeoprophylaxis] is to introduce into the human system safe, homeopathic versions of particular diseases in order to naturally stimulate the immune system. As a result, susceptibility to targeted diseases can be reduced. . . protecting your children from infectious contagious disease.

This is dangerous nonsense, as explained by SBM’s own infectious disease expert, Mark Crislip, MD. Whatcott is disciple of Issac Golden, an Australian homeopath whose ideas are rejected not only by responsible medical authorities but other homeopaths as well.

It is sadly ironic that, even as state health departments and the federal Centers for Disease Control fight the worst flu season in a decade, it is the state and federal governments who create the conditions for this perfect storm of dangerous pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory crankery that will discourage people from getting vaccinated. State licensing laws and chiropractic self-regulation (remember, 24 hours of CE credit!) along with federal Department of Education approval of chiropractic school self-accreditation, allow poorly educated and trained health care practitioners to provide substandard care to a vulnerable population

Lew Rockwell #fundie lewrockwell.com

The power of Labor unions has faded since those dark days, and few people (outside of university economics departments) believe in Marxist exploitation theories anymore, but we are still saddled with anti-work laws that stunt young people’s lives.

Instead of harassing small businesses, I have a better idea. Let’s raid the Department of Labor and toss the slothocracy out on the street. Maybe they can get some real jobs in fast-food restaurants. . . as long as they’re willing to compete with America’s young people newly enfranchised by the repeal of all child-labor laws.

Arthur Gordian #elitist #racist socialmatter.net

A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

Returning to the topic of Indo-European mythology, there are two distinct ways that Indo-European societies organize themselves. The first is by means of caste, which Georges Dumézil defines as an order built on the concept of function. He argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans organized themselves into three groups, the famous trifunctional hypothesis of Priests, Warriors, and Laborers, and that this caste system evolved into the various manifestations we see from India to Ireland. While there were numerous permutations of this system, each changing in some way the specific character of the castes, the same foundational rules applied across the board, namely that society should be divided along the lines of the function men play in the maintenance of order.

The alternative method of organizing society, also indigenous to Indo-European societies, is the class system which dominated the post-Medieval world. The major distinction between class and caste is that class system organizes people by socio-economic status rather than social function. What one does in society does not matter in a class system. What matters is the amount of wealth and status you can accrue from your function. Members of the upper class can be politicians, businessmen, or generals, but these roles are insignificant to the class system. It is certainly true that upper-caste members tend to be wealthier than lower-caste members in traditional economies, but the material differences are incidental to the caste system and central to a class system.

In Dumézil’s Mitra-Varuna and his two volume work on Ancient Roman religion, the author shows the conflict which emerged in the Roman Republic when the class system began to eclipse and replace the ancient religious caste system. Like most European religions, especially among the Germanic peoples, the priestly caste was largely absorbed into the warrior caste and retained only ritualistic significance, which Dumézil traces in the various priesthoods of the Monarchy and Republican period. What distinguished the Romans was the rise of a system where men were divided into socio-economic classes, such as the Senatores, Equites, Proletarii, and so forth. While there were hereditary roots to these classes, after the Republican period they were primarily economic, as the poet Juvenal tells us:

Would you not like to fill up a whole note-book [of satirical writings] at the street crossings when you see a forger borne along upon the necks of six porters, and exposed to view on this side and on that in his almost naked litter, and reminding you of the lounging Maecenas: one who by help of a scrap of paper and a moistened seal has converted himself into a fine and wealthy gentleman? – Satire 1

Juvenal’s complaint should sound familiar to modern ears: unscrupulous foreigners who lacked any respect for the Roman virtues or laws usurped the positions of power, authority, and wealth from the native Roman population. The openness of the Roman system, which transitioned toward the class structure after the Servile Wars in order to permit qualified plebians to serve in high military office, allowed the complete disenfranchisement of the Romans themselves.

…when a guttersnipe of the Nile like Crispinus —-a slave-born denizen of Canopus —-hitches a Tyrian cloak on to his shoulder, whilst on his sweating finger he airs a summer ring of gold, unable to endure the weight of a heavier gem—-it is hard not to write satire. For who can be so tolerant of this monstrous city, who so iron of soul, as to contain himself when the brand-new litter of lawyer Matho comes along, filled with his huge self; after him one who has informed against his noble patron and will soon despoil our pillaged nobility of what remains to them—-one whom Massa dreads, whom Carus propitiates by a bribe, and to whom Thymele was made over by the terrified Latinus; when you are thrust on one side by men who earn legacies by nightly performances, and are raised to heaven by that now royal road to high preferment—-the favours of an aged and wealthy woman? – Satire 1

As hard as it is to tear ourselves away from the masterful writing of Juvenal, let us return to the point; the openness of a class system, which reduces all social order to that of wealth and popularity (to which Juvenal has more to say, but I’ll desist), creates the opportunity for the erosion of social values and cultural goods by removing one of the core limits on superbia, the overweening ambition of the opportunist.

The rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power is bad enough, as history has demonstrated, but the greater danger is that such a society is a magnet for every two-bit con man and grifter across the globe. People with no attachment to the land, culture, or society can use class systems to free-ride on the cultural and social capital of a well-ordered society until even the greatest community is brought down under the overwhelming weight of parasitism. Rome became that magnet, attracting the scum of every corner of the Mediterranean to pull down the greatest civilization before our own. When wealth alone determines social status, anyone willing to violate the norms and unspoken rules governing society can elevate themselves, because when their actions transform society into a cesspit of corruption and despair, they can simply pick up again and move on to the next target. The weight of social disapproval, which ensures a functional society’s consuetudines et usus, the unwritten customs, values, norms, and beliefs which undergird social order and protect against anti-social disruption, does not function on the alien. Cicero declared the fundamental character of a community to be a common language, common “ius[1],” and common weal. There is no common language, “ius,” or weal in the Rome Juvenal is portraying to us, and that is largely due to the Roman class system.

Thus, we return to the notion of caste, in which function and heredity primarily determine one’s social position. I am under no delusion that I am a “secret aristocrat,” as the liberal slur goes. My heredity is pure redneck back over five hundred years. Under a strict hereditarian system, I would most likely be prohibited from receiving enough education to read Juvenal. Nevertheless, the reactionary in me says that my personal situation is irrelevant, and I ask of my reader to keep that in mind themselves as they read the following. If I must be a farmer in order that my people should be free and my children be assured a place, no matter how humble, in their own homeland, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

No functional society is possible without a hereditarian caste system. The arrogance and superbia of Man is such that there must be hard, unbreakable limits on personal ambition, along with strict disincentives to opportunistic parasitism. I am not saying that there cannot be any movement, or that every son of a farmer must be destined to farm forevermore. Even Plato did not suggest this. Every system has some level of flexibility, both ethnic and caste. It is no coincidence that English populations on the borders of the Danegeld, Wales, and Scotland show DNA markers for Nordic and Celtic genotypes. Nor do I deny the various Ciceros and Charles Martels who rose from middling ranks to preserve and protect their homelands. However, the flexibility inherent in any caste system is a weakness in the armor of a nation, and every exception to the rule justifies the waiting masses of alien grifters, who undermine the whole of social order for the material benefit of himself and his tribe.

Hereditarianism is perhaps the most important safeguard to any society because social stability rests on consuetudines et usus, unwritten norms and ethics tied to particular ethnic and cultural groups. It is no coincidence that Ethnic and Ethics arise from the same Greek root. One does not routinely scam one’s neighbors because they are kith and kin; their essential connection to you is the bond and guarantee of equitable relationships. We mourn the day when “a man’s handshake was his bond,” but that handshake wasn’t the true bond. The bond, (in legal terminology, the collateral of a contract) is the reputation one has in the community, which is built upon common heredity. Honor matters because it is the mark of approval from the community that one abides by the unwritten rules which make society spin. The alien neither has honor, nor cares for honor, because he does not care for the community with which he shares no blood.

In any caste system, the alien is either the lowest caste or outside the system altogether. The merchant, who surrenders his identity for a cosmopolitan existence, is also low on the scale, even when he shares blood with the community. This is because a caste system is a fundamental barrier to dyscivic practices and free-rider scenarios, and these two groups have the most to gain from undermining the system and replacing caste with class. When wealth replaces blood, who becomes the highest members of society? It is no coincidence that the word “liberal” was nearly always preceded by “bourgeois” until the 20th century; they are the beneficiaries of the replacement of the medieval caste with the capitalist class system. Likewise, the replacement of caste with class is the only means wherein the alien will be permitted to rise in status over the native-born.

Caste and blood are the only protection that native-born labor have against oppression and loss of self-determination–hence the traditional support of the rural working class for reactionary politics. The upper-castes, the priesthood and aristocracy, are limited in their oppression by those very customs which make society run, but the alien landlord or banker is not so constrained by the cultural limits on power and is free to grind the working classes into dust. When a reactionary says, “neither capitalist nor socialist,” it is a recognition that both are symptoms of the same social breakdown.

The destruction of social order epitomized by the English Whigs and the resultant socialist working-class backlash to an out-of-order bourgeoisie have their roots in the rejection of the role of blood and heredity in determining a social order. Bourgeois rebels against custom and order create socialist rebels by destroying the functional limits on power in society which rested in the hereditary aristocracy.

There is a price to be paid in personal liberty for a caste system, true. I would never be allowed to become a scholar in a society where heredity ruled. The other option, however, is this:

Then up comes a lordly dame who, when her husband wants a drink, mixes toad’s blood with his old Calenian, and improving upon Lucusta herself, teaches her artless neighbours to brave the talk of the town and carry forth to burial the blackened corpses of their husbands. If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and high commands, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. Who can get, sleep for thinking of a money-loving daughter-in-law seduced, of brides that have lost their virtue, or of adulterers not out of their teens? – Satire 1

[1] It can mean law, justice, or Right. In this situation, it probably means all three.

verager #racist #wingnut reddit.com

I went out to a bar the other day. I went in back to have a smoke. A minute later this black guy comes out and talks to me. I was actually excited for a minute. It has been a while since I've had a positive interaction with a black guy, I thought. We'll drink and talk and have a good time. I gave him a smoke (aint chu got any weed nigga?) and sat down.

Immediately I could tell he was trying to work an angle (you live around here? Got yo own place and everything?). He spent the entirety of our conversation alternating between telling me his victories and bemoaning his struggles. He was out there hustling hard, you see. He got game. Ayo you don't believe me? I show you nigga. Jus look. He showed me his instagram which basically had pictures of all his successes - pictures of cash, sneakers, concerts, etc. front row nigga. Guess how much them tickets cost. 500 dollas.

Anyways. His game apparently consisted of coming across whatever money or resources he could beg, borrow, or steal. Everywhere and in everything he was looking for some angle he could work. He spent time telling me how much you could max out different credit cards and scam different credit unions for (what bank you use? fo them 1,500 dollas. I show you nigga you see). He couldn't see any relationship between his short term opportunist behavior and his long term struggles.

What you really had here was a hunter gatherer behaving like a hunter gatherer in an urban landscape. Rather than a farmer - working, putting away, planning for the future. To him, work was this sort of anti social behavior. Whatever he could do to manage to put food on the table. He saw this as a perfectly legitimate means of sustenance.

If you read old books you begin to see that this is what slavery was. It was taking people who were disinclined or unable to support themselves, who if left to their own devices would subsist entirely off charity and theft, and putting them to some use where they wouldn't burden everyone else.

Men who were capable of long term planning would often find ways to free themselves. Either saving and buying their freedom or negotiating some other strategy.

But not so much the ones who remained slaves. Right after the slaves were freed, around a quarter of them died off. They simply were unable to survive outside of that situation.

So the result of emancipation was some good men who are now contributing to society. But it has also resulted in a large caste of men who still are unable or unwilling to make their own way, and survive entirely off the fruits of others' labor, as if the grocery store were the jungle and the city the savanna.

Slavery was therefore the only humane solution to this problem. If you remove slavery and remove welfare, these sorts of people will starve or turn to banditry. If you remove slavery and implement welfare they will merely subsist off welfare. So either solution is wicked.

Many slavers saw what they were doing as a noble thing, and many slaves were hardly worth the cost of keeping around but were done so out of noblesse oblige. Slaves were not some great source of wealth and productivity by and large.

And in order to fix society, all men who are persistently on welfare should be sold back into slavery.

Mark Hillyard #fundie wnd.com

Why these people think along the lines of Karl Marx is a mystery to me. Then the mix in some junk from the Green Movement, some Fascism and then turn it on us in order to do what. Where's the Historical Good coming from all this garbage. Charles A. Jennings posted this definition of Marxism:

2. The Marxist View This philosophical scheme of history views all mankind as being involved in a "class struggle" between the bourgeoisie (capitalists, middle-class) and the proletariat (industrial working class) which will eventually result in a "utopia" or the "perfect socialist state." When formulating this philosophy, Karl Marx put all men into one of two categories: the "liberating class" as "saviors" or into the "oppressing class" as the adversaries of the perfect social order. This atheistic view of human history while polarizing a society has resulted in utter social chaos and revolution. Marx viewed man as nothing more than an economic materialistic animal whose sole purpose was to serve the all-powerful state through human labor. This view also results in utter hopelessness for man both now and in the hereafter.

What the Democrats are doing reminds me more and more of the Beast of Revelation which is doomed for destruction because it enslaves people rather than set them free. The Beast is a system and it infects the entire left wing of humanity. Jesus said that he would separate the "goats on my left and my sheep on my right hand." This is very clear to me as I watch from my computer screen all those "ism's" attacking everything that is good and stands for Freedom. God is going to give us "The Perfect Law of Liberty" which to the left appears evil and is visible in their approach at enslaving all of us.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

Ehud Would #wingnut #racist #fundie faithandheritage.com

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

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

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

[…]

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

Anatoly Karlin #fundie akarlin.com

Russian women achieved the vote in 1917. Criticize them as you will – and I do – the Bolsheviks early on inserted equity feminism into the foundations of Russian society. This was a generation or two ahead of similar developments in the West. And it was a good thing. Today Russian women get paid more relative to men than in America or Britain, probably because spending a fortune on a Womyn’s Studies degree and then ranting about the “global patriarchy” at Jezebel or The Guardian when they find out no-one wants to hire (or marry) them isn’t a commonly accepted lifestyle choice.

When American women started demanding more rights many of them embraced gender feminism as the solution. Unlike equity feminism, which corresponds to classical liberal notions of legal equality, gender feminists want to feminize men and institute matriarchy. Matriarchy is of course an oxymoron and in practice means rule by alpha males, coupled with wanton repression of beta males (achieved in the West via alimony law, “rape culture”, harassment lawsuits, etc). Alpha males don’t take shit from feminists and as women they admire them; respectable betas follow the rules, as is their wont, and get shafted for their troubles, because no woman can truly respect a man who submits to her whims.

What you have then is complete social dysfunction, as a result of what is a deeply reactionary and anti-human ideology. It is ironic that (real) Marxism shielded Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe from the much more ruinous scourge that is cultural Marxism.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Ghomeshi is a huge success, having fresh pussy continually. Nice guys are huge failures. The things that brought Ghomeshi huge success are likely to continue to bring him success.

Monogamy is incompatible with female emancipation, with treating women as equals, because women, if you let them, will usually have sex with Jeremy Meeks.

If women are allowed free sexual choice, they usually make profoundly unwise choices.

Monogamy is a deal between men for reducing male on male conflict by fair sharing of pussy, in which deal women were never consulted, and which deal has to be coercively imposed on women against their wills.

Women rather like being coerced sexually. Submitting turns them on. Being owned gives them comfort and security. They want strong men to deny them dangerous choices. Their resistance is just a test, to measure to strength that masters them.

Vox Day #wingnut #racist #crackpot #dunning-kruger voxday.blogspot.com

The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

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.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

Ryan Hamm #fundie stillsearching.wordpress.com

Letter from 2016 in Obama’s America

October 29, 2016

Dear friends,

Remember the words of the classic American hymn, “The Angry American (Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue)?” Think on these lyrics:

And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
‘Cause we’ll put a boot in your a**
It’s the American way.

While Christians have always rejected Brother Keith’s use of an expletive, the sentiments he expressed were certainly biblical. The USA was put on this earth by God to protect people and to be the New Covenant Nation. Well, brothers and sisters: I regret to say that this song may no longer be true. It is no longer the “American way” to defend freedom, liberty, and Jesus. No, in this, the eighth year of Chairman Obama’s administration (he took on the name “Chairman” in the “Mao-Rocks-My-Face-Off Act” of 2014), the American way is perversion, anti-family, anti-gun, environmentalist, pro-welfare, and pro-every-possible-sin-in-Leviticus-you-can-find.

Here is but a smattering of the many egregious measures Obama has taken as president over the past 8 years.

1. Family issues
Chairman Obama has begun the logical conclusion to his anti-life platform: Baby work camps. Yes, every child under the age of 2 is now taken from his or her mother, placed in an internment camp, and forced to crawl on a little hamster wheel to generate electrical power. Obama touts this plan as “clean energy”—in reality, it is an anti-family policy from the pits of Hell.

In the 7th year of the Obama adminstration, abortion doctors were given “attaboy” pensions—$6 million dollars in “wealthy-white-people” taxes—for performing abortions. Around the same time, Planned Parenthood (now a federally funded agency under the Department of Defense) began hosting “abortion parties” where every time an abortion is performed, there is a party with a taped greeting and congratulatory message from Chairman Obama.

2. Supreme Court
In 2014, Clarence Thomas stepped down after Ariana Huffington (now the Secretary of Blogs) accused him of “not being black enough.” Obama then nominated radical lesbian activist Rosie O’Donnell to replace him, and she was approved unanimously by the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate. The liberals now have a 8-1 advantage on the highest court in the land.

Because of this, the non-believing Democratic liberals have pushed through their radical agenda. In keeping with the destruction of the FCC (God’s way of keeping us from using bad words) and the War on ChristmasTM, the Supreme Court passed the “XMas Act of 2013”, outlawing the word “Christmas” and changing the official name to XMas—made worse one year later when, under incredible pressure from the Hefner family, they changed the holiday to “XXXMas” and made it a celebration officially sponsored by the adult film industry. Chairman Obama said “I didn’t know it would come to this, but I’m just upholding the law.”

3. Homosexuality and Sexual Perversion
In 2012, public pornography became rampant. Well, brothers and sisters, I’m grieved to report that, in 2016, matters are even worse. Public nudity became standard under the “Clothes? Who Needs ‘Em Act” of 2015 and people began to copulate in public. In early 2016, under the “Natural=Same Act,” public homosexual fornication became the law of the land, and heterosexual reproductive activity was officially confined to procreation centers. Again, Chairman Obama objected on a personal level, saying “Michelle and I have always thought that procreation was a natural part of marriage, but the Supreme court knows better. I trust Chief Justice O’Donnell’s judgment in this matter.”

Homosexuals are also sure to control the country for many years to come thanks to the new “Gay? You Can Vote Twice” law passed by congress in 2013.

In perhaps the most flagrant abuse of God’s law, Vice-Chairman Biden married a goat in a civil ceremony recognized by the ultra-leftist court. In the “Biden vs. Crazy-Right-Wing-Nuts-Who-Don’t-Recognize-Animal-Rights” decision, Justice Souter (now aged 106) wrote in the majority opinion, “I [expletive] totally support it if Joe [expletive] Biden wants to [expletive] marry a goat. If you don’t [expletive] like it, [expletive] [expletive] [expletive]. It is the decision of this court that all who oppose Biden’s [expletive] marriage will be sent to a [expletive] island and will be forced to wear scarlet M’s for ‘Meanie.’ [Expletive].” As you can see, language has also taken a sharp turn to the left.

4. Social issues
In keeping with his radical weapons policy, Chairman Obama signed into law the “Sharp Pointy Objects Act of 2013,” outlawing all sharp sticks, knives, and razor blades.

After years of murmurings from the Treasury Department that bar code forehead implants would replace all cash, it finally happened in 2015. Now, all citizens are required to have a unique bar code installed beneath the skin of their forehead, used for all payment and identification purposes.

Illegal immigrants are given a special place of honor in the new America. There are now 7 official languages in the United States besides English (none of them Hebrew or biblical Greek, so they aren’t really “languages” so much as “garbled American-English”).

New environmental initiatives have made the water cleaner, the air cleaner, and corporations responsible for their spills, thanks to market-driven efforts headed by consumer advocacy groups. The North Pole has been mostly restored and the hole in the ozone is mostly gone. We know as believers that this is NOT God’s best—his plan is to slowly destroy the earth via our pollution and then take all of us away to meet him in the sky before the really bad stuff happens.

5. Foreign Policy
Just last month, Chairman Obama rode a pig into the temple in Jerusalem because of the Supreme Court’s recent “Executive Pork-Riding Legislation” saying “I’m just supporting their law, not my own convictions. I don’t even eat meat.” This backs up the reputable claim that Obama is, in fact, the Beast out of the Earth.

In 2014, the EU outlawed any mention of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or Michael W. Smith. The remaining Christians in the United States put up a fuss, but Chairman Obama said “As the United States, we cannot put pressure on any place that would seek to explore their individual spirituality in whatever way they would choose.”

The Department of Homeland Security was abolished in 2013 and replaced by “The Department of Inclusive Peacemaking.” Michelle Obama heads this new department, which includes mandatory terrorist appreciation and training courses in all public schools. Chairman Obama has taken on a second wife, sister of Osama Bin Laden, in order to “cement the bond between our two communities.”

***

It came as no surprise, then, when in 2012 the Obamas converted from “Christianity” to Baal Worship, and created new “pagan holidays” wherein Americans are required to take off work to fornicate and drink “blood martinis,” a drink invented in the West Hollywood gay goth community circa 2010.

Brothers and sisters, you can see how bad it has gotten. And yet, we have the Christians of 2008 to thank for these events. Some Christians thoughtfully voted for McCain, realizing that his policies most closely matched their own convictions. We don’t care why they voted for McCain, of course, just that they did. Other Christians prayerfully cast their vote for Chairman Obama, sure that his policies were closer to their Christian convictions, unaware that he was so clearly the pawn of Satan. I would never say that those Christians lost their salvation for Democrats—but I would think it.

Now I’m just holding out hope that the Rapture will happen before too long. According to the pre-trib, pre-millennial chart I have on my wall, Gabriel’s mouth is close to the horn. Take heart my brothers and sisters. And remember: Enjoy America’s dominance and, in the words of Prophet Toby Keith, embrace “the American Way.”

Reclaiming America for Jesus (and for James Dobson),

-A Christian from 2016

Some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

Re: So women think their dates are rapists at first glance, good to know.

image

(purple99x)

Female chauvinism is eerily similar to white chauvinism when it comes to painting the 'other' as evil or delinquent. Is this bigotry part of toxic femininity?

Yes, there are many parallels between what is chalked up to "white privilege" and the privileges of being female. People trust women more, consider them safer and less threatening, tend to want to help them more, the police favor them, far less likely to be held accountable for a crime, etc.

(biscuitgravy)

Certainly there are similarities with regards to privileges as well as chauvinistic ideas.

White supremacy was compatible with early Feminism. It started when the abolitionist movement linked up with the suffragists to build a coalition of support for universal suffrage. This was to combat the fact that most women felt they had enough legal rights, and when polled, actually didn't care about the voting franchise.

After the Civil War, Lincoln only put Black male suffrage on the table, and the abolitionist took it. The suffragists, apparently feeling that women being considered equal before the law was worth jeopardizing the chances of Black men being murdered, and also completely oblivious of the fact that no women were actually required to die in the war, felt betrayed. So they started with anti-Black male propaganda. Implying that emancipated Black men were rapists and a more oppressive force On their wives than White supremacists.

Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass continued to write in support of female suffrage, but obviously distanced himself from the greater movement.

(andejoh)
So she's saying, men risk their lives to save others and make a better life for their families while women risk theirs for a free meal?

(Lethn)

Maybe it's just the OP that knows those kind of people but I don't know any girl that does that before a date

It's a very specific community these feminists belong to and they don't even realise it themselves to the point they push it onto everybody else and assume everyone is the same.

My favourite thing is because they surround themselves with the worse sort of men possible since they're all from posh upper class communities where men really do get away with a lot and particularly with the Hollywood actresses this is the case. The me too movement has just been a place for rich white actresses to complain about how bad their dates went in a lot of cases and revealing they hung out willingly with some genuine scumbags.

They then extrapolate these experiences to 'men' as a whole and go around making stupid twitter posts like this expecting everybody to agree with them. These people are not normal, they are rich white feminists with too much time on their hands that live in very self-segregated communities and people need to call them out on their delusional bullshit more often.

Mark Williams #racist blog.reidreport.com

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr #fundie scripturesforamerica.org

It is the proclaimed aim of world Communism and its traitors within the ranks of Christendom, to demoralize the Christian world, and thus destroy all opposition to communism.

The conspiracy against the Christian World comes direct from the Communist camp, but was initiated in the "Synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9), we know as International Zionism.

This plan is to so cripple the fighting spirit of North-American Christian anti-communists in particular, that they can bring this nation of ours within the sphere of their Satanic influence. In other words, it is intended to cripple the defensive power of the Israel nations we call Christendom, so as to pave the way for the ultimate triumph of anti-God Talmudic Communism.

Of all the reactionary systems which have been developed during the 6,000 years of written history for the destruction of moral values, Talmudic communism ranks first. It is without doubt the most perfected, the most efficient and the most merciless system the world has ever seen and the most successful. Already, in a matter of some 70 years, it has subdued over 1/3 of the earth and subjected over 2-billion people to the most merciless dictatorship in the annals of history.

Alan Keyes #fundie wnd.com


Leavened with malice and deceit, they rise to power, these hardcore socialists like Obama. Once positioned to do so, they move to consolidate unbridled tyranny. Their infamous goal: to impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

That supposedly populist Marxist catchphrase slyly distracts from the fact that everywhere they achieve political success, socialist ideologues practice gangster government – of, by and for a self-serving elitist clique. As gangsters typically do, they encourage whatever vices they can manipulate. They also liberally apply the salt of fear, to make their banal rule more palatable. And when they have attained sufficient power, they do not shrink from doing so with brutally forceful measures.

The U.S. Constitution derives from an understanding that stresses the need for effective limits and constraints on governmental power. This need arises from the same inherent evils that make government necessary in the first place. It is obviously inimical to the goal of dictatorship. Therefore, since even before his occupation of the White House, Obama and his collaborators have worked to disparage, undermine and discard the U.S. Constitution.

But many Americans are still adamantly unwilling to choke down the prospect of life under a vicious, dictatorial regime. Their eyes see past the populist disguise of socialist gangsterism. Some have (I think prematurely) concluded that America’s liberty is irretrievable defunct. But even they have by no means surrendered their allegiance to it.

Others, particularly those who believe in Jesus Christ’s permanent resurrection of hope, look unflinchingly into the abyss, sure that if they remember and trust in God’s law of love and mercy, He has the power to restore their nation to the better path of human destiny. It is especially (though not exclusively) among such people that the movement to impeach and remove Obama and his cronies from office arises.

ThomasDGW #fundie fulfilledprophecy.com

I personally suspect that persecution is coming more subtly, like losing your job if you refuse to go along with a new program. Those kinds of things are already happening without resorting to WW II style concentration camps. When I worked as an engineer in the U.S. 11 years ago, we were openly informed that if we expressed certain opinions at work, and others on the street, we were liable to be heavily fined and lose our jobs as liability risks to the company under provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. A number of teachers have lost their jobs just for questioning Darwinism. They don't have to do something so dramatic as put us in concentration camps. They can just put us out of work, take us to court under existing statutes, and leave us penniless in the streets without even a bowl of prison rations. I think the watch dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

Michael Bresciani #fundie raptureforums.com

The physical representation of God's glory is today the cross of Christ, a representation now disdained, destroyed, and generally ignored by America. Does that mean that the glory of God has already departed from this once blessed nation?

People have been fired from their jobs, lost coaching and playing positions in major sports teams and had their fortunes depleted and their names besmirched all for their overt and fearless representation of their faith under the sign of the cross.

Homosexual organizations are on the cusp of engineering lawful means to criminalize the preaching of clearly defined passages of the Bible that indicate, without doubt, that God has proclaimed homosexuality and transgenderism as gross sin and a clear path to personal and national judgment.

The spirit, doctrine and general proclivity for all things perverse and clearly anti-Christ prevails from the White House down to the streets of our nation. Confusion, terrors, social upheaval and inexplicable behaviors are what have now resulted as a direct concomitant to these trends.

Whether people can connect these results to our plunge into reprobation, or if they even care to hear about it - have no bearing whatsoever - the days of confusion are upon us.

American churches are plagued with apostasy (falling away) and scandal and controversy (falling apart) not to mention a general apathy (falling asleep) that has left the once powerful soldiers of the cross staggering under the drunkenness created by political correctness, misguided social structuring, consensus driven immorality, materialism and self-indulgence. Yes, it is a long list and it is a long fall!

There is no longer a moral front in our nation. Immorality is vogue and transference of guilt has reached an entirely new plateau as is witnessed by the attempt to shift blame for the recent shootings in a Colorado Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

Liberal media is putting forth the idea that it is the rhetoric of the pro-lifers is what sparked the deadly shooting. Let's see... it's not the bloody drain of healthy human blood and the wasting of healthy body parts and the slaughter of innocent babies that's causing all the disgust - it's the fact that we talk about it too much!

Perhaps, I will be found guilty of quoting this saying too much, but it is here that I am forced to use it once again. If we insist that talking against murder, slaughter, terror and all other gross sins is what causes sin and death. Then we can see why Jesus said "... wisdom is justified of her children." (Lu 7:35) This is why, if Planned Parenthood and her justifiers have their way; America will soon arrive at the gates of her first childless generation. There will be no wisdom and no children in our time.

Repentance has been replaced with denial, political correctness and obfuscation, both in our personal and collective lives.

B®ent #fundie christianforums.com

The CPUSA wants to pollute childrens' minds with the so-called "GLBT" agenda by removing them from parental authority. Also, the CPUSA is not "democratic." A dictatorship of the proletariat can only exist in a single-party state. Meaning, if the CPUSA ever came to power, (and rest assured if it did, my rifle is ready), every other political party would be banned. Moreover, churches would be closed down, because they're part of the "super structure" responsible for a "false conciousness" of the "working class." Communism by its very nature is anti-Christian, and is of the Devil himself.

Little Red Bean #fundie alternatehistory.com

Sometimes people need to die. Pacifism is reactionary. I personally support the liberation of the homosexual proletariat, but such a stance was not widely held among Marxists from Stalin through the 90s. I wouldn't uphold them as my ideal people's army but I admire their social ideas and willingness to resist both imperialism and the neoliberal regime.

(...)

Shining Path were heroes. Those who died should feel honored to have been martyred in the name of the Peruvian proletariat and Revolution. First, I appreciate that you actually respond to my posts and engage in a reasonable manner.

(...)

Second, I'm a pretty big admirer of early DPRK as well. Kim Il-sung was pretty solid and he managed to create one of the most advanced socialist societies out of rubble after the Victorious Fatherland Liberation War. Juche, while clearly revisionist in ideological substance, is a fascinating attempt at creating a Marxism that rejects dialectical materialism. I follow the Korean Friendship Association and enjoy reading their "Juche classroom" articles. No, we want to liquidate the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's going to be bloody and if you're not comfortable with that, there's a spot in the gulag for you.

Jim #racist blog.jim.com

Sarah Jeong issued, over many years, an enormous pile of tweets expressing hatred of white people, and among those tweets a few expressing intent to murder all white people.

Naturally she was appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times.

Needless to say this appointment has been stoutly defended by every goodthinking leftist, though I see some white male leftists showing symptoms of mental breakdown, their mask of sanity slipping.

Interestingly, some conservative commentators have also rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, their arguments inevitably sliding into implicit advocacy of white genocide. What characteristic do all these conservatives have in common?

‘Tis a mystery. [Joke sarcasm tag removed for submission purposes]

“The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites without ensuing mental disorder. So male Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness both by their maleness and by their whiteness.

...

The next big leftwing cause is killing all white people.

It is not like they appointed some fifty year old fat gay who recently emancipated his recently adopted nine year old boy child from toxic masculinity, which is what I was half expecting.

I am seeing a whole lot of schizophrenia among white progressives. They know this, and they do not know it. They support it, and they do not support it. Massive doublethink and split personality.

It is interesting how completely normal and mainstream the advocacy of white genocide feels. They are telling us that we must be hateful, evil, and crazy to disagree.

In the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case, it was obvious that those who supported Trayvon were advocating genocide, but they could plausibly deny it, deny it to themselves, because, after all, Zimmerman deliberately shot Trayvon through the heart when Trayvon attacked him, while Trayvon was merely indifferent as to whether he was endangering Zimmerman’s life by his attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman aimed for the heart, and knew his shot was true.

But with everyone who defends and supports Sarah Jeong, there is no real ambiguity. They want to kill us all. If they are going to come up with some motte and bailey argument “we are not actually advocating white genocide, we are actually advocating …”, what is the motte? If they are not advocating white genocide, what are they advocating?

During the Trayvon case, I would point out to a Trayvon supporter that she (and it was usually a white woman) was advocating white genocide, in that though she was supposedly arguing that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, she was actually presenting arguments that Trayvon was right to attack Zimmerman. And often she would realize that she was arguing that, and respond “Well, yes, but Zimmerman could have solved the problem without lethal force” (The implicit assumption not being that white people need killing, but rather being that white people are not only expected to behave well, but use their super magic powers to prevent other races from behaving badly, and if other races behave badly, it is the fault of white males.)

OK, so what is the motte in the Sarah Jeong case? When you advocate the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining. When you support someone who advocates the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining.

Heartiste accurately analyzes those that hate us, and intend to exterminate us

Anti-White hatred is channeled through Trump, which explains why the rage against Trump is so unhinged.

Democracy is going to kill us all. People inevitably vote their tribe and their religion, which inevitably tends towards tribal warfare and holy war. The Democrats brought in hostile tribes for a vote bank, as the Populares allied with the Samnites against the Optimates. Of course the Samnites did not care about the differences between Populares and Optimates. They intended to level Rome and kill all Romans, Populares and Optimates both. And now the Democrats have a brown problem, as the Populares had a Samnite problem.

For us to survive, Democracy and the Constitution has got to go, and the Declaration of Independence needs to be taught in schools as treason against the King motivated by religious fanaticism. There is no middle course that ends with us alive. While the Jewish role in the promotion of genocide is obvious, they are simultaneously becoming irrelevant as their pets push them aside. Just as the Jewish question becomes more relevant, it renders itself irrelevant as the processes they set in motion escalate beyond their control. To focus unduly on the Jewish Question is too suppose that we can solve this problem while retaining Democracy, the Constitution, and the Declaration of independence. The Jewish role in advocacy of white genocide is obvious, but if you focus unduly on Jews, you think you can set things back to yesterday’s leftism, back to 1933 leftism. The course we are on was not set by Jews, but by the founders. If all men are created equal, then it follows that I must be causing the problems encountered by black military age Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in which case they all are entitled to claim asylum and come here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, a conclusion that, however congenial to Jews and Democrats, logically follows from the Declaration of Independence. And even if we gassed every Jew, still a conclusion highly congenial to the representatives of fifty percent of the voters. We cannot afford the Declaration, and we cannot afford one man one vote, Jews or no Jews.

Blackbelt54 #fundie reddit.com

Bashar al-Assad, along with the Ba'athist Syrian government, are bourgeois Arab nationalists. The national bourgeoisie has both a progressive and reactionary character. It is progressive as a bulwark against imperialism, as the nat bourg has interests in controlling its own markets and driving out the imperialist powers. It is reactionary in that the national bourgeoisie does exploit their own working class at home.

As communists, especially communists in the imperialist countries, our job is to oppose the imperialism of our own ruling class at home. Our slogan, first and foremost, should be "Hands Off Syria!". Only the Syrians can decide who governs them; not the U.S., or Israel, or NATO, or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, however, play a progressive role because they were invited by the Syrian government in fighting the imperialist proxies.

Communists within Syria are critical of the government, and have opposed the Assad administration's "neoliberal" reforms, but have chosen to fight along the Syrian government to drive out the imperialist powers (the U.S./NATO), their allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar), and their proxy forces (Daesh, Ahrar al-Sham, Tahrir al-Sham, etc.) The smear campaign against the Syrian government has been incredible. Check out this study guide to learn more about the truth about Syria.

An Lê Quý #racist #moonbat facebook.com

NOTE: amerikkkan refers to white settlers. I don't believe there are "African Americans", Black people are their own colonized nation.
People often ask me: "An Lê Quý, what will decolonization look like, are you gonna just deport all white people back to Europe?"
Well, I'd love to do that but unfortunately it's not logistically feasible. So what would decolonization actually look like? Well...If you want a serious answer, any decolonization process would fulfill a vital task of the bourgeois democratic revolution: land reform. All land will be confiscated from the white settler nation, the amerikan suburbia won't continue to exist as it is today (no, you don't get to keep your suburban homes, it's not "working class personal property"). amerikkkans will be forcibly relocated, their residence will be confined in certain northern states to make room for the republics of internal colonies that will inevitably de-link from the u.$ empire - the Black Nation, the Chicano Nation and of course, the First Nations.
Aside from that, one of the top priorities would be reparations. This can come from a couple of sources:
1) One might think that there aren't many "means of production" left in the u.$, so there won't actually be much to "seize". In actual fact, there is still a fair amount of infrastructure and technological equipment in the u.$ that the global proletariat can expropriate: medical equipment in hospitals, teaching equipment in schools which are taken for granted by amerikans but are actually rare in the third world (computers, projectors, lab equipment), automated manufacturing technologies, vehicles, advanced construction equipment that aren't available in the third world, tractors, chemical fertilizer, etc... You get the idea. All of this will of course be brought back to the oppressed nations to aid their process of development - which the u.$ has obstructed for so long.
2) Personnel. Scientists, engineers, programmers, doctors, skilled workers or even managers with organizational skill be forced to go to the third world - where they are desperately needed for industrialization. Ultimately, this must be done to reverse the decades of brain drain that the third world has suffered. This measure combined with the abolition of intellectual property rights mean that the imperialist monopoly on technology will finally be relinquished. For the first time in history, substantial technological transfer will be a reality.
3) Land reform necessarily implies that the the white settler nation will be excluded from the decision making process with regards to what will be done on the land. Buildings maybe demolished, new farms and factories maybe built as the global proletariat sees fit. The amerikkkan population will be put to work in these newly constructed facilities (as well as any industrial & agricultural facilities left in the u.$ that haven't disappeared due to outsourcing). They will produce goods which will be taken back to the oppressed nations as reparations. This is also done to rehabilitate (or if you want to be crude, "re-civilize") them as functioning members of a future socialist society.
Needless to say, the white settler nation will be stripped off of any political rights, at least in the early years of the proletarian dictatorship - which, in case my point isn't obvious to you by now, will come from the outside. amerikkkans will not be allowed to take part in any political life until the global proletariat finds that they have been sufficiently civilized. Of course, I'm not purely fantasizing about this. You don't even have to imagine, these measures were all used in East Germany during the Soviet occupation. The problem is, Germany isn't a settler colonial empire, amerikkkans are far more reactionary, their culture much more decadent and rotten, and there's no tradition of proletarian internationalist politics among them (for obvious reasons). They will resist these measures, far more than East German workers ever did, and thus the "re-civilizing" stage will be far longer.

Proletarian writers #moonbat #transphobia thecommunists.org

The reactionary nightmare of ‘gender fluidity’

We do not advocate and we cannot allow the bourgeoisie to impose this divisive ideology upon us.

This is a very interesting debate, comrades. I find it both encouraging and discouraging at the same time.

Why are we having this debate? I would like to say that I agree with motion 8. It’s quite clear that this is an issue which is causing genuine confusion – and not only in our party. Our party is the reflection of society, and so if it is confusing us, you can be sure there is a far greater confusion outside our ranks – and that, if you like, is why we’re having this debate. While I am sympathetic with the arguments put forward by those opposed to motion 8, we clearly do need to have a debate. Clearly some people have taken on identity politics (idpol) as a very central part of their political discourse: people in our schools, people in society, in every mainstream paper that you turn to. A mere reference to gender identity and idpol, without expressing an opinion, is enough to make many people incandescent with rage. We have to ask ourselves why that is, because when I grew up some years ago, this wasn’t an issue affecting peoples’ minds. People didn’t talk about it; they didn’t debate it: it wasn’t an issue. Marx and Engels and Lenin and Stalin didn’t devote much attention to the politics of gender fluidity because it did not exist as an issue. This concept – contrary to the opinion of those opposed to this motion – is not “as old as humanity”.
[..]
Sex, gender and gender fluidity
Is sex important? Attempts are being made to confuse us as to what ‘sex’ is. Are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ synonyms? Well they are synonyms, but a certain group of academics in the seventies in the United States decided that they weren’t synonyms. They were going to use ‘gender’ in their own way; they were going to use ‘gender’ to mean the social construct of behaviour surrounding what was expected of the biological differentiation among human beings (men and women).But biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing. It doesn’t just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world.

And let’s not forget how this debate impinged upon us. We’ve been following this ideological trend, and encountering identity politics among supporters and candidates for membership of our party, and amongst people we’ve been working with for at least four or five years. Because idpol has become a fashion in that period.

And it is a fashion; it is a trend. And it suddenly – from being very marginal to certain academic institutions in the 1970s – became mainstream globally worldwide; it was actively promoted. Not promoted by communists, not by socialists, but picked up on and accepted by many of them, because they are led by, and they blindly followed, bourgeoise society down this dead-end.
[…]
Sex and sexual identity
So the question is sexuality: how does this tie up with the question of sexuality? And we come back to that innocuous post on Twitter, which I thought was obviously hilarious because I thought it was non-controversial.

We wrote: “There is a group of self-proclaimed ‘socialists’ who are not actually any longer fighting against our oppression, they’re fighting against reality!” and posted a link to an article. Why did we say that? They’re a circle of people who broke away from a very small group which you may know, called the RCG. This circle wrote a blog called ‘Red Fightback’, and the bottom line is, their position is that there’s no such thing as gender.

Rather, gender, they claim, is some kind of medical conspiracy where, at birth, the doctors go away and huddle together and they ‘assign a gender role’ to you. So, pregnant mothers: when you have your 20-week ultrasound scan, you’re not having a scan to see whether your baby is a boy or a girl (say ‘Red Fightback’). No; that’s all medical conspiracy! And when the baby is born, they inspect the baby to say it’s a boy or a girl – well that’s all medical conspiracy, too! These things (boys and girls, men and women) aren’t real – don’t you see??

Now, that seemed to us to be so absurd and preposterous that we posted it. And the post seemed popular! It had, like, 100,000 views, with hundreds of comments saying: “You’re a Terf!” I didn’t know what a Terf was at that point but, but I have since found out. It is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ – which I’m not, because I’m not a feminist! But essentially, their line is that anyone who would purport to say there really is such a thing as gender (men and women), is some kind of fascist. Who is pushing this ideology that there is no such thing as gender? That there is no such thing as sex? That it’s not real?

There is even a movement termed ‘ableism’ or ‘trans-ableism’. There exist people who say: “I look as if I’ve got two arms and two legs, but actually in reality, I feel like I was born disabled.” There are people who are petitioning for the right to have an arm or a leg cut off; to have an operation which will make their physical form conform to how they feel; “my inner essence”.

It’s the ultimate idealism isn’t it? Idealism in the philosophical sense that that “the material world doesn’t exist”; “it’s whatever I think that is most important”. So actually, by that rationale, ideas are prime and matter will have to conform with my ideas, and the ultimate result is this kind of solipsism where you are alone in the world – the lone conscious force and the ultimate determiner of your own reality without reference to other people or the material reality of the word’s environment around you.

Morally, it means whatever you want subjectively is right and correct. So it can be used to justify doing anything, committing any crime against anyone.

As a philosophy it is totally isolating, and totally gets rid of the idea, as the previous speaker was saying, of having things in common, uniting on a class basis around the real things that oppress us; real material and economic phenomena.

Church of Almighty God #fundie holyspiritspeaks.org

1. Neither knowledge nor science are the truth, but are weapons used by Satan and evil demons to corrupt people. Seeking knowledge and science is the path of destruction;

2. Neither knowledge nor science can save mankind. They can only corrupt people, cause people to shun God and deny the truth, and wreak destruction on man;

3. The more knowledge people have, the more they defy God, and the more it can lead people’s outlook on life, values, ideas and viewpoints to become more evil, reactionary, absurd and preposterous;

4. Neither knowledge nor science can resolve the problems of man’s corruption—they can only accelerate mankind’s destruction. Only the truth can save mankind.

Jim #racist #wingnut #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "Deus Vult"]

Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

[...]

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne
Altar
Freehold
Family
Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

[...]

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

[...]

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

Rob Smith #fundie rationalwiki.org

Hillary I'd classify as a Leninist. Technically speaking, there really is even a subdivision between Leninist and Marxist-Leninist. Hillary appears to have studied closely Lenin's, Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disease.

Counterpunch magazine documented how Hillary built a vanguard party of a chosen few which is 100% Leninism. Marx made no such reference to vanguardism or the idea of a "permanent revolution."

I wonder where Trump falls in this scheme. What sort of commie is an isolationist-militarist-federalist with ambitions of outerspace-expansionism who ostensibly supports the previously discarded proletariat?

Good question. I had to point out today to the anti-neocon anti-globalists that Trump's Iranian policy is the same as the neocons. But it's how you phrase it. Instead of saying Trump's bowed to the neocons, you have to say the entire neocon movement suddenly woke up and saw the wisdom of Donald Trump.


[Note: Rob Smith is also a Conservapedia editor.]

Spartacist League of Britain #fundie spartacist.org

In last year’s Brexit referendum, Jeremy Corbyn carried the baton for the City of London and trampled on his working-class and minority supporters by campaigning to remain in the EU. Crime hasn’t paid. Corbyn may have capitulated, but the Blairites will be satisfied by nothing short of his political annihilation. As New Labour’s prince of darkness Lord Peter Mandelson ranted at a 20 February Jewish Chronicle event: “Why do you want to just walk away and pass the title deeds of this great party over to someone like Jeremy Corbyn? I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”

The bourgeoisie and its Blairite agents despise Corbyn for his talk of socialism, his support to trade union rights and his stated support for unilateral nuclear disarmament. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Corbyn’s opposition to the Trident nuclear missile system in particular makes him unfit to govern. On Remembrance Sunday in 2015, the head of the armed forces, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, made that view clear in a thinly veiled coup threat during an appearance on the Andrew Marr show.

Mandelson and the rest of the cabal led by Tony Blair spent two decades trying to transform Labour into an outright capitalist party. They abandoned even lip-service to socialism, abolished Clause IV and attempted to cut Labour’s ties to the unions. Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in September 2015, and his resounding re-election a year later, called the Blairite project into question. Driving the Blairites out of the Labour Party would constitute a step towards the political independence of the working class, despite the bankruptcy of Corbyn’s parliamentary reformist programme. For Marxists, it would offer an opportunity to expose the pretentions of the Labour lefts to speak for the working class. It would also further the struggle to win the most advanced workers and youth to the perspective of building a revolutionary workers party.

Corbyn continues to accommodate the Blairite agents of capital within Labour. Despite having the support of the majority of the party’s hundreds of thousands of members, Corbyn has not insisted on mandatory reselection of the despised Blairite MPs, or the removal of witch-hunting general secretary Iain McNicol. To avoid a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party last November, Corbyn and his allies John McDonnell and Diane Abbott absented themselves from Parliament during the vote on a motion by the Scottish National Party (SNP) calling for Blair to be held to account over the Iraq war. This unrequited peace offering was an offence against the hundreds of thousands of members who flooded into the Labour Party to support Corbyn, in large part driven by justified hatred for Tony Blair’s crimes.

The class war in the Labour Party poses the question: what type of party is needed to represent the interests of working people and the oppressed? The old Labour Party that is Corbyn’s model prided itself on being a “broad church”, meaning that it had room for a wide spectrum of political currents and opinions. Bloc affiliation of the trade unions to Labour ensured that the pro-capitalist union bureaucrats called the shots. In practice, such a “party of the whole class” necessarily submerges the most advanced layers of the working class into the most backward ones, with the result that the right wing dominates and the left bends to it for the sake of unity. Such parties are inevitably chauvinist, based on the dominant ethnic grouping and tied to the defence of the imperialist interests of their own ruling class. Corbyn’s leadership of Labour illustrates what that kind of party means in action — subordinating the needs of workers, immigrants and the oppressed to the likes of Tony Blair and his bourgeois cronies.

A Leninist vanguard party, in contrast, consists of the most politically advanced layers of the working class and oppressed, as well as elements of the petty bourgeoisie who have been won to the cause of proletarian revolution. A vanguard party would not tolerate the existence of pro-capitalist elements and English chauvinists in its ranks. It would champion the defence of immigrants, women and minorities, whose liberation must be tied to the proletariat’s struggle against capitalist class rule. Actually fulfilling the burning needs of working people and the oppressed cannot be achieved through a Labour majority in Parliament — it requires breaking the power of the capitalist exploiters through socialist revolution. To that end, the workers need their own steeled and tested combat party, modelled on the Bolshevik party of VI Lenin and Leon Trotsky, which led the working class to power in the Russian October Revolution of 1917!

Bible Answer Girl #fundie google.com.au

Are people mammals?

No, people are NOT mammals or any other kind of animal!

Although people have some characteristics of mammals, they have certain qualities that set them apart from the animals.

First, God created mankind in his own image. He did not do that with the animals.

Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Second, mankind was put in charge of (had dominion over) the animals and therefore is above the animals and not equal with the animals.

Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Third, mankind has eternal life. He breathed into Adam “the breath of life”, imparting to him an eternal soul. God did not do this with the animals.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Fourth, man can kill animals but not other men because man is made in the image of God.

Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

Fifth, animals do not have reasoning ability. Although there are some animals that are “smart” like dolphins, monkeys, and your dog. They do not have, nor will they ever have, the ability to do 3rd grade math problems, read a book, etc.

Sixth, they do not have language. Now that does not mean they do not communicate with each other, it just means that they are not able to hold an intelligent conversation or communicate their thoughts in written form.

Seventh, animals really only are concerned with the basics of life” food, sleeping, mating, etc. Humans pursue meaning in life though work, religion, play, and the arts. Mankind is set apart from the animals.

Eighth, God sent his Son to die for the sins of mankind so that we can have eternal life in heaven with him. He did this for mankind only and not the animal kingdom. Mankind was given a free will to choose whether or not they would follow God and serve him. Mankind rebelled against God and now each person is born with the sin nature. Animals do not have a sin nature. Each person needs to have their relationship with God restored so that they can have eternal life with him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

International Communist League (Fourth International) aka the Spartacist League #moonbat #pedo libcom.org

(This apparently originally is from Workers Vanguard No. 843, 4 March 2005. Bolding added by submitter.)

"Recovered memory" prosecutions—which put hundreds behind bars in the daycare and "satanic abuse" witchhunts of the 1980s and early 1990s—are back. In Boston on February 15, 74-year-old defrocked priest, Paul Shanley, was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison based solely on uncorroborated "recovered memories" of a man who claimed Shanley abused him 20 years earlier. Alexander Cockburn wrote in CounterPunch (19/20 February): "In the state that gave us Salem in the seventeenth century and the Amiraults (all wrongly sent to prison on charges brought by Middlesex county District Attorney Martha Coakley) in the twentieth, Shanley's case has reintroduced recovered memory to the courtrooms of the twenty-first."

Shanley has been one of the prime whipping boys in the explosive sex scandals that have rocked the Catholic church beginning in 2002, when the Boston Globe began a series on priests and sexual abuse of youth. Roderick MacLeish Jr., the personal injury lawyer representing Shanley's accuser, retailed scandalous tales to the press about Shanley, which have been refuted by JoAnn Wypijewski in CounterPunch. She actually read the 1,600-page official church file on Shanley, which apparently no other reporters bothered to do. As Cockburn pointed out, "Had they done so, they would have found nothing to buttress the claims that Shanley founded NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], or was ever a member, or had ever advocated sex between men and little boys, or had a 30-year record of child abuse complaints made against him or a history of being moved from parish to parish. Yet all these allegations have become the common currency of Shanley's biography, and if guards usher a murderer into his cell, the killer will probably have the NAMBLA charge at the top of his mind."

In fact, Paul Shanley did openly advocate recognizing homosexuality as a normal sexual variation (based partly on the pioneering work of Alfred Kinsey), and did have homosexual liaisons. He was a long-haired "street priest" in the 1960s, mentioned in the book Common Ground, who tried to help runaways and kids hooked on drugs. Shanley's "association" with NAMBLA is that he attended a conference of people fighting a Boston anti-gay witchhunt at the end of which some people, not including Shanley, founded a group that later became NAMBLA.

NAMBLA's name is perennially dragged through the plentiful Boston mud, having been pounded for over 20 years by media smears and witchhunting prosecutions. We in the Spartacist League have repeatedly defended this tiny beleaguered group as an elementary act of proletarian decency. We oppose criminalizing their advocacy of the eminently reasonable proposition that youth who have sexual feelings be allowed to express them. NAMBLA simply advocates the decriminalization of consensual sex between men and boys.

It is telling, in this deeply puritanical society, that the pitch of modern inquisitions increases according to the proximity of youth and sex. It is no accident that the church sex scandals have focused overwhelmingly on gay sex (did no priest ever touch a girl?), as this is guaranteed to set reactionary alarm bells ringing a lot louder. Since the daycare witchhunts, the code word for anti-sex crusaders, from the Christian right to the straightlaced morality feminists, has been "protect the children" from so-called pedophiles. This campaign reflects anti-gay bigotry, increased powers of repression for the capitalist state and a shoring up of reactionary "family values" like the domestic slavery of women and stultifying "abstinence only" for young people.

Gerald Amirault, a married man with children of his own, was released from prison in 2004 after being unjustly imprisoned for 18 years, framed up with incredible tales of evil robots, knives and dead pets at the Fells Acres Day School he ran with his sister and mother (who were also imprisoned). This was based solely on the coerced testimony of children whose only real abuse came at the hands of the prosecutors who, in their zeal for convictions and publicity, fed so much crap into them that they still reel from the trauma. Just as Amirault was up for a commutation, the church sex story exploded and he lost another two years to prison, as the cowardly politicians of Massachusetts refused, in the midst of the scandal, to set him free, despite the Board of Pardons' unanimous recommendation. We defended the Amiraults, and many other daycare workers, against the witchhunts of their time.

Now former priest Paul Shanley has been thrown to the wolves of "recovered memory" prosecution. This is a very dangerous thing. No evidence was presented that he committed any crime. This may be a difficult case for some of our readers to grasp, given the passionate—and legitimate—disgust so many feel for the real miseries inflicted by organized religion in this socially backward country, from the Christian fundamentalist right to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic church upholds subservience to authority, from children's submission to parents, a wife's submission to her husband, the flock's submission to the priest and submission of all humanity to God. The worst thing, ultimately, about religion is that it preaches blind faith in false, mystical forces ruling our fate, crippling humanity's fight for freedom from oppression and for control over nature.

We care about the suffering of those victimized by corrupt, violent institutions and adults—whether priests or bullying state prosecutors. The terror and helplessness felt by children coerced into submission by frightening authority figures like priests, especially when combined with enforced guilt about sex, does scar them for life. Obviously the church has a lot to cover up—look at the millions in hush money it's been dishing out (including to some of Shanley's accusers). Forced out over the scandal was Boston's arrogant Cardinal Bernard Law, the Catholic version of Harvard's all-purpose bigot Larry Summers (who recently speculated that women, Jews, Catholics and white basketball players are perhaps innately incapable of certain activities). Surely there are many abusive priests. But we'll never know what happened in many cases, as the actual guilt or innocence of those singled out to be demonized is irrelevant to both prosecutors and the church hierarchy, who would rather throw money at accusers than uncover the truth. This too is a terrible injustice to those abused.

The falsity and reactionary political uses of "recovered memory" prosecutions were thoroughly exposed a decade ago. In a major review of research and books debunking "recovered memory" prosecutions, we wrote: "Much of this persecution aims to strengthen the bourgeois state in its regulation of the population and to spread panic, as a diversion from the real brutality of life in this twisted, mean, bigoted, racist society" (Women and Revolution, No. 45, Winter-Spring 1996). What we wrote then is equally true today: It is in the interests of all in the workers movement to protest and oppose this new, deadly "recovered memory" witchhunt. Free Paul Shanley!

Nyusha #fundie twitter.com

If you wanna be prepared for what will happen in Iran, get on the right side of history. Syria was a US-orchestrated war through US/Saudi/Turkey/Israeli proxies defeated only by the Resistance of the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and Iran. Anything else serves Zionism and Imperialism.

Now is the time to shun native informant Al Qaeda-loving Zionist morons. I have NO PATIENCE for you. You facilitated the murder of THOUSANDS of innocent children and women in the last sovereign secular Arab state. You have cushy paid academic and analyst jobs. You’re bootlickers.

I hate you, you repulse me with every fibre of my being. You prioritize your own wealth above suffering of millions. The liberation of entire world depends on the anti-colonial movement in the Levant. You are forbidden from touching Iran with your reactionary diaspora analysis.

Porter #racist moonbattery.com

Every (heretofore) white country is being colonized and race replaced. Our institutions subverted against us, our culture razed, and our people attacked both physically and rhetorically. What will be left to our children within a few generations? Certainly not a nation other than its besieged remnants. Just a polyglot geography. One featuring an eternally increasing and violent black underclass; a sprawling mestizo proletariat employed by an Asian/Indian merchant class; all supervised by a film of anti-white jewish plutocrats and politicos. The diminishing number of Whites within all strata will be marginalized through the ancient and ingrained nepotism of the aforementioned groups…their future to be found in rest-homes and museums…their children demoralized or turned janissary.

And what do “conservatives” have to say of this future? Nothing obviously, as it doesn’t affect marginal tax rates or endless military expeditions. Because that’s “conservatism.” In fact, the only time they can be roused to address their own children’s impending dystopia at all is to reflexively chant programmed responses at any white who mentions it or the jews’ role in it: “nazishitlerholofascist…” ad infinitum.

Yes zombies, it’s all well-trod rhetoric; you’re performing immaculately. Let us hope your assiduous embrace of prescribed dogma will offer some succor to your posterity when Haiti 1804 becomes America 2104.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Why they attacked Trump all along

Their agenda is to take the guns away from American people, in order to advance Agenda 21 (land grabs) and the NWO. They knew when Trump won the election that he was never going to take guns away from his OWN VOTERS, so this halted the Rothschild-dictated totalitarian sprint to a tiptoe. They are pissed. They needed that decrepit cuvt Hillary to win, because that knee-jerk reactionary disease would be banning guns by now.

So on with the feminist agenda - a work around to the "problem" they have by using women in positions of power at the local level to guilt trip men into giving up their guns and confiscating them outright.

They always want women in power because gynocentrism and a matriarchal society is their quickest route to the one world order.

What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power
What they want is women in power... to take the guns away

Publius Pompilius Quietus #racist amren.com

Everything that left-liberals want--religious pluralism, economic egalitarianism, societal tolerance of sexual deviants, et cetera--becomes less and less likely with the addition of non-white immigrants. In the short term, a coalition of left-liberal white people and non-white people works because they both share the goal of dispossessing white people of their homelands; thus, socially reactionary groups like black people and Muslims will ally with degenerate white liberals. Yet, in the long term, it is doomed and so are all other multi-racial coalitions. Once the specter of racist whitey is gone, the coalition will break, and socially backwards non-white groups will reverse socially tolerant policies of the contemporary Western world.

reynoldsg #racist stormfront.org

[OF of thread "The KKK Was Formed Because Of Negro Rape, Assault & Murder"]

Look up why the Klan was formed, or just mention the name, and you get many undocumented (not based on fact) reasons why the Klan was formed. Reasons such as former Confederate soldiers formed the Klan to resist the Reconstruction period, or resist northern occupation and the anti-South republican party.

That it was a fraternal organization to reestablish White rule, or to stop emancipated slaves from exercising their rights. ALL RUBBISH! And besides no-one cares what the negro does in their own domain! So what would prompt 5 million people (most no doubt never having attended a Klan function) to join the Klan? No other reason than sheer bigotry the Jew and liberal might say.

The fact is (and based on documented cases of increasing negro crime), the Klan was formed as a defense and deterrence to negro crime. And that is a fact. Enough of the lies that Whites are always the aggressor. The MANY CASES here on Stormfront of negro violence, murder and rapes is documented with links. In addition are the government's and FBI's own crime statistics. Remember that negroes make up just 13% of the population.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Here at TomatoBubble.com, your favorite investigative reporter and his ferocious feline sidekick scour the Internet to bring you news and views that "they" don't want you to know about. Often times, we end up dismissing some of our most outrageous findings simply because, upon closer inspection, the claim cannot be substantiated to our satisfaction. We simply refuse to play the "anonymous sources" game.

We recently stumbled across an item which we found so profiundly disturbing that we initially suspected it to be a hoax for the simple reason that it was just a bit too "in your face" to be true. But alas, because the hour of "their" final triumph approaches so rapidly and so unimpeded, "they" evidently believe that there is no longer anything to fear about such blatant in-your-faceness as what we are about to present. We are sorry to have to say that the following story of the Paris White Genocide mural, and its craetor's background and connections, is indeed accurate.

WARNING!

SOME OF THE IMAGERY BELOW, THOUGH CARTOONISH IN NATURE, IS OBSCENE AND VIOLENT

A giant mural painting on the floor below Paris' iconic Eiffel Tower was completed in September of 2016 by a Los Angeles-based artist named Cleon Peterson. The bizarre "work of art" is titled, "Endless Sleep" -- an obvious reference to the coming "endless sleep" of the White Race. There is really no need for us to interpret the meaning of Peterson's obscenity. To all but the most brain-dead libtard, the massive 500 square-meter image, best viewed from the top of the Eiffel Tower while looking straight down, speaks for itself.

Have a look:
image

The Star of David at the center is an obvious tribute to the terrible Tribe that is behind White Genocide and to the House of Rothschild in particular. But don't take our word for it. Here it is, from a tweet, from Peterson himself:
image

Peterson, an "ex" heroine addict, tweeted out his gratitude to French banking couple Benjamin and Ariane de Rothschild. We suspect (though we have no solid evidence to present) that the "gratitude" is related to Peterson (with 10 helpers) having been commissioned to paint the disgusting White Genocide mural.

Should there be any remaining doubt as to what the Eiffel Tower floor mural truly symbolizes, a review of the self-loathing artist's earlier works -- depicting what he refers to as "the hedonistic triumphs of those who recognize themselves as victorious in the unfolding mirror of history" -- clearly confirms what Peterson and the Rothschilds are dreaming about. Be forewarned, these images are obscene and unsettling.

DON'T SAY WE DIDN'T WARN YOU!

-- and don't send us nasty E-mails for publishing them.

Before hooking up with the Rothschilds and painting Paris, Peterson was known for churning out scenes of torture, rape and mass murder of White people at the hands of Blacks --- a perfect hireling for the Rothschilds!

In his 1925 book 'Praktischer Idealismus', the half-Austrian / half-Japanese Globalist Count Richard Coundehove Kalergi boldly declared that the citizens of the future "United States of Europe" will not be White people anymore. In his own words, the man who is today regarded as one of the founders of "modern Europe" revealed the game:

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with the diversity of individuals.

Of course, Kalergi's chosenite paymasters will not be replaced or blended out by this "Eurasian-negroid race of the future". Wrote the hired hack of his beloved Rothschild bosses:

"Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It's not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews."

The artistic abomination at the Eiffel Tower is "The Kalergi Plan" --- in paint. The end game is upon us, and for those who think that the final stages of genocide will be manifested by a peaceful and gradual blending-out of the last remaining non-elite White Europeans, Peterson's previous paintings, and Rothschild's evident affinity for them, ought to dispel that delusion once and for all.

Kalergi, writing on behalf of Rothschild & Friends, foresaw the current Turd World invasion of Europe. The end to an aging and morally decadent White Europe will come violently for many.

KKE #fundie icl-fi.org

On 22 December 2015, the Greek parliament approved the Civil Partnerships Bill for same-sex couples. This is a simple legal reform that allows gays some of the same rights—legal, welfare and inheritance rights—given to heterosexual couples. Gays and lesbians welcomed the reform, which in the context of deeply reactionary, Orthodox Greek society represents a step forward. The Civil Partnerships Bill presented by Syriza is, however, a limited reform. Justice minister Nikos Papaskevopoulos made clear that “Civil Partnership is not about adoption by homosexual couples” (“Live, the Debate on Civil Partnerships,” Efimerida ton Syntakton, 22 December 2015).

As Marxists, we defend any legal advances won by gay people, including civil partnerships. The Trotskyist Group of Greece, section of the International Communist League, calls for full legal equality and full democratic rights for gays, including the right to adopt, marry and divorce. We fight for a society in which nobody needs to be forced into a legal straitjacket in order to get medical benefits or any of the privileges granted to those embedded in the traditional “one man on one woman for life” legal mold. At the same time, we emphasize that gays will continue to face bigotry and discrimination under capitalism, where the institutions of the nuclear family and organized religion are props for the maintenance of bourgeois rule.

Unsurprisingly, this small but important reform provoked the rage of the reactionaries of the Orthodox church, the far right and the fascist Golden Dawn. Chiming in with the anti-gay bigotry were the Stalinists of the KKE [Greek Communist Party]. Disgustingly, the KKE argued and voted against the Civil Partnerships Bill, defending the reactionary institution of the family. The KKE declared:

“The aim of the bill is essentially the institutional recognition of the families of same-sex couples, including—eventually—the adoption of children by them. And that is where our own difference lies.

“Rights and obligations arise within marriage, which is the legal expression of the social relations of the family. It includes social protection of children, who are biologically the result of sexual relations between a man and a woman.

“With the formation of a socialist-communist society, a new type of partnership will undoubtedly be formed—a relatively stable heterosexual relationship and reproduction.”

—“The Position of the KKE on the Civil Partnerships Bill,” Rizospastis (20 December 2015)

Sheriff Pamela Elliott #fundie rawstory.com

A so-called “constitutional” sheriff is accused of intimidating Democrats and Latinos in her Texas county — which has been thrown into political turmoil since her 2012 election.

Sheriff Pamela Elliott has created an atmosphere of paranoia in Edwards County that causes her opponents to gather fearfully in “safe houses” to air their complaints, reported Alex Hannaford for the Texas Observer.

Elliott is a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a right-wing coalition that encourages members to disobey laws they don’t think are constitutional.

She put out a “standby order for volunteers” during the 2014 standoff at Bundy ranch, which was supported by CSPOA co-founder Richard Mack — a former Arizona sheriff who suggested the anti-government militants use women and children as human shields during the armed confrontation with federal agents over unpaid grazing fees.

Elliott appears on the cover of Mack’s 2014 book, Are You A David?, which promotes his right-wing, anti-government agenda.

Hannaford found few Edwards County residents who were willing to be quoted by name out of fear the sheriff would retaliate.

“I’ve been told to install a camera in my vehicle just in case something happens,” said one man, who would not allow his name to be used in print. “People here, officials included, are very wary of the sheriff.”

Some of the sheriff’s opponents who agreed to be named told Hannaford tales of intimidation and retribution by the sheriff and her allies.

Local Democrats, who are greatly outnumbered in the county, said Elliott pushed her way into one of the party’s executive committee meetings in 2014, as an “angry mob” of county employees and the sheriff’s supporters waited outside a private home where the meeting took place.

“I was shocked that she was in uniform but wasn’t doing anything to control the crowd, keep the peace, or protect them or us,” wrote Caroline Ramirez in a complaint filed with state officials. “She seemed to be encouraging the mob. I wanted to call someone, but I had no idea who I should call if the head of our law enforcement is part of the problem.”

David Velky, the superintendent of the county’s Rocksprings Independent School District, chafed at the sheriff’s efforts to involve law enforcement in school disciplinary matters — which he said made an enemy of Elliott.

The superintendent and Elliott have sparred verbally through the media, and Velky said the sheriff recently flagged down two school board members as they were driving and ordered them to vote against his contract renewal.

“This is while she’s in uniform,” Velky told Hannaford. “I try not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I concluded this person either has some innate dislike for me or mistrust.”

The superintendent said Elliott’s close relationship with Rick Light, the leader of the local Edwards Plateau Rangers militia group, causes him to fear for his physical safety.

Velky said he believes Elliott and Light are trying to take over county institutions so they can establish their own right-wing fiefdom.

“I believe the plan is to get rid of me and certain board members in order to take control of the school,” Velky said. “I think they want control over the hiring of the teachers and staff members. I think they want to be able to bypass the procedural safeguards of the law — to arrest people without the grand jury, to bring charges without consulting the district attorney, to decide who is on the grand jury.”

That laundry list of “posse comitatus” aims matches up with rhetoric promoted by Mack and acted out by Ammon Bundy and other anti-government extremists.

Elliott has attempted to impose her right-wing agenda by intimidating Latino voters and elected officials — including her September arrest of Mayor Pauline Gonzales on public corruption charges.

The mayor’s husband performed $4,500 in remodeling work for the city, and she was indicted on four counts of official misconduct — although Gonzales claims she did nothing wrong.

Elliott accused a former mayor, who is also Latino, of lowering the sewer rates for friends and family — a claim the former mayor said could be disproven.

Rachel Gallegos, the former mayor, said Elliott sent her deputies into polling places in Hispanic neighborhoods during the 2014 midterm elections — and she said the intimidation tactic worked on older voters.

“They just said ‘Oh, they’ll come after me — they’ll go after my children, my grandchildren, it’ll just cause trouble,’” Gallegos said. “The elderly are easily intimidated.”

Gallegos said she called Elliott to complain, and the sheriff said it was none of her business.

The sheriff’s office accused Gallegos’ niece of voter fraud in September, saying the 42-year-old Renee´ Gallegos-Johnson illegally voted in Edwards County, where she grew up, owns a home and plans to retire, despite working in Louisiana.

Gallegos-Johnson requested and received a voter registration ID from the county, and she said an attorney with the state attorney general’s office told her she had not committed any offense.

“I think my last name must have screamed so loudly that I caught her attention,” she said.

Elliott also has a history of arresting Hispanic suspects on flimsy evidence, as both sheriff and as a police in Maricopa County, Arizona — where CSPOA co-founder and “birther” conspiracy theorist Joe Arpaio serves as sheriff.

“That’s why the DA won’t take a lot of her cases — she’s a very intelligent woman and doesn’t want to go to court and have the cases thrown out,” said Jay Adams, who worked for decades in the Edwards County Sheriff’s Office.

Adams told Hannaford the evidence that led to four arrests in a cold case murder was ridiculous, and those charges were eventually thrown out.

“I read the affidavit and it’s written on an almost eighth-grade level,” Adams said. “You can tell it wouldn’t float.”

Elliott is running for re-election in November, but she faces a tough Democratic challenger in fellow military veteran Jon Harris — as well as a possible campaign finance violation.

She’s accused of illegally accepting campaign contributions and making campaign expenditures to herself before appointing a campaign treasurer — but she’s carrying on with a Sarah Palin-esque appeal to voters.

“It’s no secret that I do not conform with any scripted expectations of ‘the political game’ when serving as your Sheriff,” Elliott said in a campaign ad. “I will continue to serve as an Army Reserve Officer, a mother, a sister, a neighbor who is loyal to the Lord in a position that should not be politicized but as so scripted in the bible: ‘Do not pervert justice or show partiality.’”

Laurie Ditto #fundie destinyimage.com

In a vision, Jesus took me to Hell. It was like a terrible, life-changing accident. You know how when an accident happens, you keep replaying over in your mind what you could have done differently? I have replayed August 28th over and over at least 1,000 times, if not more. “Oh God, what did I do wrong? Why did this happen to me?”

Because I have looked at this “accident” so much, I know many little details that have been etched into my memory. Many of them are unimportant, but I have memorized them nonetheless. I have looked for every little decision or detail that resulted in the worst day of my entire life—and possibly the most life-giving day for myself.

It is important to note that what I share here all happened instantly. It wasn’t an orderly progression, but I’ve tried to lay it out in an orderly fashion here.

How it Began
I worked for the evangelism department at the International House of Prayer, now called the Kansas City Evangelists’ Fellowship (KCEF). That morning we were in our weekly two-hour evangelism meeting.

As the meeting began with worship, I was standing at the back of the room. Before I can enter into worship in a heart-connect way, let alone in spirit and truth (see John 4:24), I have to tell my body, You will worship God. So that day I raised my hands to God and I sung loudly to Him. I engaged my mind to worship Jesus by contemplating the beauty of His love and the magnificence of His dying on the Cross for me. I let my emotions worship Him, which allows my heart to open to Him.

The worship leader was helping us pray for our lost family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. To really get a sustained heart for lost people, I have found I have to make it personal. I have to truly think about what it would be like for my lost family members to not make it to Heaven. When we think about someone we love not being in Heaven, it creates a real sadness and if we think about it long enough, it creates a desperation. These thoughts allow us to identify with a real emotion for the people we love. Because it’s such a negative emotion to experience, most people don’t go there. Evangelists are willing to expose their hearts to let God’s truth and urgency shape us. We don’t like the down emotion either, but by allowing it we become more tenderized to the eternal truth for lost souls. Then, sharing about Jesus becomes essential and very personal.

As we sang an evangelistic song, I felt the presence of holiness come into the room. The song gripped me and just seemed to add to the excitement I already felt. The music was captivating and took me to what I will call a worship place. The feeling in the room was the same as other times that I had been invited to come away with the Lord to visit Heaven. I knew I was being invited to go in the spirit. The holiness had come for me. I said, “Yes."

Transported to Hell
Then, all of a sudden, the front of the room opened up. I instantly opened my eyes and saw the transformation as it happened. The Hell realm unlocked and I heard massive gates creak open and I felt extreme heat enter the room. I looked with my eyes wide open and I saw Hell through the gates. I saw it! I was shocked that it was right there. Wasn’t it supposed to be in the center of the earth or below us? To say I panicked is an understatement!

Worship and prayer continued around me. The people were oblivious that Hell was at the front of the room. I watched those ominous gates open as I watched the people worshiping. The two places, the meeting room and Hell were together.

I frantically looked to see who might help me. The others didn’t see the gates, hear that sound, or feel the heat. Instinctively, I started screaming. I felt the sound of fear coming from my own body. I knew that my spirit was being demanded to submit. As I screamed, my spirit was also making a sound that deeply hurt my heart and brain while it also panicked every blood cell in my body.

Something came flying past the gates of Hell. It was coming for me. It was like an arm without fingers that grabbed me and sucked me into Hell. The arm was very powerful. It was attached to me like a suction cup in the area of my chest and began dragging me further into Hell. As quickly as it shot out from Hell, it just as quickly moved back. I tried to pull back and break the hold it had on me but it was too powerful.

Before I could blink, I knew this—it was too late. The gates slammed shut with a terrible sound of finality. I knew there was no man on this side or that who could ever open those gates. Only Jesus could because He owns Hell.

Inside the Gates
I passed through gates that trapped the darkness inside. The first thing I knew when I got there: I was in Hell. The realization that I was in Hell was unquestionably shocking and beyond hurtful! I don’t know how to explain just how panicked I was, although you may understand a bit if you’ve ever been lost.

It was like that but more dire. I was like a child and I had no plan. I panicked like no other panic I have ever experienced in my entire life. In fact, I knew that if I could add up every panic I have ever felt, it didn’t come close to what I was experiencing.

Someone said to me, “Laurie, you are in Hell!”

“Oh my God!” I answered.

I knew many things all at once. As I break them down to explain each one individually, it gives the false appearance that it was a slow progressive onslaught. But everything was immediate. For the sake of explanation, I knew three things first—I was in Hell, eternally, for unforgiveness.

Once the understanding of the judgment arrived in my heart there were four distinct pains:

Water—Immediately, all the water left my body, creating a desperate, painful need.
Bone marrow—In an instant my bones turned black.
Breath—The first breath allowed fire to touch everything in me and be carried throughout my body.
Agreement—Agreeing with the judgement that Hell is where I belonged removed my humanity.
Before that day, I had not studied much about Hell. I believed it was real because I believe the whole Bible is true, but I didn’t think that anybody like me would ever go there. I also knew about the Bible’s stance on unforgiveness. Although I knew, it was just easier to hold on to unforgiveness. I mean, with time, unforgiveness had become part of me. I would never have thought unforgiveness could take a person to Hell. My view was swiftly changed.

A Relational Problem
In Hell, I knew and understood the Bible perfectly. Every word of God that I had ever read was now completely clear. And I knew exactly how much I had disobeyed in comparison to my biblical understanding. I was keenly aware of everything about myself and my body. Stuff like my blood moving, my eyes seeing, and how all parts of my body work. I have never been in such awe of the creation of a human body. Everything I learned in eighth grade science I recalled perfectly. But even more, a supernatural knowledge filled in the blanks that I did not already know.

My knowledge about Hell, from the Scriptures, was also at the front of my awareness. I knew that everything I had read was true. All heartbreakingly true. I knew all of the scriptures on Hell, how much information was provided to me in the Bible about it, and how those scriptures fit with the rest of the Bible. I was fully awakened to the terrible reality of this place. The panic of knowing that I was in Hell grew. I was not a visitor.

I understood that Hell is a relational issue, not a problem to solve like a math question. A person cannot get out of Hell if they acquire the right answer. Hell was created because of a relational issue. One of the most important things I knew is that Hell wasn’t created because of human sin and we don’t go to Hell because of one particular sin. We all have sinned (see Rom. 3:23). This isn’t just a sin issue. It is a relational issue. Because of the Devil and his disobedience, disrespect, and disregard of God, Hell was created.

We think someone goes to Hell because they sinned, but really it is about disobeying and disrespecting God. The Bible says, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way” (Ps. 2:12). That kiss is about love, affection, and obedience. We think that because people mess up, God sends them to Hell. But that is not true. How can we think God is bad? People go to Hell because they refuse to be in a relationship with God. Hell is about a refusal to love God and have a relationship with Him.

Although God literally forgave me everything, I chose to refuse to forgive certain ones. I was like the unmerciful servant in one of Jesus’ parables (see Matt. 18:21-35). When the servant refused to forgive the debt and stood before the king again, he was called wicked. It wasn’t because he simply made a mistake; it was because he wouldn’t enter into the relationship of mercy and grace and obedience to the King. It wasn’t only about what a person does; it is all about who they are in their heart.

Dr. Dermot Hudson #fundie ndfsk.dyndns.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ricardo Cohen #fundie icor.info

The Chinese Revolution, with Mao Tse-tung at the head of the CPC, developed the revolutionary process, through a prolonged popular war, from the countryside to the city, which liberated red areas in which the democratic-popular state of New Democracy, and that on October 1, 1949, with the seizure of power throughout the country begins the socialist stage.
As in Russia the proletariat was the class of vanguard of the revolution, but in China the peasantry was the main driving force.

Mao resolves, on the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism, new and fundamental problems of the proletarian revolution, in theory and in practice, which have to do with the characteristics of revolutions in countries oppressed by imperialism.
It faces the modern revisionism, headed by Khrushchev, triumphed at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, changing the class character of the CPSU and the State, opening the way to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. It shows that the rise of revisionism to power is the rise of the bourgeoisie to power.

With this real tragedy for the international working class and the oppressed peoples of the world, socialism, as Marx and Lenin put it, implies a long historical period in which classes and class struggle continue to exist, the struggle between the path socialist and capitalist and the danger of capitalist restoration, in addition to imperialist aggression and intervention.

Modern revisionism extended to most of the Communist Parties of the world and had in Rodney Arismendi, its main exponent in Uruguay, that with its revisionist clique manages to cover the direction of the Communist Party from the 16th Congress, of 1955.
The liquidation process began there, with the abandonment of revolutionary positions, congress after congress, turning a revolutionary proletarian party into a reformist electoral party, subordinated entirely to the interests of the USSR, which had been converted into a social-imperialist power since 1957.
 
Mao and the PCCH fight in the International Communist Movement and carry on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, beginning in 1966, which resists revisionism and capitalist restoration in China for ten years.
Their contributions in the most diverse fields, meant the development of Marxism to a new stage, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
With the defeat of this revolution and the rise of Ten Siao-ping, after Mao's death (9/9/76), revisionism succeeds in the PCCH, and the process of capitalist restoration takes place also in China. This closes a cycle of progress and development of the Proletarian Revolution worldwide.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

While there are dozens of corporations that are on board with the homosexual agenda, the one company that has been particularly active in spending millions of dollars to legalize homosexual marriage is Starbucks. They have been so hellbent on pushing gay marriage that shareholders have called out the company for operating like a homosexual charity that happens to sell coffee. It should not also surprise you that they are big donors to Planned Parenthood, a eugenics organization that proudly profits from the sale of dead fetuses. For these reasons, I wonder if all heterosexual men should stop spending money on the company.

The day after the Supreme Court ruling that legally endorsed gay marriage in the United States, I was at Berlin’s central station waiting for a train to Poland. With time to kill, I decided to grab an espresso at its Starbucks. This is what greeted me at the entrance:

image

I paused, stared at the rainbow cup, and realized that by purchasing the espresso, I would be monetarily supporting Starbucks and their pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and anti-heterosexual agenda. I went somewhere else instead, and since then I have tapered my Starbucks visits, even going to proletariat shops like Dunkin’ Donuts and 7-11 to get my coffee fix. I have been inconvenienced numerous times in seeking out an alternative venue, especially while in the United States.

The CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is so in favor of anything homosexual that one has to wonder if he developed Starbucks as a vehicle to push this particularly sinister agenda, which began surfacing in 2011. His intentions became crystal clear in January of 2012 when he allowed a vice president to make a statement that began official support for the destruction of traditional marriage (PDF).

"We are deeply dedicated to embracing diversity and treating one another with respect and dignity, and remain committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for all of our partners."

This was further clarified when Starbucks backed attempts by degenerates to allow homosexual marriage in Washington State:

"Starbucks said in a statement Tuesday that it was “proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington state legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

“This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks’ business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners,” the statement read.

Last year, Starbucks was among a group of 70 businesses and organizations that filed a brief in federal court opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman."

Starbucks has not been shy to spend money on lawyers to get involved with the courts to specifically legalize homosexual marriage. Their corporate legal department was one of 379 to petition the Supreme Court to re-write the rules of traditional marriage and inevitably make it easier for two homosexual men to get married and adopt young boys.

When a prominent shareholder accused Starbucks of putting the gay agenda in front of business, Schultz told him that the gay agenda is more important than profit, and he can sell his shares if he doesn’t like it.

"Was Schultz taken aback? Not in the least. He responded, “Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”"

Many Americans think corporations exist solely to enrich their shareholders, but when it comes to the progressive agenda, ideology trumps profit.

If you had any doubt about Starbucks’ support of homosexuals above that of heterosexual marriage and tradition, take a look at company headquarters the day after the Supreme Court ruling:

There was also a press release where Schultz bragged about how far Starbucks has bent over to support homosexuals:

Being open, inclusive and forward-thinking is at the core of what Starbucks is about. Starbucks has been a longtime advocate for the LGBT community and marriage equality. The company filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and signed onto The People’s Brief earlier this year.

The shocker of the decade is that they’ve since become leading corporate activists for transsexuals. In the next five years they may even swap out their mermaid logo for something more fitting of their value system.

image

The cherry on top is Starbucks’ support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that earns profits by removing fetuses from the bodies of women before chopping them up for sale.

If evil comes in beverage form, it would have a Starbucks logo on it. If you are against the platform shared by feminists, social justice warriors, and liberals, I strongly urge you not to patronize Starbucks and its associated brands (Seattle’s Best, Teavana, Evolution Fresh, and Tazo Tea). Otherwise, every purchase you make at the chain goes into the pocket of a company that has vigorously used both marketing and legal means to push an agenda that goes against the values of decency and traditional family.

It’s hard not to feel a sort of hopelessness about the direction of Western culture. Traditional layers of society are being methodically removed for a degenerate experiment that seems to have a grand goal of destroying the family unit. Homosexual marriage was just one step over the past few decades that also included women’s suffrage, feminism, abortion, and birth control.

While our power is limited to reverse this direction, there are still things that we can control. One of them is to remove financial support of corporations that go against what we believe is right, a few dollars at a time. There are many more companies that support gay marriage, some of which we simply can’t avoid, but Starbucks was especially active and so they deserve to be punished for accelerating the decline of Western morals and tradition. I will do all I can to enact that punishment.

Eden Decoded #fundie facebook.com

The Church has to understand that the LGBT has a concerted effort to attack and raise up slander to destroy any Black Man that’s good for Black America. You need to stop following and believing these ‘exposing’ ministries online. Most of these exposing ministries are headed by homosexuals themselves or by men/women who have some proclivity towards homosexual desires.

Bishop Eddie Long was a great man; who had insight and intelligence that surpassed most people in the Church, but was satanically marred by unfounded-slanderous accusations from homosexual men.

And interesting to note: Those who most shamed him were either men that weren’t secure in their own manhood, or fornicative lascivious women; basically these people had poor characters themselves.

As most of the Black Church sat back and watched and gloried in his defamation of character, which led up to his death, he still pressed on doing God’s work.

Any pastor or Believer that glories in this man’s death, is just as guilty as the cancer that attacked his body. He is a Christian; a child of God; that rested in the faith of Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. He never denied Jesus Christ: so redemption, forgiveness and salvation was still allotted for him.

He fought a long fight for the faith, in spite of the antagonist attacks from so-called Believers and in spite of the character slander from mainstream Anti-Christ media. Rest in peace Eddie Long.

1 John 4:20-21, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates, works against his Christian brother he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should also unselfishly love his brother and seek the best for him.”

Matthew 7:1-2, “Do not judge and criticize and condemn, others unfairly with an attitude of self-righteous superiority as though assuming the office of a judge, so that you will not be judged unfairly. For just as you hypocritically judge others, when you are sinful and unrepentant, so will you be judged; and in accordance with your standard of measure used to pass out judgment, judgment will be measured to you.”

WKCude #fundie christiannews.net

(="‘I Am a Christian’ Gaga Claims, Calls Pence ‘Worst’ Christian Example as Wife Works at School Prohibiting Homosexuality"=)

This "pretender" to the Faith has no concept of the depth and scope of her inborn and natural proclivity to sin; and profanely and contemptuously so while being completely ignorant of the fact that she is not known by Christ. She is not one of His beloved redeemed. Ms. Gaga has measured herself as "righteous" and able to judge another "righteously," BUT looks through the scrim of her personally developed theology. And such a theology is darkness borne through Satan's system of standards.

It is very doubtful that Ms. Gaga has ever heard the true Gospel of Christ exhorted by a doctrinally sound pastor-teacher; has ever read an authorized version of the Bible; has ever developed a personal fellowship with one of the truly redeemed of Christ; and has ever come to that point in eternity where her heart has yearned to be forgiven and reconciled to God. She does not understand how profanely arrogant her sin of adding to and taking away from God's Word is. She is in a terrible place of storing up God's wrath. Yet, God's mercy and grace can abound for her also. John 6:44-45, 65.

Nick Land #elitist #wingnut #dunning-kruger thedarkenlightenment.com

For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption. The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten.

Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites. It accepts that governments are made out of people, and that they will eat well. Setting its expectations as low as reasonably possible, it seeks only to spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauch. From Thomas Hobbes to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and beyond, it asks: How can the sovereign power be prevented – or at least dissuaded — from devouring society? It consistently finds democratic ‘solutions’ to this problem risible, at best.

JucheforWhitePeople & xxxrivenmainxxx #sexist reddit.com

So my comment on the twitch 'abuser' got linked to r/shitliberalssay...

image

(JucheforWhitePeople)

Used to love that sub but everyday it became less Marxist Leninist and more DSA Soc Dem soyboys garbage. The left is so gynocentric it that it would happily sell out any principle to appease the holy Vagina.

Yeah, I was pretty involved with left-wing politics. But I couldn't agree with the sexual free market or mass immigration. I don't actively follow politics these days.

All politics is cope, there is no political movement that would like guys like us.

Too true.

The far-right will call us subhuman, try to eliminate us from the gene pool through eugenics and maybe put us in concentration camps. They might keep some of us around just to mock us in front of their aryan queens.

Liberals call us misogynist extremists and are already working on classifying us as terrorist. They already want to take away our rights. Liberals love upholding gynocentrism.

The far-left will call us reactionaries and send us to gulags or reeducation camps. The "proleteriat" will laugh as we struggle in what is essentially sexual capitalism.

(xxxrivenmainxxx)
Ok, so claiming that it is ok to hit your wife when shes provocating you makes you a liberal lol

Paul Craig Roberts #fundie paulcraigroberts.org

A Conversation on Race — Paul Craig Roberts

We often hear that we need a conversation on race. Considering that Americans are a brainwashed people living in a false history, such a conversation would resemble the one the Russians were expected to have with the British in regard to the Skripal poisoning: “Yes, we are guilty. We will pay reparations. Where would you like us to send Putin for trial?” In other words, the only acceptable race conversation in the US is one in which white people accept the accusation that they are racist and offer to make amends.

Considering that the only slavery experienced by any living black or white person is income tax slavery, race is an issue only because it has been orchestrated as an issue along with gender and sexual preference. These divisive issues are the products of Identity Politics spawned by cultural Marxism.

In real Marxism, conflict is class conflict. Workers and capitalists have different interests, and history is a struggle between material interests. The capitalist is the villain and the workers are the victims.

In the pseudo Marxism of Identity Politics, the white race is the villain, especially the white heterosexual male, and racial minorities, women, and homosexuals are the victims.

There is, of course, no such thing as a white or black race. There are many different nationalities of whites, and they have done a good job throughout history of killing each other. Similarly, there are many different black tribes and Asian ethnicities who also have fought more among themselves than with others. But all of this goes by the wayside, along with the fact that in the world the “racial minorities” are actually majorities and the “white majority” is actually a minority. There are more Chinese or Indians alone than there are white people.

But orchestrated histories are not fact-based.

The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as “the Trump deplorables,” is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism has been stood on its head.

The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.

The ruling elite favors a “conversation on race,” because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded “black history,” “women’s studies,” and “transgender dialogues,” in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These “studies” have replaced real history with fake history.

For example, it was once universally known that black slavery originated in slave wars between black African tribes. Slaves were a status symbol, but they accumulated beyond the capacity of tribes to sustain. The surplus was exported first to Arabs and then to English, Spanish, and French who founded colonies in the new world that had resources but no work force. The socialist scholar Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford professor Michael Polanyi, told the story of the origin of the African slave trade in his famous book, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.

The first slaves in the new world were white. When real history was taught, this was widely understood. Movies were even made that showed that in King George III’s England, the alternative to criminal punishment was to be sold as a slave in the colonies. See, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgfWhlc3gQ

Among the first New World lands to be exploited by the Europeans were the Carribean Islands, which were suitable for sugar and rice production. The problem was that the white slaves died like flies from malaria and yellow fever. The Spanish lack of success with a work force of natives of the lands they conquered led those in search of a work force to the slave export business of the black Kingdom of Dahomey. The demand for black workers rose considerably when it was discovered that many had immunity to malaria and resistance to yellow fever. This meant that a plantation’s investment in a work force was not wiped out by disease.

The resistance of blacks to malaria is due to the protective feature of the sickle cell trait that, apparently, only blacks have. See: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html

Slavery existed in the New World long before the United States came into existence. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are today written off by Identity Politics as racists simply because they were born when slavery was a pre-existing institution.

Slavery had existed for many centuries prior to the Confederacy. Yet, in some accounts today one comes away with the impression that the South invented slavery. As the tale sometimes goes, Southern racists so hated blacks that they went to Africa, captured blacks at great expense, only to return them to the South where they whipped and abused their investments to the point of death and demoralized their work force by breaking up black families, selling children in one direction and wives and husbands in the other. This tale is not told as an occasional abuse but as the general practice. Economically, of course, it makes no sense whatsoever. But facts are no longer part of American history.

Northern states held slaves as well. However, the predominance of slaves were in the South. This was not because Southerners hated blacks. It was because the land in the South supported large agricultural cultivation, and there was no other work force. The South, like the United States, inherited slavery from the work force that European colonists purchased from the black Kingdom of Dahomey.

Why wasn’t there an alternative work force to slaves? The reason is that new immigrants by moving West could take land from the native Americans and be independent as opposed to being wage earners working on someone else’s land. The Western frontier did not close until about 1900. At the time of the War of Northern Aggression the Plains Indians still ruled west of the Mississippi River. It was Lincoln’s Northern war criminals, Sherman and Sheridan, who were sent to exterminate the Plains Indians. Ask the American natives, or what is left of them, who the racists are: the Northerners or the Southerners.

Black studies has even corrupted other aspects of history. Consider the so-called “civil war.” The name itself is an orchestration. There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The South had left the union and had no interest whatsoever in controlling the government in Washington. The only reason the South fought was that the South was invaded by the North.

Why did the North invade the South? As was once understood by every historian and every student, Abraham Lincoln invaded the South in order, in Lincoln’s own words, expressed time and time again, “to preserve the Union.”

Why did the South leave the Union? Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South. The North needed protection from British manufactures in order for the economic rise of the North. In contrast, the South’s economy was based on cotton exports to England and on cheap manufactures imported from England. Tariffs would bring the South higher cost of manufactured goods and retaliation against their cotton exports. The economic interests of the North and South did not coincide.

Slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. Lincoln himself said so over and over. Prior to his invasion of the South, Lincoln and the Northern Congress promised the South Constitutional protection of slavery for all time if the Southern states would stay in the Union. Historians who have read and recorded the war correspondence of both Union and Confederacy soldiers to relatives and friends at home can find no one fighting for or against slavery. The Northern troops are fighting to preserve the union. The Southern ones are fighting because they are invaded.

Nothing could be clearer. Yet, the myth has been established that Abraham Lincoln went to war in order to free the slaves. In fact, Lincoln said that blacks were not capable of living with whites, who he said were superior, and that his intention was to send the blacks back to Africa. If America ever had a “white supremacist,” it was Abraham Lincoln.

What about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t this order by Lincoln free the blacks? No. It was a war measure on which hopes were placed that, as almost every able-bodied Southern male was in the front lines, the slaves would revolt and rape the Southern soldiers’ wives and daughters, forcing the soldiers to desert the army and return home to protect their families. As Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, the president has freed the slaves in the territories that the Union does not control and left them in slavery in the territory that the Union does control.

Why did Lincoln resort to such a dishonorable strategy? The reason is that Lincoln had run through all the Union generals and could not find one that could defeat Robert E. Lee’s vastly outnumbered Army of Northern Virginia.

The character and generalship of Robert E. Lee, who is dismissed by Identity Politics as a white racist, is so highly admired by the United States Army that the Barracks at West Point are named in Lee’s honor. Not even “America’s first black president” was able to change that. Black history also covers up the fact that Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army. In those days Americans still saw themselves as citizens of their state, not as citizens of the US. Lee refused the offer on the grounds that he could not go to war against his native country of Virginia and resigned his US Army commission.

If Lee had been in command of the Confederacy at the First Battle of Bull Run when the Union Army broke and ran all the way back to Washington, Lee would have followed and the war would have ended with the South’s victory.

But Lee wasn’t there. Instead, the Southern generals concluded, watching the fleeing Union Army, that the Northerns could neither fight, retreat in order, or ride horses, and were no threat whatsoever. This conclusion overlooked the superior manpower of the North, the constant inflow of Irish immigrants who became the Union’s cannon fodder, the Northern manufacturing capability, and the navy that could block Southern ports and starve the South of resources.

During the first two years of the War of Northern Aggression the Union Army never won a battle against Lee’s vastly outgunned army. The North had everything. All the South had was valor. Lincoln was desperate. Opposition to his war was rising in the North. He had to imprison 300 Northern newspaper editors, exile a US Congressman, and was faced with the North’s most famous general running against him on a peace platform in the next election. Thus, Lincoln’s vain attempt to provoke a slave rebellion in the South. Why didn’t such allegedly horribly treated and oppressed slaves revolt when there was no one to prevent it but women and children?

Everything I have written in this column was once understood by everyone. But it has all been erased and replaced with a false history that serves the ruling elite. It is not only the ruling elite that has a vested interest in the false history of “white racism,” but also the universities and history departments in which the false history is institutionalized and the foundations that have financed black history, women’s studies, and transgender dialogues.

It was Reconstruction that ruined relations between blacks and whites in the South. The North stuffed blacks down the throats of the defeated South. Blacks were placed in charge of Southern governments in order to protect the Northern carpet baggers who looted and stole from the South. The occupying Union Army encouraged the blacks to abuse the Southern people, especially the women, as did the Union soldiers. The Klu Klux Klan arose as a guerrilla force to stop the predations. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he had realized how rapacious the North would prove to be, he would have led a guerrilla resistance.

The generations of Americans who have been propagandized instead of educated need to understand that Reconstruction did not mean rebuilding southern infrastructure, cities, and towns destroyed by the Union armies. It did not mean reconstructing southern food production. It meant reconstructing southern society and governance. Blacks, who were unprepared for the task, were put in control of governments so that carpetbaggers could loot and steal. Whites lost the franchise and protection of law as their property was stolen. Some areas suffered more than others from the Reconstruction practices, which often differed from, and were worse than, the policies themselves.

Reconstruction was a contentious issue even within the Republican Party. Neither president Lincoln nor Johnson would go along with the more extreme Republican elements. The extremism of the Reconstruction policies lost support among the northern people. When the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the 1870s, Reconstruction was brought to an end.

In the South, and most certainly in Atlanta, where I grew up, schools were neighborhood schools. We were segregated by economic class. I went to school with middle class kids from my middle class neighborhood. I did not go to school with rich kids or with poor kids. This segregation was not racial.

When the North again got on its high moral horse and imposed school integration on the South, it disrupted the neighborhood school system. Now kids spent hours riding in school busses to distant locations. This destroyed the parent-teacher associations that had kept parental involvement and displinine in the schools. The South, being a commonsense people, saw all of this coming. The South also saw Reconstruction all over again. That, and not hatred of blacks, is the reason for the South’s resistance to school integration.

All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted reality, except for my readers and the readers of a handful of others who cannot be compromised. Western peoples are so propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.

History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes, Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism now practice it ten-fold.

The brainwashing about the Russian and Muslim threats works for a number of reasons. The superpatriots among the Trump deplorables feel that their patriotism requires them to believe the allegations against Russia, Syria, Iran, and China. Americans employed in the vast military/security complex understand that the budget that funds the complex in which they have their careers is at stake. Those who want a wall to keep out foreigners go along with the demonization of Muslims as terrorists who have to be killed “over there before they come over here.” The Democrats want an excuse for having lost the presidential election. And so on. The agendas of various societal elements come together to support the official propaganda.

The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population—indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are incompetent—and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.

polakfury #fundie reddit.com

Civil Rights History Test

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY NOTE: All answers are "b."

1.What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

2.What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

3.What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

4.What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

5.What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

6.What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

7.What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

8.What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

9.What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

10.What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

11.What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

12.What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

13.What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and had the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

14.What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina while governor, and Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

15.What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

16.What is the Party of President Barack Obama whose liberal socialist policies increased black poverty and devastated both HBCUs and charter school opportunity scholarships for poor black student after President Obama took office?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

17.What Party is against school vouchers and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

And they never did switch. Remember Hillary gave praise to Robert Byrd as a Hero.

Clarence Henderson #fundie charlotteobserver.com

Let us be clear: HB2 cannot be compared to the injustice of Jim Crow. In fact, it is insulting to liken African Americans’ continuing struggle for equality in America to the liberals’ attempt to alter society’s accepted norms.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared HB2 to Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws were put into place to keep an entire race positioned as second-class citizens. HB2 simply says that men and women should use the restroom of their biological sex in government buildings and schools. This comparison is highly offensive and utterly disrespectful to those families and individuals who have shed blood and lost lives to advance the cause of civil rights. I take this as a personal slap in the face because I was an active participant in the civil rights movement.

In 1960, I participated in the sit-in at the Woolworth Diner in Greensboro. As a student attending North Carolina A&T University, I experienced the cruel, vicious reality of segregation first hand.

During the Jim Crow Era, we stared down the nozzle of firehoses, felt the piercing bite of police dogs, dangled from trees after being strung up by an angry mob, all because of the color of our skin. Our businesses were burned, churches bombed, communities destroyed, all because of the color of our skin. We had to drink at separate water fountains, shop at different stores and even had to sit at the back of the bus, all because of the color of our skin. All this and more took place after enduring 400 years of arguably the most heinous crime in history – slavery.

In comparison, transgender individuals do not have to fight dogs, can shop anywhere and can use any water fountain. They are free to work, shop and ride the bus. And to my knowledge, they have not experienced 400 years of slavery and the ongoing fight for parity 151 years after emancipation.

It is a further insult that the left chooses to ignore the continued absence of African Americans at the top levels of corporate America including the companies that took a public stand against HB2. Look at their boards of directors and executive teams. Where are the African Americans? Women? Transgender people? To them, I say fix these problems in your own house.

Loretta Lynch’s political pandering to arouse African American interest in what has been proven to be lukewarm support for the supposed Democratic presidential candidate is an obvious attempt to elicit an emotional response. You cannot pimp the civil rights movement.

Throughout my life, I have noticed that even smart people say dumb things. And you, Ms. Lynch, have once again proven me right. Well done.

Gilad Atzmon #racist gilad.co.uk

The ultra Zionist settler outlet Israel National News reported yesterday that “Russian Jews slam ‘anti-Semitic myth’ that the country’s last tsar “was murdered by Jews for ritual purposes."

Marina Molodtsova, a senior investigator for a special ministerial committee on the 1917 slaying of Nicholas II of Russia, said on Monday during a conference in Moscow that her committee will conduct “a psycho-historical examination” to find out whether the execution of the royal family was a ritual murder. At the same event, Father Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox Church bishop, said that, according to “the most rigorous approach to the version of ritual murder, a significant part of the church commission [on Nicholas II’s killing during the Russian revolution of 1917] has no doubt that this murder was ritual.”

Far from being surprising the Jews are upset. “The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, a Chabad-affiliated group with more than 100 affiliated communities across Russia, called the suggestions a “shocking expression of an anti-Semitic myth” in a statement Monday.” Interestingly enough, the Jewish bodies are not upset by the verdict of the committee; they are actually distressed by the idea that the Russians decided to look into their past.

“We all think of this as absolutely unacceptable,” the federation’s spokesperson, Boruch Gorin, lamented, and “shocked first and foremost by the sheer absurdity of the allegations.”

The Israeli outlet reports that, “claims that Nicholas was killed by Jews for ritual purposes had been limited before the conference to a fringe of zealous anti-Semites and promoters of unsophisticated conspiracy theories.” Seemingly, this is not the case anymore. Israel National News explains, “amid rising nationalism and nostalgia for Tsarist times in Russia under President Vladimir Putin, a Russian court in 2010 ordered prosecutors to reopen an investigation into the murder of the Tsar and his family.”

I obviously have no opinion on the nature of the execution of the Tsar and his family. Like others I am looking forward to learning more, and will wait patiently for the investigating committee to deliver its study of the event. However, it is worth mentioning that not one historian questions the dominance of Jews within the Bolshevik revolution and the early communist leadership. Not many scholars of the era question the embarrassing fact that “Stalin's Jews” as Israeli prominent writer Sever Plocker names them, were “some of (the) greatest murderers of modern times”

Spokesman Boruch Gorin, who is also a senior aide to Berel Lazar, a chief rabbi of Russia, told Israel National News that, “Nicholas II’s killers were obviously committed atheists who rejected any belief in any force – except their own”. However, the blaming of Jews for the Tsar’s death is “an absolutely anti-Semitic myth used in anti-Semitic propaganda for several decades, which is why the Jews view this with great concern.”

I will make an effort to educate Gorin. Since the European Jewish emancipation, Jews are drifting away from Judaism and their means of identification are varied. As a matter of fact, Judaism is, by now, just one Jewish religion amongst many. The Holocaust seems to be the most popular Jewish religion. Atheism is also a popular Jewish religion. Human Rights is a widespread Jewish religion, however, not as popular as Zionism.

Jewish religions are diverse and often contradict each other. But they have one thing in common-- they all facilitate a sense of choseness – a clear vision of Jewish exceptionalism. Jewish religions all adhere to the strong belief in ‘The Jew.’ The Zionists who murdered Palestine were atheists. They adhered to the peculiar belief that Jews can celebrate their national aspirations at the expense of another people. They believed and still believe in their righteous cause. The many Jews who adhere to the Holocaust religion also believe in ‘The Jew,’ the one who, against all odds, survived the ashes, reinstated his/her power by means of national salvation. The ‘atheist’ Bolsheviks were no different; they believed themselves to be ‘better’ because they believed in equality. This force alone made them into a genocidal cult with no precedent in human history.

Were these Bolsheviks engaged in ritual killing? This is indeed a deep question with many aspects and layers. We will have to wait and see what the Russian committee has to say about it. However, the fact that Russian Jewish bodies are in a state of turmoil may as well be revealing.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.

...

I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

B. Nathaniel Sullivan #fundie #wingnut #mammon wordfoundations.com

Taking one by one the concepts Nash mentions, we observed,

1. Capitalism, which Nash rightly contends “is not economic anarchy,” is maintained in the context of an ordered freedom that Scripture upholds and makes possible.
2. The “voluntary relationships” and the voluntary involvement of individuals that make capitalism work are antithetical to government orchestration of private decisions and actions. Scripture affirms personal freedom in the economic realm.
3. A free enterprise economic model rests on the principle that people have “inherent human rights” consistent with their having been created by God “in His image.”
4. In the context of a free market economy, workers and supervisors, buyers and sellers, producers and consumers—all who participate—can act to fulfill the cultural commission God gave the human race in Genesis 1:28.
5. Both capitalism and Scripture affirm the individual sovereignty of human beings, including “the right to make decisions.”
6. “The right to be free” also is an integral part of free enterprise—and a right upheld in God’s Word.

Let’s continue. We have four more items to consider.

Seventh, “the right to hold property” is an inherent human right that is essential if the free enterprise system is going to work. We see the right to own and manage one’s property throughout Scripture. Most notably, we see it embedded in the Ten Commandments. “You shall not steal,” the Eighth Commandment, and “You shall not covet,” the Tenth Commandment, are clear affirmations of property rights. Note carefully how the Tenth Commandment reads in its entirety:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s (emphases added).

How many possessive nouns and pronouns do we see in this commandment? Seven, and the seventh is all-inclusive.

Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Some reactionaries, I have come to accept, never want to actually accomplish anything, being far too happy to be nostalgic and pour scorn on everything around them. Myself, I would like to actually win and live in a world without politics, protests, race wars, pressure-groups and globalists. I would like a world where every people has their monarch and every monarch works to make his people as powerful and prosperous as they can be. However, if that is going to happen, we have to learn what works and what does not. We cannot simply go back to exactly the way things used to be because, the way things used to be ended in disaster (if they had not, we would be conservatives rather than reactionaries). There must be some adjustment. Don't be just like what used to be, strive to be better. In order to do that, I can see no alternative but working to change the culture, change the ideas and values of people. Tearing down the last vestiges of the monarchical order because they are not up to your standards will not accomplish that. Counter the "Enlightenment" thinking from the ground up. We do have, as I have said before, at least some room to be optimistic about such a campaign because the current state of affairs does not really seem to be pleasing anyone. The revolutionaries and the liberals alike both promised a utopia and they have obviously failed to deliver it. That is to our advantage but we must do the hard work of steadily changing the values and ideas of our friends, families, neighbors and then going on to education, entertainment and the wider culture. What we have now is not working, use that to your advantage and go forth and change some hearts & minds.

Socalist Musings #fundie facebook.com

A quick note on what we mean by "ultra-leftist."

An ultra-leftist is someone who clamors for things for which the material conditions don't exist yet. For example, with regards to the Syrian conflict, most MLs support the Syrian government against the "rebels" *even though* the Syrian government is a bourgeois nationalist government. Why? Because in a fight between the national bourgeoisie of a country and the imperialist bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie represents the progressive force. This of course does not hold if the conflict is between say the national bourgeoisie and the working class, in which case the workers would represent the progressive force and we'd switch our allegiance.

This is a basic application of dialectical materialism: the fact that what is reactionary in a particular situation can be a progressive force in another situation. Things aren't static and rigid but are continually changing. Capitalism was a progressive force against feudalism but is reactionary against socialism. The French Revolution was a progressive advance against feudalism even though it was a bourgeois revolution. This is the Marxist position.

The ultra-leftist position is: no, full communism in Syria! This ignores the existing material conditions in Syria, misunderstands the strength and position of the proletariat, and jumps to establish the ideal society by ignoring the messy present. This, of course, results from a gross misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of dialectics which make them hold to the position that nationalism or the bourgeoisie are always and always "bad."

This is what an "ultra-leftist" is. It's not someone who's the farthest left on the political spectrum (please) and it's not something to be proud of (at least if they understand the way Marxists use the term against them).

Jack Kelley #fundie gracethrufaith.com

[W]hen the Lord ordained the ritual of circumcision for males, He arranged for the coagulating proenzyme you call prothrombin to be at 130% of normal adult levels on the eighth day of life, and for natural analgesic enzymes in the blood to be at lifetime highs as well. Circumcision on any other day can be a painful and bloody event, but on the eighth day it's remarkably less so. Of course, this is a fact the medical profession has only learned in the last century. In our day we just knew that everything worked better when we were obedient to God's commands.

ZeroNegro2020 #moonbat #racist stormfront.org

RE: Identity Politics is the means whereby hostile . . .

Identity Politics is the means whereby hostile (((globalizing elites)))) weaponize every single identity group against the middle identity group (aka heterosexual White men of the working- and middle-classes).

Read my very short blog entry, "Identity Politics: A Primer", to learn how it all works.

Identity politics is controlled opposition.

The remedy to defeat capitalism is unite the working class. Identity politics instead creates divisions and by targeting whites, encourage whites proles to side with the ruling class.

Unite the working class? Sounds like Communism. No thanks, Capitalism is just fine.

Yeah letting bankers run your society is just fine. If you don't mind poor people dying of plague..

Right... all a hoax to discredit your hero Trump, I know

The White working class elected Trump in 2016

They were tricked. Trump is a puppet for the 1%.

America is capitalist. Rich people own both parties. So the left is controlled opposition.

Instead of promoting the interests of workers, the liberal democrats encourage minorities to blame their grievances on white people.

This makes white people abandon the left and vote for increasingly right wing republicans.

The fake left then blames everything the republicans do on the poor whites who voted for Trump and not the 1%

I think you've wrapped toilet paper too tight on your head. Go outside and get some fresh air. But make sure your have a face mask!

Real socialists hate SJW's.

It is basically just like the difference between nationalists and conservatives.

SJW's think the system can be fixed by removing white males from positions of power. But these SJW's are capitalist shills. They only seek to insert a few token blacks and other minorities into the bourgeoisie.

Socialism only ever works when it is used by nationalists. As happened in China and Vietnam.

If White Nationalists stop dicking around with Libertarianism and embrace Socialism as the best economic system for white people then more whites will join. But as long as WN's cling to some romanticized view that the capitalist system that brought millions of Negros and Chinese and other non-whites to America to exploit the working man is a sound system then most radicals won't give a rat's ass about nationalism. The left will believe exactly what they are taught, that nationalists are evil reactionaries who will side with the rich against the poor.

Mike Grimmel #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Is the Vegas shooting a BLACK OP or Occult sacrifice? [Thread will curate all known facts & links]

Let's examine some facts pointing this to be far more than just a "lone nut" incident:

1) Paddock is a no-name, nobody. No record, no social media. Could be a patsy or MK-ULTRA victim. We'll find out more eventually.

2) 32nd floor, two windows broken, 9 windows in between, 11 windows in total. Smart people here know the significance of these numbers. There appears to be no logical reason why the shooter would break two windows so far apart.

3) Eye-witnesses reported two Hispanic individuals, a male and female, tried to warn everyone in the crowd that they were "all going to die" 45 minutes before the shooting. They made such a scene they were escorted out by security. L.E. has made no mention of them.

This alone blows a hole in the official story. Now we know at least two people had knowledge a shooting was coming, and when it was coming.

More details about this in this thread:

Thread: YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE' – SHOCK WARNING 45 minutes before attack (Multiple shooters???)

4) Paddock's "roommate" and/or wife is Marilou Danley. Her casino players card was apparently found in the hotel room, yet she is "out of the country" and not considered a suspect, according to L.E.

5) Marilou Danley's husband or ex-husband is 76 year old Geary Danley. His Facebook account is rife with Leftist ideology, dozens upon dozens of "likes" of every Leftist and anti-Trump group imaginable, including ShareBlue and most importantly, Rubicon Training Group, a gun training and gun course company.

Have a look: [link to archive.fo (secure)]

Geary has knowledge and a proclivity for guns, as a careful reading of his FB will reveal. Paddock and Geary Danley share one degree of separation.

Even though Geary supposedly lives in Arkansas, public records reveal he has a decades-long history of living in the state of Nevada:

[link to ghostbin.com (secure)]

6) The crowd was full of country music fans, mostly White and likely Republican.

7) Many reports of multiple shooters, including a report of a man entering Bellagio's employee entrance with a rifle and reports of bombs and suspicious devices.

8) The shooting itself required careful planning, including renting a hotel room specifically at Mandalay Bay, an east-facing room on a weekend, without going detected, while hauling in 10 rifles, setting up "platforms" and "cameras" and breaking two windows, each 9 windows apart in between (people reported glass falling, but no gunshots, suggesting windows were broken some other way). This careful planning suggests long-term pre-meditation.

9) "10/1 Human Sacrifice Atomic Bomb Planned for North Korea’s Hotel of Doom" -- See link for the chilling T-shirt depicting Chernobyl, 9/11, and Pyongyang Hotel on 10/1:

[link to alternativeinfotome1.com (secure)]

10) This was a month or two ago, Vegas cops ignored it:

"New ISIS video appears to threaten Las Vegas"

[link to www.lasvegasnow.com]

11) Last night's episode of Rick and Morty was called Rickchurian Mortydate.

12) Keep an eye on this thread:

Thread: Vegas thread last night.. now I can't find it..

More to be added as links and facts come in.

---

While I don't think the shooting was a "fake" or a "hoax" like Sandy Hook, the following should be taken into consideration:

1) One of those creepy infamous Craigslist postings for "crisis actors" appeared two weeks beforehand.

[link to pbs.twimg.com (secure)]

2) One eye witness claimed the shots were "fake" or not real gun shots:

3) Twitter user claims some eye witnesses are crisis actors:

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Be Saved! #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

As everyone knows it, we are very close to a TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE, called the third blood moon of the 2014-2015 Tetrad on April 4 2015, and closer to the exceptional SOLAR ECLIPSE, exactly on the first day of the Spring 2015, going over Great Britain.

I want you to remember that Prince William was born on a day of a SOLAR ECLIPSE exactly the very first day of Summer, i.e. June 21 1982.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to www.stariq.com]

That same year, Catherine Middleton was born on a TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE, i.e. a BLOOD MOON on January 9 1982.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Everyone knows that the TOTAL - BLOOD - LUNAR ECLIPSES are not common.

Everyone knows that the SUN represents the MALE aspect, while the MOON represents the FEMALE aspect.

As you can see there is something BIG brewing because it matches two people - William & Kate - having been born the very day of an eclipse (Solar for the male, Lunar for the female) and called to become the Two Witnesses when the third BLACK HORSEMAN (BLACK LIKE THE ECLIPSE) appears on March 31 2015 according to the fractal calendar of the End Times, this rider being the one of the REWARDS of the 144,000 ELECT.

Each one was born in a month starting with the letter 'J'.


The Tetrad of the End Times

The four consecutive blood moons , also called tetrad are four consecutive lunar eclipses that will appear red because total. The series of four blood moons were rare in history. And these fall precisely at the time of the most important Jewish holidays ( Passover and Sukkot ). The Passover celebrates the beginning of the Exodus from Egypt. The Sukkot marks the divine assistance received by the Israelites during the Exodus. It is therefore a matter of Chosen People. It is remarkable to see that these eclipses echoes the FOUR HORSEMEN! They always precede the period of a new Horseman, except the third - that of the Rapture of the Chosen People of God (144 000) - that it is almost simultaneous and marked by a solar TOTAL eclipse few days before this period .


These tetrads systematically preceded tribulations for Israel (and Jews in general). The last two tetrads respectively came just before the war that occurred at the time of the creation of the State of Israel (1948) and the Six Day War (1967).

What is remarkable is that a pattern emerges. We are at the eighth tetrad since the time of Jesus. That of 1948 precedes 19 years that of 1967. The latter precedes 48 years the one in which we are. The result is: 1948 in 2018!

1948 = Date of creation of Israel.
2018 = Arrival of the Antichrist who must destroy the Temple in Jerusalem in Israel according to the Scriptures.

The Temple must indeed be destroyed a third time according to Mark 13 and Daniel 9.

The second destruction of the Temple took place in 70 AD, 70 we find between 1948 and 2018, i.e. 1948 years between 70 and 2018. We find a similar pattern, in reverse, for the series of tetrads with the exile of the State of Israel in the 8th century as a result of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem: 48 years (range 796-842) and 19 years (842-861), so '4819'.

This inversion of numbers reminds us the fractal periods of the Christian era as a result of the death of Christ where time 'compresses', compared to that of the 7 seals where time 'unpacks' when Christ returns in 2014, first year of this tetrad!

The number 8 is that of Christ (Alpha is associated with the number 1, and Omega the number 8). Now, it is the 8th tetrad since his resurrection.


The second total lunar eclipse of the tetrad is Wednesday, October 8, 2014!

The first, on April 15, took place before the war in the Gaza Strip, but before the beginning of the End Times, July 22, 2014, and therefore the first period of the 7 seals and the first Horseman (White Horseman).

This second eclipse of October 8 takes place just before the start of the second period of the Four Horsemen (Red Horseman), and therefore the second seal, which starts at the anniversary date of the Battle of Hastings of 1066, battle that marked the beginning of the Kings of Great Britain with four dynasties, aka the four beasts in Daniel 9.


The third total lunar eclipse will take place on April 4, 2015 just after the start of the third seal, and third Horseman (Black Horseman).


But what will be the beginning of the third Horseman (third seal) it is especially the solar eclipse of March 20, 2015 ... at the time of the Jewish New Year of Kings, the spring equinox!

If the Jewish holidays are indeed 'modeled' on lunar cycles, it is surprising that the total lunar eclipses fall precisely on these celebrations coinciding with the fractal calendar I presented. How many Jewish holidays of this magnitude in the year, and how many TOTAL lunar eclipses per year?

There are three major Jewish feasts, plus the new year. There are an average of two lunar eclipse per year. BUT, in Wikipedia, we see that the TOTAL lunar eclipses are rare. Since 2005, here are the dates of the total lunar eclipses: 03/03/2007, 28/08/2007, 21/02/2008, 21/12/2010, 15/06/2011, 10/12/2011, 15/04/2014, 08/10/2014.

So in ten years, we have had only eight total lunar eclipses with NO Jewish holidays ... except for 2014! In this case, we have, in addition, the same scenario for 2015, AND a total solar eclipse on the Jewish New Year of the Kings in 2015. But the point I want to emphasize is that the end of March TOTAL solar eclipse 2015, which will be on Europe (especially GB) where the Two Witnesses are, coincides with the end of the period of the Second Horseman (Red) also in late March, before the third phase of the Ministry of the Two Witnesses, the Black Horseman, before that of the Rapture of the 144,000, the Chosen People of God.


Knowing that Passover and Sukkot are both related to the Chosen People of the time of the Exodus, and therefore to be the RAPTURED 144,000 (12,000 for each of the 12 tribes of Israel), ALL JEWS OF TIME OF CHRIST, we understand that the solar eclipse turning point of March 20, 2015 is the 'midpoint' between two series of total lunar eclipses. They all come BEFORE a new seal / Horseman, except just the third (The Rapture of the 144,000) which is almost simultaneous (4/4 instead of 31/3). So there is ONE HORSEMAN FOR ONE TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE!


Notice how, at the time of the exile of the Jews of Palestine in the ninth century, we have the same configuration as today.


Note that the sack of Rome in the ninth century, after the four Jewish holidays falling on four consecutive total lunar eclipses, strangely echoes the destruction of Jerusalem indicated in the Bible just after the coming of the Antichrist, once past the four periods of the Four Horsemen, and so these same four Jewish holidays / Total lunar eclipses. In short, history will repeat itself with a deadly accuracy.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Why the Muzzies are being encouraged to infiltrate the west

Albert Pike.

As a 33rd degree Mason, he was one of the founding fathers and head of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, being the Grand Commander of North American Freemasonry from 1859 and retained that position until his death in 1891.

I'm not going to provide his full biography for you. A quick search of his name should provide all the background you need to learn about him. If you really want to know how his mind worked, his book Morals and Dogma is freely available in pdf format. He was a Luciferian.

Assuming his predictions of the three world wars were truly his predictions, it's obvious as to why we have the Muzzie problem we have today and it won't go away unless we MAKE it go away.

He has been attributed to predicting the precise reasons for escalation of each world war.

For a more in-depth study of WWI:
[link to www.threeworldwars.com]

For a more in-depth study of WWII:
[link to www.threeworldwars.com]

It seems he was rather prescient regarding the world wars to follow considering he died in 1891.

This brings us to WWIII. Guess who is instrumental in making it happen as he predicted??? Yup - muzzies.

His purported prediction for WWIII:
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World.

The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other.

Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion.

We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.

Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.

This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

SO, let's assume there is a remnant of those who follow, believe AND wish to foment the tenets of this Satanic asswipe...NOW do you see why Islam is being embraced by every western nation on the planet even though the evidence of their barbarism goes back for centuries? Those with half a brain are scratching their heads wondering why the fuck world governments are putting up with this shit. It's because they're IN on the plan!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we are slowly being invaded by a culture that embraces the death of any who disagree with it.

Knowledge is power.

To use the term Islamophobia as an axiom for hate is an oxymoron!! This "brand" is used to insinuate "hate" towards those to whom it is spewed. A phobia is a FEAR. (This applies to all the other "phobias" the PC crowd tosses around ad nauseum. Fucking illiterate morons!)

Make no mistake, what is transpiring with the embracement of Islam by TPTB is a slow, eventual creep towards war and the ultimate enslavement of the populace. We either sit like frogs in the pot and wait for the water to boil or we put a stop to this shit.

/rant off.

(A) #fundie revleft.com

ACAB
I see the police as a reactionary force fighting for the interests of the bourgeouise. However, i know a policeman personally and i dont dislike/hate him. How should i deal in social situations when het talks about his work etc? Do any of you have experiences with this or advice?

I dont talk to cops. I dont associate with the enemy of my own volition.

The only time I spend time with people who I may not agree with is at my judo club.
But let me tell you if a cop joined the club it would be my personal mission to smash him into the mats.

Reminds me of a story. I nearby Club shares its space with a RCMP. The RCMP used to train with the teen class until they realized that the Teens where wrecking them!
Cops are fat and lazy and easy to beat up if they dont have their gun and the law to back them up.

In this context I would love if the cops joined the club. It would let me beat the shit out of them without getting shot.

Sigmund Fraud #conspiracy thedailysheeple.com

The mother lode of all conspiracies is the New World Order. In essence, it is a high-level, multi-generational plan to render all sovereign national governments subservient to an unelected, supranational, authoritarian world government. In this scheme, the people of planet earth will be micro managed with strict social, technological and financial controls. It is the total consolidation of global power into the hands of a ruthless, minority elite who aim to rape the planet and enslave the human race.

They can’t do it alone, though, they need your help. They need witting and unwitting minions to set the brush fires of revolutionary change in our towns and cities. They need pawns to agitate and disrupt the relative peace, and to upend the status quo with turmoil. They need senseless, animal-like violence, caught on camera and replayed ad infinitum on cable news and social media. They need terror, of both the foreign and domestic variety. They need fear in the streets, and fear in the minds of the proles.

Most of all, though, they need you to create chaos, so that they can bring order.

The powers that be, those demons of the deep state, those orchestrators of fear, famine, debt and war, cannot achieve their plan without leading the masses into confusion and disarray, for only then will the masses demand an end to their own freedoms and privacy. And sadly, it appears their army of minions is growing in strength and audacity.

In the aftermath of Charlottesville it is more clear than ever that there is no shortage of pawns for the New World Order. The armies of ignorance are gathering, and here are three signs you might be among them.

1. You’re Playing the Divide and Conquer Game

Left vs. right. Black vs. white. Republican vs. Democrat. Citizen vs. Immigrant. Communist vs. Fascist. Have vs. Have Not. My Team vs. Your Team. Me vs. You.

There a thousand and one ways for a society to faction and split apart, but without community and unity we are lost, doomed and done. If you’re entrenched in one side of any dualistic paradigm, seeking to convert or to crush the other side, then you’re playing right into the hands of the NWO.

The tactic of top-down divide and conquer is the oldest play in the book of how to overthrow sovereign people. The rulers foment conflict amongst the people, then step out-of-the-way and let them fight it out, so that they can step in later as the benevolent savior… big brother.

If you’re playing this game, then you’re doing their work for them.

2. You ‘re a Vocal Supporter of the War DuJour

Today the drums are beating for a nuclear assault against North Korea… and military intervention in Venezuela. Just recently we’ve been told we need to prepare for conflict with Russia, and that an invasion of Syria is in our best interests. Prior to that we destroyed Libya and Iraq, we occupied Afghanistan, and we’ve been using the war on drugs and the war on terror as casus belli for interference in dozens of countries around the world.

The imperial mindset is several generations deep in America, and the citizenry has all but fully abandoned the anti-war stance in favor of gung-ho, jingoistic cheerleading of any and all military escapades.

The New World Order is brute force, but in our hyper-connected world they need to create the appearance of public support in order to advance the military industrial colonization of the world. It cannot do this without the public support and advocacy of at least some segment of the proletariat.

If you’re always on board for the expansion of international conflict, taking cues from mainstream media in this regard, and demanding action against all of our perceived enemies, you are aiding and abetting the New World Order.

3. You Direct Your Anger and Frustration Towards Anyone but Those at the Very Top of the Pyramid

Zero doubt there are a million problems plaguing our complex world today, and it can be comforting to blame someone whom you can look in the eye, someone who is unprotected by the wealth and security afforded by the oligarchy. Emotional reactions to the stresses in our modern world are to be expected, but without knowledge of the contemporary power structures pulling the big strings, those reactions can be sorely misdirected onto lesser players and other pawns.

The truth is out there. At the root, a geo-political financial elite is conquering the world throughmanipulation of currencies, the imposition of astronomically insurmountable levels of public and private debt, and full spectrum military dominance of uncooperative nations. This program is far above and beyond the capacity of your fellow citizen.

If you’re convinced that taking your outrage to the streets in war against your fellow countrymen is going to solve the problems of the world, you’re helping to fulfill the goals of the New World Order.

Final Thoughts

Social unrest and civil war are the final stepping-stones to a brave new authoritarian future. In order to get there, the American people must exhibit a self-motivated and determined resolve for violence against each other.

The New World Order needs blue pill takers, those people who deliberately choose ignorance in exchange for spurious peace of mind. They need useful idiots to help distract the rest of the population from the crimes of the oligarchy. They need armies of volunteer foot soldiers and pawns who will create the conditions necessary for martial law and even broader restrictions of rights and freedoms.

For the New World Order to succeed, we must ultimately demand our own slavery.

Ted Nugent #fundie humanevents.com

The destruction of black America is the result of too much government meddling in their lives. The Democratic Party has sadly convinced far too many blacks that they cannot succeed on their own merit and skills, that they require government assistance. The KKK idiots could not, in their wildest racist imaginations, have dreamed up such a racist, destructive platform as the Democratic Party has done for the past 50 years.

Rush is opposed and despised by the racist Democratic Party because he shines a light on their socialist doublespeak methods, wrongheaded ideologies and anti-freedom platforms. His beacon of truth is lost on those who have been conned and duped by Democratic Party mobsters who care more about elections than liberating people. Rush Limbaugh is an emancipator. I could not be more convinced that if he were still alive, Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a big fan of Rush's powerful message of rugged individualism and independence.

Illustrious_Try #fundie reddit.com

Re: Sex Before Kissing: How 15-Year-Old Girls Are Dealing With Porn-Obsessed Boys

Fascinating. I didn't know the US had already degenerated to this level although I suspected something along these lines.

15 year old girls should be kept seperate from boys their age or at least supervised. At that age boys have levels of testosterone exceeding even that of violent adult males. I recall thinking about sex or something sex-related almost all the time when I was that age. It faded as puberty ended of course, but pubescent males are basically drugged up on a powerful aphrodisiac drug that also makes them aggressive and impulsive.

The media and liberalism have made it normal for 15 year olds to have sex. The truth is that as much as the hormones tell them to have sex at that age, they're just not mentally and emotionally ready for it.

I don't know about full segregation, but we at least need to be talking about this on a societal level, in comprehensive sex ed classes, etc... & parents are going to have to get over their squeamishness over talking about sex with their kids. As for the last part, I am grateful that I was strong willed & had strong boundaries at 15, because I ended up hearing too many cautionary tales that involved girls who didn't.

At that age boys want to have sex with anything female that moves. Liberalism has normalised sex for all ages to such a degree that it's now bordering on pedophilia.

These days when a teacher has sex with a student it's not even seen as wrong anymore. It's called a sex romp these days. Even when the kid later comes out and feels seduced and abused, the media will often still speak of it as a sex romp instead of rape. The media has created this sense that rules are meant to be broken, that no means yes if you try hard enough and that 'bad boys' are real men.

Too many women put up with it though. These boys become fuckboys in adulthood and consider relationship gatekeeping as a tool to get women to have sex with them. They don't see women as persons proper, just as delectable creatures with warm, soft and moist holes for them to stick their penises in. It was bound to happen at some point though I mean women are objectified just about all the time. I wonder if women are aware of it.

For example I'm sure a bikini is nice to wear but it's effectively the same as being naked, Almost everything of interest is already on display if women wear it, so any time a man wants to ogle women who are stripped almost bare, he can just go to the beach and have his fill.

While there is definitely a faction of pedos trying to normalize their behavior, I really am not convinced that 'liberalism' is wholly to blame for this- people practice child marriage in many of the most socially conservative societies on earth. Even here in the US, FLDS(a breakaway sect of Mormonism) members practice child marriage, & I myself met several girls under 16 who were married off, legally(with 'parental consent'), to much older men in fundamentalist evangelical christian communities. I am not convinced that any of those marriages turned out well. I can't remember who said it, but there was some quote to the effect that many right wing guys consider women private property, but left wing guys consider women public property. I wish what I have observed in my own life convinced me otherwise, but it doesn't.

I don't believe that all men engage in this or are responsible for it, but then they don't really have to- one of the greatest myths is that it takes a majority to influence social trends or societal expectations. As for swimwear/beachwear, my own choices just aren't centered around men's preferences at all- I don't care for hot, crowded beaches, so I'm usually in swimwear either because I'm going for a relaxing swim, or I'm doing some other sort of activity. Neither bikinis, nor the 'burkinis' that are positioned opposite them are actually optimal for any of the activities I like to do...trying to swim, dive, or stay on a board while I'm having to worry about a boob popping out, or dealing with so much extra fabric I might as well be wearing a beekeeper costume doesn't appeal to me. If I wanted to wear lingerie, I would wear lingerie, & I wouldn't be trying to swim in it.

I'm a nihilist and marxist. I'm not coming from the religious angle here (although most men who blame liberalism are so I understand why you would assume that). I'm not trying to say what came before wasn't extremely bad. I mentioned liberalism because as an ideology it's just bad on almost all fronts. I'm anti totalitarian but do believe in a little bit of authoritarianism/illiberalism when needed. Of course I believe in limits to such authoritarianism, I'm of the opinion that some rights are sacred, including right to bodily integrity, as well as the sovereignty of the self, and should be beyond legislation.

Left wing guys who think women are public property are just crazed tankies. Mao used to force people to do everything communally, including take showers together, sleep (not have sex, just sleep) in same room.

There's this thing called dialectical materialism. Some ideas come from the material realm, that is to say the ideas are thought up to justify the material conditions. Right wingers and left wing traitors will come up with ideas to justify the oppression of certain groups, just like how the rich like to claim the poor are lazy and that they are the parasites of society, etc.

Berniebros and common leftists don't even know what marxism is and have never read Das Kapital let alone excerpts of it. Marx says that society is divided into classes. There are the owner classes and then there are the proletariat classes, or simply the proletariat. These workers are exploited and forced to sell their labour as well as their body in certain conditions, to survive.

In a sense, men women and children alike are objectified. Men and children were worked in mines, used like disposable tools and were discarded of when their bodies were destroyed or outlived their usefulness. Women same thing, but also exploited in sexual manner. Men were sent to war like living meat bags to be shot up and bleed to death and die a few years later of PTSD if they survived.

Marx, meant not just labour but oppression as a class. That's why he makes it so very clear that there are the oppressed classes and the capitalist owner class doing the oppression.

Berniebros and so forth don't know anything about Marx, they just want a bailout for their student loans and useless college degrees. (I do think student loan debt has to be restructured though because it's abundantly clear that it's set up as a slavery ring)

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

If Trump has a military parade with snappy parade uniforms, we may well win. Trouble is that our elite has been busy making soldiers dress androgynously, because they hate and fear the military. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. If soldiers continue to dress like Elon Musk’s rocket scientists, soldiers, like nerds, will remain low status, and priestly rule will continue.

They probably will not make the marines wear high heeled shoes, but they will make them wear baggy clothes that are interchangeable with the similarly baggy clothes worn by female “soldiers”.

If they parade wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

People in large masses toting guns and moving in unison is impressive, and big rockets are impressive, but to translate that impressiveness into power, need to dress the part. Clothes make the man. Consider Musk’s show with the heavy rocket.

Musk is a showman and Trump is showman, but Musk’s show sucked because everyone was dressed in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually casual. Needed to dress them in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually Silicon Valley Cool.

You look at a bunch of very smart rocket scientists acting and looking like World of Warcraft players who have just cleared a dungeon, and you think “low status”

I want warriors in power, and I want people who make cool toys for warriors in power, and they will need to dress the part.

If the soldiers in Trump’s parade come out wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

Let us imagine how Musk’s heavy rocket launch would have gone if he draped a bikini model over the sportscar that he launched to Mars, if his rocket scientists were better dressed, and if he himself posed with the bikini model and the sportscar wearing nice clothes with a touch of mad scientist. Similarly, however cool a military parade is, (and a military parade, like a rocket launch, is very cool indeed) you are not going to visualize those parading in power unless they dress the part.

Obviously the parade will raise Trump’s approval rating significantly. The problem is, however, at some point he is going to have to demonstrate that an airforce commando outranks a supreme court justice, so we need to raise the approval rating of air force commandos.

My assessment of the fall of Kings that began in the nineteenth century is that kings did not fail because of gunpowder, did not fail because industry rather than land became the source of wealth. Kings failed because George the fourth was fat, lazy, had a fat mistress, a bad tailor, and slept with other men’s wives, but most of all, Kings failed because Beau Brummel made the Puritan aesthetic cool. If King George the Fourth had had better fashion sense and hotter mistresses than Beau Brummel, and if his mistresses had, like Beau Brummel’s mistresses, only been sleeping with him, instead of sleeping with him and their husbands, we would have been fine. Also, if he had gotten off his fat ass and did some kinging, we would have been fine. He failed in the job of being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine (which is to say the job of regulating status competition into prosocial positive sum displays, rather than antisocial negative sum displays). The successors of the puritans took that job, ran with it, and have never let go of it.

So far, however, our attempts to produce reactionary fashion have all been miserable failures, and perhaps we will always fail until we have victorious soldiers exercising power, for all the cool reactionary fashions of the past are based on the uniforms worn by soldiers in victory parades.

But I am now coming around to the view that fashion should feature physically fit men wearing tight clothes that have been personally tailored to them. Standard stretch pants that fit without requiring a belt, and on the top a shirt, perhaps a T shirt, that has been tailored to fit, and tailored to end just below the point on your pants where a belt would be if they needed a belt, which your pants should not. The shirt goes outside the pants, but is almost, but not quite, tight around the pants.

Well fitting clothes are automatically high status. It is the last sumptuary display. An off the rack business suit is not high status. A custom fitted T shirt is high status. Baggy pants are low status. Men wear baggy pants because gangsters who claimed high status on the basis of violence were countersignaling by wearing baggy pants, but baggy pants do not work unless you can also plausibly signal real capability and will to commit violence. Such plausible signals are apt to get you killed, so make sure your pants fit. If you countersignal by poorly fitting pants, have to signal by violence, which can get costly.

Secondly, the costume should contain some element of peacocking, ideally a unique and idiosyncratic element. I now wear a fighting cock feather in my hat, the tail feather of a fighting cock that died in battle. Unfortunately, such feathers do not last a whole lot longer than the cock that donated them. It is tricky to get the right feather attached in the right place. Each fighting cock feather is unique and different (fighting cocks themselves peacock, with longer, floppier, and more diverse feathers than regular cocks). Most fighting cock feathers will do something bad like flopping in your eyes. Need a feather that flops around, but stays out of your eyes and your field of view, while flopping around in the other guys’s field of view.

Big hats are good, and better with something decorating them.

image

Gold chains also good, though male gold chains need to be big. Fine gold chains are girly. Not sure if multiple peacocking elements are a good idea. The Regency Aesthetic failed through excess, which excess justified the Puritan Aesthetic. A gold chain needs to be accompanied by bros or a bodyguard. If no wingman, then no gold chain. if a weak geek neck, cannot support a fighting cock feather.

You cannot peacock unless the alpha male of the group is also peacocking, or unless it is plausible that you are, by at least some metric, the alpha male of the group. Your boss is not going to be peacocking, and if your subordinate is peacocking while you are not peacocking, you will need to do something about it.

Any item of peacocking that draws attention to your head needs a suitably large neck to support its metaphorical weight, as if it had actual physical weight. I have therefore added neck exercises to my exercise regimen. I attach a looped belt to a resistance cord, and pull with my head in different directions, in order for my neck to be strong enough to support the mighty weight of the fighting cock feather in my hat. If you have a geek neck, don’t try to wear a big hat.

Obviously you cannot wear something to job interview or similar occasion that is more dramatic or unusual than your interviewer will be wearing. No peacocking allowed at work or in job interviews, but you can wear better fitting clothes than your interviewer. If Silicon Valley Casual is socially required, you can wear Silicon Valley Casual that just happens to fit you perfectly, as Steve Jobs invariably did. Also, matching colors combined with dramatic clash of colors, so that the clash is clearly intentional, rather than the result of whatever passed the sniff test that morning. If you are going to have a dramatic clash of colors, superhero style, make sure that one major part of your costume matches another part.

Well, this is the latest in a long string of attempts to conjure reactionary meanswear into existence, and all previous attempts have failed embarassingly. Let us see how this one goes. We still need a victory parade with cool manly military parade dress uniforms to really make reactionary fashion stick.

But, lacking a victory parade, physical fitness is something. Reactionary males tend to be markedly stronger and slimmer than progressive males, due to fasting, diet, and lifting iron. Reactionary fashion will succeed, if associated with reactionaty phenotypes.

In the age of feral woman and family breakdown, when fatherhood is illegal, when everyone is a bastard, menswear that is associated with being able to beat people up is likely to succeed. The difference between today and past ages was that in successful civilizations, top fashions were associated with being a member of a group that was able to beat up other groups in organized collective disciplined physical violence, hence the connection to victory parades, while in an age of social collapse and family breakdown, in a civilization in decline, in a time when a dark age looms, when fatherhood has been criminalized, successful fashion tends to be more associated with the capability to perform individual thuggery, hence the perverse and ugly baggy pants fashion. When fatherhood is illegal, only criminals can be fathers. The underlying problem with menswear fashion is that the state is violently, coercively, brutally, and forcefully imposing black mating patterns and white gay mating patterns on white heterosexual males, which mating pattern in turn causes unattractive clothing to be fashionable, and attractive clothing to be unfashionable, the baggy pants fashion being an example of this problem.

If reactionaries are having troubles restoring reactionary fashion, it is because we are having troubles restoring reactionary families, and reactionary families require reactionary male social groups that collectively enforce reactionary socialization on potentially feral women. But, on the principle of fake it till you make it, reactionary fashion can cause the social conditions that will in turn cause reactionary fashion.

Dress like a patriarch, dress like an aristocrat, and have your women dress as if under patriarchal authority. Good fit is patriarchal, and peacocking and physical fitness is aristocratic. You cannot peacock at work if your boss is not peacocking, but you can be physically fit and wear well fitted clothes.

BuddyDogeDoge #fundie reddit.com

[Comment under "This "Periodic Table of Dictators, Despots, and the Despised" rates Stalin's "evil" as a "9/10" - more than all 94 others on the table except Hitler"]

@Onlyinmizzou

you can't be simultaneously pro-secret police and pro-democracy. as a socialist, it is unacceptable to be anti-democracy.

nonsense. the point of proletarian dictatorship is that it's dictatorship for the capitalists, democracy for the workers. what you are talking here, is liberalism, is nonsense, is bourgeois equality. i will quote lenin at length to back this up.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm

But why not reach this goal without the dictatorship of one class? Why not switch directly to "pure" democracy? So ask the hypocritical friends of the bourgeoisie for the naive petty-bourgeois and philistines gulled by them.

And we reply: Because in any capitalist society the powerful tell lies to either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while the small proprietors, inevitably, remain wavering, helpless, stupid dreamers of "pure", i.e., nonclass or above class, democracy. Because from a society in which one class opposes another there is no way out other than through the dictatorship of the oppressed class. Because the proletariat alone is capable of defeating the bourgeoisie, of overthrowing them, being the sole class which capitalism has united and "schooled", and which is capable of drawing to its side the wavering mass of the working population with a petty-bourgeois way of life, of drawing them to its side or at least "neutralizing" them. Because only mealy-mouthed petty-bourgeois and philistines can dream — deceiving thereby both themselves and the workers — of overthrowing capitalist oppression without a long and difficult process of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters. In Germany and Austria this resistance is not yet very pronounced because expropriation of the expropriators has not yet begun. But once expropriation begins the resistance will be fierce and desperate. In concealing this from themselves and from the workers, the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners betray the interests of the proletariat, switching at the most decisive moment from the class struggle and overthrow of the yoke of the bourgeoisie to getting the proletariat to come to terms with the bourgeoisie, achieving "social peace" or reconciliation of exploited and exploiters.

in fact, you yourself make this point, so i do not understand why you say that you cannot be for secret police and for democracy now!

Every state that has ever existed has forcibly silenced its enemies. It is unavoidable. In the same way the the US silenced labor unions and socialists who sought to subvert the government in the early 20th century, socialist countries silenced western-backed counter-revolutionaries. Others can provide more detail into how specific socialist countries dealt with dissent, but I hope that at least shows you why this argument is dubious at best.

@Onlyinmizzou

but stalin's legacy was, in my opinion and in the opinion of many leftists, mostly counterproductive.

you would call the ending of the NEP and the building of a planned economy, the liberation of europe, unprecedented achievements in healthcare, education, literacy, space, farming, the supression of revisionists, counter revolutionaries, kulaks, etc etc - counterproductive?

it is not "great man theory" - it is looking at history as it actually was! the only liberalism here is to disregard stalin, to deny facts, to refuse to look into the actual situation! the USSR is like a machine - you cannot pick and choose which bits you want to praise, you must take it in it's entirety. you cannot simply call some crucial elements "bad, counterproductive".

infact i will ask directly - what do you think was "counterproductive"? what actions? what specifically

jdw4jesus #fundie openphorum.com

It's the eighth figt of the Holy Spirit. If I didn't have God, I wouldn't be able to. Basically, you got to set up 'dates' with God and just sit alone without any noises or distractions, and talk to Him. And LISTEN to Him. God's voice is like a radio station. Sound waves flow through the air. YOU have to be on the right 'station' to perceive these sounds.

Anti-vaxers #fundie edition.cnn.com

On May 6, 2016, Promoli put her toddlers Jude and his twin brother Thomas, down for an afternoon nap in their home. Jude had a low-grade fever, but he was laughing and singing when he went down for his nap.

When his mother went to check on him two hours later, he was dead. Promoli said the next few weeks were "a living hell."

"Having to go in and plan a funeral and find the ability somehow to even take steps to walk into a funeral home, to make plans and decide whether to bury or cremate your child -- it was just all so horrifying," she said.

When an autopsy came back showing Jude had died of the flu, Promoli started her flu prevention campaign.

That's when the online attacks began.

Some anti-vaxers told her she'd murdered Jude and made up a story about the flu to cover up her crime. Others said vaccines had killed her son. Some called her the c-word.

The worst ones -- the ones that would sometimes make her cry -- were the posts that said she was advocating for flu shots so that other children would die from the shots and their parents would be miserable like she was.

"The first time it made me feel really sick because I couldn't fathom how anybody could even come up with such a terrible claim," Promoli said. "It caught me off guard in its cruelty. What kind of a person does this?"

Twisted logic that relies on scientific lies doesn't bother Promoli so much anymore. She's continued with her flu shot campaign, persuading Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to publicize his flu shot.

"I've had to grow some very thick skin," she said.

She said no matter how many nasty messages she's received -- and she says she's received hundreds -- she'll continue her campaign.

"The work that we're doing might mean that somebody else doesn't have to go plan a funeral for their toddler, and that is everything," she said.
Other mothers have also persevered despite attacks from anti-vaxers.

Serese Marotta lost her 5-year-old son, Joseph, to the flu in 2009, and is now chief operating officer of Families Fighting Flu, a group that encourages flu awareness and prevention, including vaccination.

In 2017, she posted a video on the eighth anniversary of her son's death to reinforce the importance of getting the flu vaccine.

"SLUT," one person commented. "PHARMA WHORE."

"May you rot in hell for all the damages you do!" a Facebook user wrote on another one of her posts.

She says a Facebook user in Australia sent her a death threat.

"She called me a lot of names I won't repeat and used the go-to conspiracy theories about government and big pharma, and I responded, 'I lost a child,' and questioned where she was coming from, and she continued to attack me," said Marotta, who lives in Syracuse, New York.

Catherine and Greg Hughes, an Australian couple who lost their 1-month old son, Riley, to whooping cough, have also received online abuse. Too young to be vaccinated, Riley relied on herd immunity -- the vaccinations of others -- to protect him.

But herd immunity didn't protect him, since the area where the Hughes family lived in Perth has some of the lowest vaccination rates in Australia.

"Riley's death was a very inconvenient truth for anti-vaccine activists," Catherine said. "The nasty messages started 24 hours after he died. They called us baby killers and said we would have the blood of other babies on our hands. We've been told to kill ourselves."

The couple started a vaccination campaign, Light for Riley.

Catherine said they still receive vile comments years after Riley's death.

"[F**k] you, Hughes family," one Facebook user wrote on the Light for Riley page.
"What a [f**king] evil whore you really are," another user wrote to them in a private Facebook message.

Another Facebook user was more succinct.

"Please die," the user wrote in a private message.

"A lot of them come from the position that they have children that were vaccine-injured," Catherine said. "But a fair chunk of them are just haters."

Ramsay Bolton #fundie vnnforum.com

Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome?

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.

~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts "selling" parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the "Emperor has no clothes", and overrun and pillage the Empire.

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today's commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law).

They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown"

Robert Smith #racist amren.com

How a Young Black Man Became a Race Realist

I am a 21-year-old black man. I am an atheist, a registered Republican, and a member of Mensa. Already a minority within a minority within a minority, I have yet another idiosyncrasy that puts me in an even more unusual category: I am a race realist. I believe that consistently observed racial disparities in societal outcomes are largely rooted in genetic differences, primarily differences in average levels of intelligence.

High school

This was the first time race predominated in the social climate. I started to notice people self-segregating along racial lines. But most confusingly, black students who did not conform to stereotypes were considered “Oreos:” black on the outside, but white on the inside. I remember the following comments:

“You’re so quiet. Do you consider yourself black?” This from a white classmate, genuinely confused as to why I bucked the general black trend of rambunctious and loud behavior.

A white classmate says something racially offensive in my presence and another asks, “Why would you say that with a black person standing by us?” Answer: “It’s fine; he’s white at heart!”

An Asian classmate: “You’re an embarrassment to your race.”

A group of black students are listing black classmates whom they think act white, and include me: “Yes, he’s white on the inside. He has no accent and hangs out with too many white boys.” (The person who said that flunked out at the end of the school year. He enrolled in a predominately black high school and went to an HBCU. Two months ago, as of this writing, he was killed in a black-on-black crime. There were no protests or riots carried for him, since his death could not be made to look like black victimhood. He got nothing but a few people on Facebook posting his obituary. Maybe he should have acted more “white.”)

I not only saw blacks accuse other blacks of “acting white,” but, even more often, I saw whites accuse their black friends of “acting white.” My Asian friend — of whom I was quite fond — would often say that he didn’t consider me black. I found this extremely puzzling. To me, “acting white” meant being an Uncle Tom — someone who is intentionally betraying his race and cares more about the approval of whites than of other blacks. Being called an “Uncle Tom” is definitely not a compliment. In fact, it is one of the harshest insults for a black person.

The self-hating black person is derided in black culture, as in Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks and Clayton Bigsby from the Dave Chappelle Show. Many blacks would rather associate with a murderer than with an Uncle Tom. This is not mere hyperbole. The black community eagerly embraces thugs and criminals who destroy their neighborhoods while it ostracizes its most principled members — educated and conservative blacks.

Even more confusing, I noticed that the more intelligent blacks would be particularly prone to accusations of “acting white.” All my life I had believed that trying to come across as an intelligent and civilized person, working hard, speaking standard English, assimilating into American society, not playing the race card, and not acting like a minstrel show character were characteristics of intelligence — not traits associated with any particular race. That ghetto blacks would accuse others of “acting white” I could, to some degree, understand. After all, the more academically oriented blacks did tend to associate more readily with white people than with other blacks, who tended to be ignorant. But what was truly mind-boggling to me was how whites and Asians could accuse blacks — even their own friends — of “acting white.” Why did they mock their black friends for doing what they were supposed to do? Why were intelligent and civilized blacks so often called race traitors by both blacks and whites?

Like an idiot, I succumbed to this pressure. I came to view hard work and academic success as “white” activities. I began to take school and life less seriously, approaching it with a half-hearted attitude, as if giving it my all would be “white,” and antithetical to the very core of my identity. I tried to the greatest extent possible to distance myself from my white classmates — not a good idea at a school that is 90 percent white.

I ended up graduating nowhere near the top of my class but still got into an elite college due to affirmative action and good test scores. I felt a bit guilty for gaming the system, but I felt I experienced discrimination — because of the “acting white” comments — and affirmative action was my way of getting back at an unfair system. (The same college also gave offers of admission to two other blacks from my high school. Their level of achievement was, obviously, high by black standards but also nowhere near the level that would have been required of a white or Asian.)

College

In college it soon became clear that I was woefully mismatched. I began to doubt whether I was smart enough to work at such an elite level. Perhaps the problem was me, not society.

Other black students were constantly on the watch for imaginary racism. They felt so self-entitled they drew up a document intended to force the school to accept more students and hire more professors from underrepresented races.

I doubted my abilities to such a great degree that I decided to get my IQ tested. My FSIQ (full scale IQ) was 141 — 99.7th percentile!

image

I have included my hand in the photo to confirm that I am black.

Acting white

For years I was convinced that the major cause of black social pathology was this “acting white” accusation and the phenomenon of having to “prove” one’s blackness. It had certainly had a great effect on my life and impacted other high-IQ blacks around me. However, one day I came across a brilliant article by Steve Sailer addressing this topic.

He made the incisive point that doing well in school would not be considered “acting white” if blacks and whites had the same average IQ. That was my turning point. I realized that this was not a discrimination issue at all or even evidence of racial bias. What my white and Asian classmates meant when they accused blacks of “acting white” was not to call them “Uncle Tom” or “race traitor,” but something more along the lines of “you act more like a stereotypical white person than a stereotypical black person.” Factor in the differing average IQs, and it’s no wonder why the more intelligent blacks are often accused of “acting white.”

Of course high-IQ blacks will tend to associate more with a group that has an average IQ of 100 than a group with an average IQ of 85. This “acting white” phenomenon is exactly what one would expect when groups differing as significantly in intelligence as do black and whites co-exist: Behavior that is associated with intelligence becomes associated with whiteness.

I am now amused by how difficult it is to separate behavior that is stereotypically black from behavior that is generally associated with low IQ: making poor life decisions, failing in school, getting in trouble with the law, being loud and obnoxious, speaking poorly, promoting destructive and ignorant behavior, etc. Conversely, it is difficult to distinguish behavior that is “white” from behavior that reflects high IQ: being polite and civilized, showing emotional restraint, working hard, speaking articulately, being educated, being goal-oriented, listening to classical music, etc. It’s as though everyone subconsciously picks up on the IQ differences even if they don’t explicitly realize that what they’re noticing is different levels of intelligence.

I continued to study the question. I found that that other black members of Mensa are commonly told they are “acting white.” This pattern holds true throughout the world. High-achieving blacks in Britain hear the same thing. Successful Brazilian blacks are called the complimentary term “black with a white soul.”

I learned that literally everywhere in the world where blacks are found in large numbers, they exhibit lower rates of educational success and higher rates of criminality than other races. It’s no mystery why blacks who buck these trends are seen as different from other blacks.

I got my own DNA tested. I found out that I am 25 percent European — which is to be expected among American blacks. More interestingly, I learned that I was in the 96th percentile for Neanderthal ancestry among African-Americans. I find it amusing that I’ve so often had my blackness questioned; I’m unusually high in genetic material that is completely absent from pure Africans.

Compelling quotations

Here are a few observations by blacks that have stuck in my mind.

“Most of the people who were popular in my high school are either dead or in jail.” — my aunt

“This area was so nice when white people lived here.” — my grandmother, driving through a black ghetto

“I have been called ‘white’ my entire life. It’s a shame that just because I didn’t get high, skip class, and steal from the corner store I was thought of as a lame individual.” — a female cousin

“It’s not too often we get a young brother like you here. You’re proper. Most of the young black men I know besides you are thugs.” — a middle-aged black man I met during a summer internship

“N*ggers are terrible.” — my father, who often comes into contact with ghetto blacks in his line of work

“If it’s stupid, they like it.” — my grandmother, referring to young black people

“Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?” — my extremely militant and pro-black uncle, lamenting black people’s proclivity for ignorance

It’s IQ, not racism

I now have no doubt about race realism. All the lines of evidence, from history to life experience, point to the same conclusion. All the usual excuses for black dysfunction are epiphenomenal and stem from the basic fact of lower average black IQ. Others viewed us as inferior because we never developed the wheel, a written language, a calendar, a mechanical device, or a two-story building. Slavery happened because whites (and Arabs before them) were able to enslave blacks; they had better technology and capitalized on the lack of black cohesion. Historians estimate that 90 percent of the slaves shipped to the New World were first enslaved by other Africans. (This is also consistent with Phil Rushton’s application of r/K theory; Africans have always shown low in-group preference.) All the usual explanations for black failure melt away once the fact of lower IQ is acknowledged. Anti-intellectual culture, poverty, bad schools, single-parent families, lack of role models, you name it — they are exactly what you would expect in a population with a lower average level of intelligence.

I certainly have learned much more about how the world actually works from great men like Phil Rushton, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Jared Taylor than I have ever learned from hucksters like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton. One might find race realism to be a depressing worldview; of course no one wants to believe that his race is much less intelligent on average than other races. But I truly believe that if you evaluate the evidence from an unbiased perspective and use logic rather than emotion, you cannot come to any other conclusion.

Furthermore, a worldview that takes into account human biodiversity is certainly more realistic and even hopeful than eternally yearning for whites suddenly to “wake up to racism” or voluntarily renounce their thirst for destroying “black bodies” — something Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks comes naturally to them. It is more hopeful than waiting for blacks around the world to stop creating “cultures of incompetence,” for which they seem to have quite a knack. It is more hopeful than waiting 250 years for the achievement gap to close or 228 years for the black-white wealth gap to close.

I now know what would theoretically be needed to close these gaps: a higher black IQ. I am free of any resentment against whites, for no matter how bad slavery, Jim Crow, or any other misdeed that whites are frequently made to feel guilty for, blacks around the world are infinitely better off than they would have been if whites had simply left them alone to live in mud huts and tote spears in Africa.

I feel empowered, for I now know that there is no impenetrable wall of white racism holding me back. In the words of the founder of logic, Aristotle, “The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” If admitting the truth makes me an “Uncle Tom,” so be it.

As for my uncle’s question, “Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?”, applying Occam’s razor will yield an elegant and parsimonious answer.

Hunter Wallace #racist occidentaldissent.com

[From "Slavery: A Positive Good (2012)"]

Dixie

“But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good – a positive good.”
– John C. Calhoun, 1837

Is there a positive case for the domestic institution of negro slavery?

(1) In slave societies, negroes were a wealth generating economic asset: America’s slaves were worth more than its railroads, banks, and manufacturing industries combined.

In 1861, the average slave was worth $800. In 2009 dollars, a single slave purchased in 1861 would be an asset worth $135,000.

(2) In 1860, 49.8 percent of the population of Barbour County (AL) were slaves.

(3) In 1860, there were 2,717 free families in Barbour County (AL). There were 1,143 slaveholders. 42.1 percent of free families were slaveholders.

(4) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley as a whole, there were 47 slaveholders who owned over 100 slaves. If the average slave was an asset worth $135,000, then each one of these super planters in 1860 had a fortune in slaves alone worth a minimum of $13.5 million dollars.

(5) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, there were 270 slaveowners who owned 50 to 100 slaves. If the average slave was worth $135,000, then each one of these middling planters had a fortune in slaves alone worth a minimum of $6.7 million dollars.

(6) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, there were 1,193 slaveowners who owned 20 to 50 slaves. If the average slave was worth $135,000, then these lower tier planters had a fortune in slaves alone worth a minimum of $2.7 million dollars.

Obviously, the planter class in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley was stupendously wealthy by modern standards – those numbers don’t include their non-slave property or investments and are based on the minimum number of slaves required to belong to each tier.

In 1860, there were 1,150 planters in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley. The planters were only 17.3 percent of slaveholders though. How’s that compared to the stock market?

(7) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, there were 1,637 slaveowners who owned 10 to 19 slaves. If the average slave was worth $135,000, then these upper middle class slaveowners had a fortune in slaves alone worth $1.35 million dollars.

(8) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, there were 1,485 slaveowners who owned 6 to 9 slaves. If the average slave was worth $135,000, then the typical middle class slaveowner had a fortune worth $810,000.

(9) In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, there were 4,100 slaveowners who owned 1 to 5 slaves. 47 percent of slaveowners in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley belonged to this group. Every one of these slaveowners had at least one slave worth $135,000.

(10) In Barbour County (AL), 42.1 percent of free families were slaveowners – surely, the great majority of them were middle class slaveowners, while only a small minority were planters.

How much is the average negro household worth after 147 years of free society? The average negro household is worth $4,995.

As we have learned from Paul Kersey, the average single black woman in America has a net worth of $5, which is over a 99 percent depreciation in value from 1861. A third of blacks have a negative net worth. They are effectively bankrupt after 40 years and countless billions of dollars of wasted Great Society redistributive spending.

Freedom failed doesn’t quite capture the magnitude of the social and economic disaster that was abolition: it is more like freedom was a world shattering catastrophe that nearly crippled American civilization.

In free society, the average White household might have a net worth of $110,000 in 2012, most of which is locked up in the value of their depreciating suburban home – with both parents working in order to pay income taxes to a federal government that redistributes their wealth to millions of idle tax consuming negro voters.

In slave society, if you owned one slave, you had an asset worth $135,000 in 2009 dollars not counting your property or home, those slaves worked in direct proportion to the leisure time of a single male slaveowning patriarch, and there was no income tax because the government was funded with a revenue tariff.

(11) That’s the rub: under slavery, the negro was a fabulous wealth generating economic dynamo, the ownership of which emancipated White families from the drudgery of wage labor and significantly contributed to our national prosperity.

Under free society, the negro is the single biggest economic albatross in the United States and a civilization wrecking menace to public safety who through the genius of liberal democracy can vote himself a living from taxes and fees on the income and property of White families.

(13) Libertarians: What planter ever emancipated his slaves based on the assumption that liberating them would increase his wealth and make his plantation more productive?

(14) As a commodity, slaves were used as a store of value like gold and silver or stocks and bonds: a single slave in 1850 was worth $80,000 whereas a single slave in 1860 was worth $135,000.

(15) Paul Kersey writes:

“Black unemployment rates are directly correlated to the fact that a great many Black people are unemployable in America’s service economy, save for government/public jobs. Not institutional racism.”

The only known solution to this problem is slavery.

There are any number of industries where the millions upon millions of negroes who have an IQ less than 85 could be profitably employed today as slaves.

They could be put to work immediately as stoop laborers in the construction industry or in the fields harvesting fruits and vegetables. Alternatively, they could at least be hooked up to bicycles and used to manually generate cheap electricity to promote America’s goal of energy independence.

Even today, a slave society could find some use for them. Black women could be employed as domestics as they were in the Jim Crow South. They don’t have to become welfare queens shacking up with Mr. EBT to breed little Ja’Quares Walkers or Trayon Omar Washingtons in the Booker T. Washington housing projects.

If negroes were enslaved in such a way, we could empty our prisons, raise property values, raise per pupil spending on White students, slash law enforcement and court costs, fund an expedition to Mars, and slash the soaring cost of healthcare by curtailing epidemic black obesity.

(16) As far back as the 1830s, free negroes in the Northern states were notorious for elevating crime, destroying property values, and burdening prisons and other social services.

In free societies, the cost of negroes is socialized whereas it was privatized in slave societies: abolition eliminated natural masters (who provided employment for White working class overseers) who had a vested economic interest and legal responsibility for curtailing destructive behavior and promoting productive labor.

(17) Any student of the discipline of negro management in the Old South could have told you that emancipating slaves, blaming White people for all their various failings, and giving them access to drugs and firearms was a recipe for disaster. See the 21,000 black people who have been murdered by other black people in Detroit since 1969.

(18) In 1850, a slaveowner could have told you that the return on investment on negro education was quite low because of biological racial differences in intelligence.

(19) In 1850, a slaveowner could have told you that abolition and the politicization of the negro was a recipe for disaster based on previous experiments in abolition in Haiti and the British West Indies.

(20) Slave society promoted conservatism and racial solidarity in the Old South. It also created an indigenous elite that had the wealth and political power to resist the encroachment of the degenerating effects of liberal capitalist democracy.

Note: Virtually all the social ills that are commonly blamed on slavery are actually a consequence of freedom.

Slave societies didn’t tolerate or meekly subsidize negro criminals or flagellate themselves with racial guilt. The negro had no status as a citizen or a voter. He wasn’t a huge drag on our national prosperity as he is today in the 21st century.

Slavery was a positive good. It was a successful social system that broadly distributed wealth among Whites, created an elite invested in white supremacy, cultivated a moral sense based on the cult of honor, and most importantly, acted as a brake on the consolidation of power in Washington.

The success of slavery proved to be its downfall. It was a rival economic system that inspired enormous jealously, fear, and envy of the Slave Power in the North. As we all know, that’s what brought about the War Between the States, destroyed the White Republic created by the Founders, and set America down its path to the present racial disaster.

That’s not the fault of slavery though. It is the fault of slavery’s professed enemies.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty thought there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she has been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

db45et #fundie forums.military.com

[In response to a thread titled : "Generals: Drop Ban on Gays in Military"]

the doctrine of military necessity mandates that only the most fit-physically, mentally, and otherwise-should be serving in any military branch. The dirty little secret these idiot retired brass are trying to gloss over, is that intrinsic to the homosexual lifestyle is a number of nasty little diseases not at all seen in the hetero world, not the least of which is AIDS.And beside those bugs, there is also a little thing called "gay bowel syndrome", obviously again peculiar to the gays,a case of which would also likely render a service member unfit for duty.
Finally, the inevitable plethora of sexual harassment, favoritism in promotions, and an overall lack of unit cohesiveness resulting from sexual tension and the "me first" mentality so pervasive to anyone who wears their sexual proclivities on their cuff, would be very bad news indeed.

Eric Dubay #fundie youtube.com

For anyone unaware of these facts, please research the history of "Jewish Ritual Murder," which many have been convicted for throughout history and is the reason they have been kicked out of 109 countries in the last 2000 years. "Kosher slaughter" is the Jewish form of slaughter whereby the animal is inverted and chokes on its own blood after having its throat slit and a Jewish prayer whispered in its ear. "Jewish Circumcision" is another beastly act where they mutilate their own baby boys on the eighth day by cutting off their foreskin then SUCKING (with their mouth) the blood from the freshly cut penis. Then compare this with what you're not taught about Adolf Hitler: He was a vegetarian who loved animals, made the first anti-animal cruelty laws in the world, and before Judah declared war on Germany, he had a plan to close down all German slaughterhouses. YouTube just deleted my entire channel of 7 years, 135k subs and 28 million views for exposing the facts I've relayed in this comment. To learn more, please watch the video which caused YouTube to delete my channel: "Adolf Hitler vs. The Jew World Order" (The 3 hour 46 minute version) Peace

Jared Fogle #fundie rawstory.com

Former Subway sandwich pitchman Jared Fogle, in jail for his conviction on child pornography and sex with minors charges, blamed the parents of one of his female victims for her “destructive behaviors.”

Fogle, 38, who became famous after shedding weight on a diet that included sandwiches from the fast-food chain, pleaded guilty in November 2015 to charges of child pornography and traveling for illicit paid sex with minors.

Fogle, in a response filed on Thursday to a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of the girl, argued her parents should be third-party defendants alongside him. The parents may be liable for all or part of the victim’s claims against him, according to the court documents.

The victim, who was surreptitiously videotaped by an associate of Fogle for pornography, which became a part of the case against Fogle, filed her lawsuit in March. Her case seeks monetary damages for personal injuries and mental anguish.

The allegations are separate from the charges for which Fogle is serving a 15-1/2-year prison sentence, which was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in Chicago in June.

An attorney for Fogle declined to comment. Attorneys for the victim did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fogle’s motion says the parents’ “hateful and abusive” relationship toward each other, alcohol abuse and a lack of parental supervision caused emotional distress and depression suffered by their daughter, and paved the way for several “destructive behaviors” in which she engaged.

The parents are liable for her “harmful activities” like alcohol abuse, substance abuse, self-mutilation, and sexual activity with multiple partners, Fogle’s complaint says.

Secret Asshole #fundie kiwifarms.net

The problem is more complex than 'private corporations can do what they want'. When you get banned from every major platform for nebulous reasons or poor reasons at all, it begs the question if you can get your message out. To people. There are no current notable competitors to YouTube, Apple and Facebook. Or sound cloud and spotify. There was also an agreement that they would never allow what happened with 2018 to happen again, which means purging voices from their platforms.

It also calls into question whether these are platforms or publishers. If they're a platform, they're not responsible for user content. If they're a publisher, then they are legally liable. Can you even speak if all major platforms for it bar you from it? How will you build an audience?

There were also videos that called into question the nature of 'private'. Many of these companies were started with public money and tax breaks, as well as technology developed by the US military (GPS and the internet itself). So can they really be private?

Also this was a business decision as well as political. Alex fucking Jones was kicking the ever loving shit out of CNN and MSNBC. When a man that is mostly treated as a joke is beating your friends, it is very embarrassing. Especially to YouTube, whose dumb cunt CEO thinks they can replace TV. So they booted him. The question is will they continue to purge right wing voices or not? Especially if it benefits your business.

Also, will they just stop there? What about payment processors? What about web hosts or essential services like Cloudflare? Most, if not all, these businesses are leftist owned, far leftist. All are private companies and can defacto ban you from the net entirely. Is that ok justification for banning you for your opinion?

Mark P #fundie thinkinghousewife.com

This is an interesting article, but I disagree with the beginning: “Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind.” The reality is that the cultural ruin of America was caused by women. Specifically, women’s political, sexual and financial freedom is largely responsible for the decline of the West and not some abstract “culture.”

We harp a lot on liberalism, but what is liberalism but female thinking unbounded? I finally understand what that famous author meant when he said that civilizations die by suicide. Every civilization at the peak of its power, prosperity and wealth, and in a moment of decadence, emancipates women and, in a few short decades or centuries, it collapses. Babylon did it. Sparta did it. Rome did it. Now America will do it.

The basic problem with cultural discrimination is that it requires a theory or theories about how the world works. To have theories about how the world works requires making generalizations that are tested by, and adjusted to, reality. Women are diametrically opposed to generalizations. Why? To avoid having the analytical power of the generalization applied to womens’ physical appearance or other characteristics.

What all women implicitly understand, but are loathe to admit, is that 90% of a woman’s value is embedded in her physical appearance. Men choose women largely on looks based on a sliding scale of what men want and what they can get. The problem for women is that physical appearance is not only determined at birth, but it has a limited shelf-life. Whatever advantages women derive from looks do not last.

Now, when women were married at 20 and, a short time later, busy with their own children and families, the impact of this knowledge was limited. Family life occupies its own sphere and kids suck the narcissism out of women. With women competing in the world with men, this worry about appearances blooms to a neurotic high. Women are never certain if their success is the result of “who they are” or how they look. Consequently, this neurosis permeates every sphere of life within which women operate.

This is how you get a female police officer telling an investigator in the Berkowitz case that “Jews and Italians date, too.” Or, Maureen Dowd’s permanent screams on why society no longer finds her attractive. Or, the articles about the new standards of (chocolate) beauty established by Michelle Obama.

Women are at war with themselves and their short-term, pragmatic, narcissistic neuroses have swallowed the Western world.

Mike King #sexist tomatobubble.com

In this mad, mad, mad Marxist world of ours, leave it to Sulzberger's Slimes, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of a New York City female police officer, to praise the "progress" that has been made with regards to the hiring and promoting of female police officers.

From the article:

"And across the nation, women have pushed their way into policing’s most demanding jobs. To them, Officer Familia’s death was seen as a grim signifier of their growing front-line roles."

There are now 6,394 female officers on a force of just over 36,000 in dangerous New York City. That's almost 18%. The percentages in other cities that are even more dangerous are about the same and growing -- with more and more of them being killed "in the line of duty" every year. This is all part of the "progress" that "women's liberation" has brought to today's miserable, manified, modern woman. Thusly "liberated" from the "yoke" of marriage and traditional family life, the loony ladies now get to dress up in blue, carry a gun, chase bad guys through dark alleys, and then get killed -- often with their own gun.

A blast from the past, from the article, about a hyped-up event which your New York metro-area high-school aged reporter here remembers very well:

"In the early 1980s, the New York City subways were forbidding, with robbers lurking in graffiti-covered cars. Very few women were on patrol, but Officer Irma Lozada took one of the most dangerous jobs: She hid her badge and draped fake gold chains around her neck, courting robbers to come after her in some of the most desperate parts of Brooklyn.

It was on one of these plainclothes assignments in 1984 when something went terribly wrong: Officer Lozada chased a suspect, got separated from her partner and was killed after the suspect wrested her service revolver from her and shot her twice."

She became the first female officer killed in New York City history. So jolted was the police force by her death that, in the aftermath, some officers spoke of women being better off reassigned to office jobs, several people recalled."

Yes indeed, you've come a long way, baby!" How's it workin' out for ya?

In a healthy pre-Marxist society, dead officerettes Irma Lozada and Miosotis Familia would have been home cooking dinner for their husbands and checking the kids' homework.

As it was with the mentally sick reaction to the death of Officerette Lozada then, so it is again today with Officerette Familia, who was shot and killed execution-style by an admitted cop-hater, just last week. Rather than reassess this abominable practice of sending women off to fight criminals and enemy soldiers, the unisex Marxists act as if it's part of the normal course of business and continue to praise the "progress" that these misguided police-gals and Marine-ettes are making.

The societal perverison of cultural Marxism / libtardism offers oppression to women, not "liberation." How much happier, safer, and alive would Ms. Lozada and Ms. Familia had been if they were stay-at-home wives and mothers. Of course, given how the corresponding economic hands of Marxist taxation & the Fed's debt-currency racket make it increasingly impossible for a woman to stay home -- because a huge chunk of her husband's earnings (if she even has a husband), are taxed and inflated away -- these ladies are often forced to work. How hypocritically ironic it is that the Left condemns the Taliban for banning women from the workforce, as we here in the oh-so-enlightened West essentially, through economic policies, ban women from becoming traditional housewives!

Even when faced with the horrible murders and ghastly battlefield casualties of the fairer sex, very few of today's "men," especially those in the public realm, will dare to question the perverse policy of depriving strong men from 18% of police jobs just so that mostly infertile women can take them, and get killed. Chivalry truly is dead -- as is sanity!

The Great One (that's Hitler for you all newbies and normies) had a few observations on this matter. And his truth, no matter how out-of-fashion it may seem to the modern libtard, will always be the truth. Tell it Great One, tell it:

"If I think to myself that a woman should make an appearance at a trial, then I have to say: if that were a woman close to me, and if I wanted to imagine my mother were still alive and has to sit in front of a murderer in a court and decide the verdict,... never, never! We don't want that.

I do not want a uniformed female police officer to walk around and run after scamps or criminals. These are things we naturally don't want. Then they say, 'Excuse me, you don't allow women in the parliament as well.' Certainly, but only because I am satisfied that the parliament does not raise the value of women, but it would only degrade her. I also removed the men from parliament because they were all rotten. (Reichstag laughter)

Then they say, "Why not put some good women into parliament." Because they would turn rotten too. (more laughter)

...

A women's regiment of snipers is being trained in the Soviet Union... grenadiers in Spain (pre-Franco). All I can say about this type of female equality -- I have experienced war. I know how hard it is. I know how many men’s nerves have been shattered by war. I have often seen them return by the dozens, doddering, completely ruined and broken. The idea that a girl or woman should take this upon herself --- I could have no respect for German men then. As long as we have a healthy male gender in Germany, no female sharpshooters or grenadiers will be trained in Germany. That is no equality, but rather, inferior rights for women because it is much harder for her than men. We won’t do it – because for us, the woman has been the most faithful work and life companion of the man at all times."

Hitler: "The catchword “Women’s Liberation” is merely a phrase invented by the Jewish intellect, and its contents are marked by the same spirit. The German woman will never need to emancipate herself in an age supportive of German life. She possessed what Nature gave her automatically as an asset to maintain and preserve; just as the man, in such an age, never had to fear that he would be ousted from his position in respect to woman."

No wonder why women loved Him so. The Great One cherished and protected them from the "progress" that Jewish-Marxist "liberation" offered them.

Boobus Americanus 1: It' a shame what happened to that female police officer.

Boobus Americanus 2: Indeed. Unfortunately, such tragedies are the price for the tremendous progress that women in law enforcement are making.

Sugar: "Progress, my asss, Bobusss!! Thesse deluded dames sshould have sstayed home and raissed a litter -- like I did!

Editor: How come your kitty children never call you? The bastards.

John Freshwater #fundie 10tv.com

Mount Vernon City Schools announced Tuesday that it will launch an independent investigation into allegations made against an eighth-grade science teacher by parents.

According to a complaint, John Freshwater used an electrostatic device to burn crosses onto students’ arms. One of the students said that the pain was so severe that it prevented him from sleeping at night.
.................
"The cross-burning happened during an eighth-grade science class," Philemon said. "It happened with a science machine that uses an electric shock to cause a burn, and the teacher chose to burn a cross onto John Doe's forearm."

Philemon said parents complained to the district after the alleged incident in December 2007.

10TV News reported last week that Freshwater agreed to take down the Ten Commandments from the door of his classroom, along with posters containing Bible verses and Bibles on a shelf. However, he refused to remove a Bible from his desk.

The complaint charges that Freshwater used his classroom to advance religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a recent class, it was charged that Freshwater taught the meaning of Good Friday and Easter.

“The allegations against Mr. Freshwater are very serious,” said Steve Short, the school superintendent. “This is not about his personal Bible on his desktop. It is about the totality of his conduct.”

According to the district, there were also allegations that Freshwater conducted prayers and engaged in a “healing session” as part of a Fellowship of Christian Athletes meeting.

Michael Anissimov #fundie archive.is

Principles of Reactionary Thought

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
2. Right is right and left is wrong.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.
5. Libertarianism is retarded.
6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

______

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.

This is the most basic tenet of Neoreaction/Reaction. Equality is a lie. Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are fundamentally opposed to it. Aristotle said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” The idea of equality ruins organic differentiation and makes humanity into a uniform, grey mass. Inequality does not necessarily mean “superior” or “inferior” (though it very well may), but it does mean different. Things which are different are not equal. They can never be. Equality is a failed ideal. It destroys excellence. We could not be more fundamentally opposed to the notion of equality. Evola was extremely clear on rejecting equality in favor of authority and auctoritas. In Men Among the Ruins, he said:

Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the “immortal principle” of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. [...]
I believe these are mere empty words. This is not a “noble ideal” but some-thing that, if taken absolutely, represents a logical absurdity; wherever this view becomes an established trend, it may usher in only regression and decadence. [...]
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the “many” not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of “justice” is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. Conversely, to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated.

If Reaction/Neoreaction is against anything, it is against equality. If someone argues for equality, they are not a reactionary/neoreactionary, but something else.

2. Right is right and left is wrong.

To reactionaries, this is axiomatic. The phrase was popularized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin, who along with Carlyle and Evola, is part of the central canon of neoreactionary thought. If someone disagrees with this phrase, they may be a perfectly delightful person, someone I’d enjoy having tea with, but they would not be a reactionary. Moldbug cites this phrase in his “Journey from Mises to Carlyle” post. In “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations,” he says:

On the other hand, it is also quite easy to construct a very clean value system in which order is simply good, and chaos is simply evil. I have chosen this path. It leaves quite a capacious cavity in the back of my skull, and allows me to call myself a reactionary. To you, perhaps, it is the dark side. But this is only because the treatment is not yet complete.

Again, basic stuff. He also writes:

The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders. The same asymmetry is why corporations and the military, whose system of hierarchical executive authority is inherently orderly, cluster to the right.

3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.

In general, hierarchy promotes stability, order, direction, cohesion, and so on. Reactionaries object to the rigid hierarchies of totalitarianism, which turn men into cogs in a machine. (See Fascism Viewed from the Right by Julius Evola for a reactionary critique of fascism, or chapter four of Men Among the Ruins.) If you have trouble distinguishing reactionary thought from fascism, you must read chapter four of Men Among the Ruins, or you will never get it. Rather than advocating rigid hierarchies that crush human autonomy, reactionaries support the “organic State,” which Evola describes:

Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State. The idea behind such a State is the priority of the person over any abstract social, political, or juridical entity, and not of the person as a neuter, leveled reality, a mere number in the world of quantity and universal suffrage.

The goal of the organic State is to foster “a process of individuation and of progressive differentiation” of persons, rather than a universalist, leveling aesthetic. Some people are natural leaders, others are not. This is not about all reactionaries fantasizing ourselves to be natural leaders, destined for a spot up the totem poll Come the Revolution. The idea is creating a society that offers a pleasant differentiation and individuation from top to bottom. There are reasons why this actually makes being at the bottom a better and more interesting experience than it is now, but that’s a whole 'nother topic.

4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.

It’s tiresome to go into this one, since the feminists are so rabid about it, but reactionaries basically approve of traditional sex roles. In traditional societies, women did in fact take on some jobs and roles that might be considered careers by today’s standards. They were not all stay-at-home wives, and even if they were, many were extremely industrious. I’m not sure why staying at home, making clothing, cooking, gardening, and raising children is any less empowering or worthwhile than male activities like digging ditches, welding, or sitting at an office desk on a computer all day.

Conversely, if a man chooses to stay home and raise children, many other men will think less of him. No amount of progressive propaganda and reeducation camps will change this, because it’s hard-coded into our brains through millions of years of evolution. Men respect other men who go out into the world and do masculine things. Similarly, the pressure to conform to gender norms is stronger in all-girl schools than in mixed schools, exploding the myth that it is men who instigate and police gender norms, to the detriment of women. People can and do create bizarro-world bubbles where these roles are turned upside-down, but they are not very stable.

Women are less happy today than they were 40 years ago, despite all the alleged advances made by feminism during that time. One reactionary woman I’ve spoken with has said that feminism is fundamentally dishonest because it is a movement for women without children, while it portraying itself as helpful to all women. Another woman says, “I would prefer that norms strongly support functional families and that anyone who wants to do something else has to swim upstream”, which is a fair summation of the reactionary position.

5. Libertarianism is retarded.

Many reactionaries are post-libertarians, i.e., not libertarians. A rite of passage into reaction/neoreaction is the renunciation of libertarianism. I was never a libertarian, so it’s taken me a bit of time to fully understand the relationship between libertarianism and neoreaction, but I understand it now. Libertarians make personal freedom axiomatic, and refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures like society and the family. This is anathema to reactionaries.

Neoreaction has a close relationship with traditionalism, which upholds social obligations, norms, some degree of group conformity/homogeneity, and so on. Neoreaction has libertarian qualities, such as advocating for a smaller government and the exclusion of government from traditionally private spheres, but rejects libertarianism overall.

Libertarianism, if it could work at all, would only be suitable for a portion of the population, maybe 15-20%, who are willing to go Galt and lock themselves in a metaphorical fortress against the world. If a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold, libertarians seem not to care. Meanwhile, reactionaries foster community, family, and social cohesion. A couple months ago, I stated, “The “socialism” that traditionalism advocates is family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” That sums up the reactionary position on mutual assistance, which is theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism as it is in fact lived and practiced. Also, reactionaries tend to view libertarians as excessively materialistic.

For a final tidbit of food for thought on this one, someone on Twitter said, “if you took libertarianism but made the basic social unit the family rather than the individual you would come close to what neoreaction is”. Debatable, but interesting.

6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

Democracy has been a disaster. Read Democracy: the God That Failed for an explanation. If you have not read at least some of this book, you will be lost. At the very least, reading some of it will give you exposure to serious academic discourse on the failure of democracy. Dismissing anything anti-democratic as “fascism” simply marks you as an idiot, a man of no intellectual depth. At least people like Scott Alexander are capable of going a little deeper and providing a defense of democracy that avoids relying on the fascist boogeyman.

That’s it.

I considered including “opposition to the Cathedral,” here, but decided to leave it out since “Cathedral” is just a lame neologism to outsiders, and I want my posts to be digestible by normal people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought. Also, the question of what the Cathedral is, exactly, is a very complicated one.

I limit the premises to six because I want them to be definitional and exhaustive — anyone who does agree with all six of these premises is almost certainly a reactionary, or at least on the Far Right, while anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary. We have to draw the line somewhere. Having in-groups and out-groups is another premise of reactionary thought.

(Emphasis original)

jiangweisen #conspiracy deviantart.com

Was Tom Hanks aka. Mister Rogers performing some kind of hypnosis?

SPOILER WARNING!

We know his partner in producing the show was heavily into psychoanalysis. Margaret McFarland, a child psychologist (Columbia University) who worked with Benjamin Spock, who spoiled a whole generation of kids & Erik Erikson, another follower of the Freudian psychoanalysis.

What’s this thing with all these eyes in the windows of the houses aren’t these more tools of hypnosis?

What’s this honorific title they place on “feelings”. This is part of the push towards “positivity” to the exclusion of truth, the “love not hate” mantra that attempts to censor opposing views.

Notice the deep purple of his jacket in the house. We associate dark purple with the devil, the snake in the garden, the first liar.

And Tom Hanks is the same propagandist who pushed Dan Brown’s atheism & anti-God, anti-Christ lies on the world with the help of another Orwellian master of doublespeak, Ron Howard.

The looney left’s war on morality with their eugenics, euthanasia, abortions, racism (while preaching against it), bigotry… I shouldn’t label just the leftist for their Idiocracy. Look what the reactionary right is doing now in Iran.

It seems the left & the right come together on war crimes.

Nobody is more self-righteous, except maybe fake Christians, than communists & the looney left. Their insistence on controlling people, authoritarian control & fake righteousness.

These are lullabies for lemmings. The pretense that all is well in the world while you’re murdered in your sleep. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Whether Fred Rogers was sincere or not. I don’t know. Does it matter?

And the flashing yellow light, more attempts at hypnosis?

There’s something eerily strange, cult-like, when Hanks appeals to this skeptic to take a minute of silence to calm him. Somehow the whole vegan restaurant is listening & the dozens of people participate in the silence. Eew!

I sure would like to hear from Fiona Barnett on some of these names. Were they also disappearing kids for DAARPA? I wouldn’t trust PBS to flush my toilet. Turn off that stuff. Sesame Street & all that garbage that wrecked a whole generation. Look at America today & see what PBS turned out.

He also was a Presbyterian minister & considered it his ministry to make these programs & minister to kid’s needs. God will be the judge, but personally he always turned me off. I don’t know if it was his effeminate presentation, the churchy, do-goody icky sweetness or just me discerning a hypocrite.

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

An uncomfortable truth that must be acknowledged, Trotskyists have more influence in the first world than Maoists do. If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll see that Troskyists are a growing influence in the U.S., while the Maoists are declining. We must see past the vitriol, and our feelings towards the reactionary Trotskyism to see the truth.

Where are the Maoists in the Untied States? Immediately we think Bob Avakian’s RCP, or even the Kasama project. Of these two groups, the RCP is still alive, however reactionary. Outside of these two groups we have collage activist circles trying to pass themselves off as legitimate revolutionary movements. The New Communist Party (a.k.a. the New York Maoists) has proclaimed itself to be “the leaders of the Maoist rebellion of New York.” The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada literally claims to be doing People’s War. Both of these statements are utter nonsense, there is no war going on, there is no rebellion or armed struggle taking place. At best each is a few handfuls of people. They’re both collage activist groups composed of mostly upper-middle class twenty-somethings, whom one would be surprised if they even owned a gun.

Now, contrast this with the strength and popularity of Trotskyist groups. The ISO (International Socialist Organization) is a primary example. They’re a very large political group that stretches across many countries. They can even be found in places like Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Take a look at all the noise being made around Kshama Sawant in Seattle. A minor position in a city council is significant when compared to the influence and power Maoists have in the U.S. Socialists all across the first world are enamoured with her victory and it has garnered her Trotskyist group (Socialist Alternative) a lot of support. Her actions have also driven a lot of people towards Bernie Sanders (even though he’s not a Trotskyist). They have legitimate union connections all across the country, while the Maoists have none. This disparity in influence and power is plain to see, if people but only look. Are these Trotskyists revolutionary groups? No, they call for social democratic reforms.

Does that mean Trotskyism is correct and Maoism is wrong? Absolutely not. Trotskyism is a terrible reactionary, racist ideology, and social imperialist on a theoretical level. All I am pointing out here are their levels of popularity. Trotskyism clearly does wield much more influence in the real world. It does this over Marxist-Leninists as well. This is by no mean a failing exclusive to Maoism. What is important here is to acknowledge the reality of the situation. One group merely pretends to be revolutionary and have no support, while the other is openly reformist and enjoys large support.

Why is this happening? Essentially, this is a symptom of First Worldism. As there is no significant presence of a proletariat in the first world, people tend towards reform not revolution. The revolutionary potential is not there. Almost all activist groups openly reject the idea of revolution, while the Maoists promote revolution over reform. It should come as no surprise that Trotskyists have more support.

First Worldism is a reactionary tendency, it must be rejected.

Dasho #racist #conspiracy #fundie #psycho boards.christogenea.org

[On David Duke]

He hates Jews, but only in ways that reaffirm their lies and ultimately serve their interests. The bible says the Caananites should be killed, and those who are not killed by us will be killed by Christ when he casts them into the lake of fire. Duke just wants to deport them all to Israel or let them take over and run China instead. Jews have a "right" to a nation, Jews are who they say they are, Jews run the media and maybe some of the banks but the Holocaust happened and Hitler was a bad guy because he turned people off of Nationalism for Europeans.

Only Jews could admit their own crimes in such a way that you end up giving them what they want regardless of the admission. Were it not for the fact that I've already looked into it and am quite sure he's ethnically white, I would suspect Duke of being a Jew himself. As far as I can tell, he's just an incredibly weaselly and spineless collaborator.

The big reason I came to CI, and started taking everything CI says more seriously, is because of the overwhelming secular evidence that the Israelites were in fact Aryan. Which is the more proper term for European, since Europeans didn't actually originate in Europe, as I'm sure all of you are already well aware. I don't need theology or even the bible to prove this: it can be proven on its own merits without bringing religion into the discussion at all, although the biblical accounts of the ancient Israelites certainly do help immensely. And yet in spite of all the evidence FOR this, only CI and maybe one or two other voices would actually talk about or accept that truth. Literally everyone else takes it for granted that the Jews are Israelites, and a surefire way of finding a Jewish shill is to say the Jews are not and wait for the explosion. I actually think it's an even bigger lie than the Holocaust: the masturbation machines and bicycle powered brain bashers are all a recent invention, but Jews have been peddling the Israelite swindle for the better portion of two thousand years.

Duke doesn't have to be CI to believe or accept this truth. I wasn't when I did. It's absurd to believe a physically frail race of chronically ill liars and merchants are the same as the warriors who conquered half of the ancient world. No Egyptian would ever bother enslaving a Jew and putting them to work as a laborer, you'd have to beat him senseless to get anything out of him at all. Any Jewish slave would be better served doing paperwork or chained to a desk counting coins, and even then I wouldn't trust them to do it, since they're liable to cook the books or miscount your gold simply to spite you. Since when have the Jews ever been great farmers or cattleherds? When was the last time you saw a Jew with a shepard's crook? Quite frankly, the street preacher Hoteps have a more believable story! At least a nigger could have done some of those things. A Jew couldn't do a single one! The evidence is all there, but David Duke doesn't want to see it. As in all other things he does, his racism and "nationalism" only exists within the context of serving Jewish interests. He is the defination of kosher controlled opposition. He does what his FBI handlers tell him to do, and I'm sure more than a few of them go to synagogues on Sunday.

For Duke's own sake, I almost wish he was a distant crypto Jew. I can't even imagine what his punishment would be in God's kingdom if he were white. Lies on top of lies, treason on top of treason. He willfully chose chains and Satanic lies instead of freedom and truth for his earthly life, so I can only imagine him having to endure it for the rest of eternity as well.

James Moore #racist washingtonpost.com

A Ku Klux Klan chapter holding a rally in downtown Charlottesville on Saturday afternoon says it expects 80 to 100 members and supporters to take part in the protest and that most will have guns with them.?“It’s an open-carry state, so our members will be armed,” said James Moore, a member of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which is headquartered in Pelham, N.C., near the Virginia border. Moore said that if members are attacked, they will defend themselves.?The KKK is protesting the Charlottesville City Council’s decision this year to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public park and rename that park. Once called Lee Park, it is now Emancipation Park. A court injunction has halted the statue’s removal until a November hearing. On Thursday, a “Confederate Heroes” plaque attached to the statue was removed by city workers.?“The liberals are taking away our heritage,” Moore said. “By taking these monuments away, that’s what they’re working on. They’re trying to erase the white culture right out of the history books.”

[deleted] #fundie reddit.com

Alright, I will give my honest thoughts on this, this is just my perspective even if you might think it's insane, edgy, or immoral. Frankly, I think that there are situations where the killing of civilians is justifiable. I would like to thank OP for not using the word, "Innocents" because such a word is debatable just how innocent someone may be just because they're not actively physically fighting.

We live in a world where people can be violent without literal physical violence, a wealthy man can steal the surplus of a worker's labor and be supported by the State in doing so. A person, especially in these days, can incite racial hatred and violence just by using a desktop computer or writing a racist book, an article. Just because someone's a civilian doesn't necessarily make them innocent.

Revolutions, especially in the modern world, aren't fought just with weapons, but with thoughts, ideas, opinions. Changing the public perception of Communism can turn a group of freedom fighters into terrorists, it can turn a gang of racist thugs into defenders of liberty. It can turn civil rights abuses into lasting security. It would be foolish of a true revolutionary to ignore the psychological warfare aspect of Revolution.

Frankly, I am fine with killing civilians if they are harming the proletariat or the Revolution. If you are a racist, sexist, classist, etc. than that alone means you're fair game in my book, whether you're taking up arms or not. By the virtue of you being alive and spouting your bigotry, you are harming minorities, you are harming the working class, and you're not welcome in the world to come. You are supporting our enemies with your opinions that you spread, with the money you likely donate, and with your approval of the status quo.

I know that sounds harsh, but the fact is, you're either with us, against us, or you get out of the way entirely. If you're with us, you'll get in touch with us, you can be an informant, you can provide refuge for revolutionaries on the bounce, you can provide food, do your part. Heck, you could even become a revolutionary yourself if you're up for it.

If you're against us, you can consider yourself a walking corpse, you've made the wrong choice. You're fair game for us, expect no mercy. If you support conservatism, capitalism, fascism, etc. if you're snitching for the cops, or you are a cop, you better watch your step. You, your property, your everything is fair game. I'm sure you're cutting yourself on all this edge right now, but revolution is revolution, no successful revolution has ever been clean. I expect our enemies definitely won't show us an ounce of mercy, so we're returning the favor.

If you get out of the way entirely, you better beat feet fast. Take a hike, Mike, get out of the area entirely, move somewhere else because you're not welcome here. I suspect many of the second category will end up in this category if they don't end up ten feet underground first. I bet once Wall Street is turned into a smoking pyre it'll be like cockroaches in a kitchen when the lights turn on.

That's pretty much the gist of it. The system is built that only violent means can destroy it, therefore we need to be violent, and we need to be violent well. Because if we're not, then we'll lose, and we'll lose our chance. We live in an inherently violent system that oppresses millions, action is necessary, and action there will be.

Muslim_Acid_Salesman #fundie reddit.com

Liberals view Islam as the lost proletariat that will fight against the West. They view Muslims as the disenfranchised group of brown people that will fight against the United States. Despite the fact that they are the most conservative people on Earth (They hate gays, women and minorities) liberals will ally with them for the sake of anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism.
As an atheist and a conservative, I'm sick of hearing excuses by liberals apologizing for far-wing conservative Islamic values. The culture of Islamic countries are anti-liberal.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[From the article The Way of Men - Formatting in original]

Bro! The Carlyle Club is hogging the remote, refusing to ask for directions, and generally manning up for some guy talk on masculinity. (No girls allowed.)

[...]

Jack Donovan is an anti-feminist, anti-modernist, anti-populist anarcho-fascist who “moonlights as an advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue.” And what is “manly virtue”? The Way of Men is Donovan’s answer:

For decades, people have been talking about a “crisis” of masculinity. Our leaders have created a world in spite of men, a world that refuses to accept who men are and doesn’t care what they want. Our world asks men to change “for the better,” but offers men less of value to them than their fathers and grandfathers had. The voices who speak for the future say that men must abandon their old way and find a new way. But what is that way and where does it lead?
As I came to understand The Way of Men, I became more concerned about where men are today, and where they are headed. I wondered if there was a way for men to follow their own way into a future that belongs to men.
That’s the path of this book. My answers may not be the kind of answers you want to hear, but they are the only answers that satisfied my inquiry.

Ultimately, it boils down to this:

Relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes, the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut has to do with being good at being a man within a small, embattled gang of men struggling to survive.

The Way of Men is the way of that gang.


[...]

Evola’s thought can be considered one of the most radically and consistently antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular systems in the twentieth century.
Franco Ferraresi

(He says that like it’s a bad thing!)

The Sicilian Baron Julius Evola (1898–1974) was one of the most influential reactionary philosophers of the 20th century. Evola’s core trilogy comprises
[LIST=1]
[*][I]Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga[/I] in 1934 (PDF here),
[*][I]Men among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist[/I] in 1953 (PDF here, audio book here), and
[*][I]Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul[/I] in 1961 (PDF here).
[/LIST]
(Would that every writer had the Baron Evola’s gift for subtitling.)
Most relevant to the Way of Men, Donovan’s way of the gang, is the Baron Evola’s conception of the Männerbund, introduced in Men among the Ruins, Chapter 2.

According to an old view, the State derives from the family: the same principle responsible for shaping the family and the gens, having been integrated and extended, allegedly gave rise to the State. Whether or not this is the case, it is possible, from a logical point of view, to trace the origins of the State to a naturalistic plane only by committing an initial mistake: to assume that in ancient civilized areas, and especially those populated by Indo-European civilizations, the family was a unity of a purely physical type, and that the sacred, together with a well-articulated hierarchical social system, did not play a decisive role in it. […] But if the family is thought of in naturalistic terms, or in the terms in which it presents itself today, the generating principle of the properly political communities must be traced to a context that is very different from the one typical of the family: it must be traced to the plane of the so-called Männerbünde.

Männerbund (plural Männerbünde): German. Literally band of men. An all-male warrior band or gang.

Among several primitive societies, the individual, up to a certain age, being regarded as a merely natural being, was entrusted to the family and to maternal tutelage, since everything related to the maternal, physical aspect of existence fell under the maternal-feminine aegis.

We’re a generation of men raised by women.

[...]

“What would happen,” Jack Donovan asks in Chapter 11, “if men got spoiled, gave up and gave in to women completely? How would that society operate?” Well, we already know, because we’re living in it. Welcome to the Bonobo Masturbation Society.

[...]

Our society has almost no tolerance for unsanctioned physical violence. Children are expelled from school for fighting, and something as historically common as a weaponless, drunken brawl can land men in court or in jail.

A recent headline in Silver Spring, Maryland: ‘Boy, 6, suspended over finger gun’ (UPI). Not worth a headline in Silver Spring: ‘Lawless mobs periodically loot convenience stores’ (Unamusement Park).

[...]

Recall how Jack Donovan had to bring us outside civilized society to find “the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut.” He invites us to imagine ourselves as “part of a small human group fighting to stay alive. … You could be our primal ancestors, you could be pioneers, you could be stranded in some remote location, you could be survivors of a nuclear holocaust or the zombie apocalypse.

Whether you believe we’re living at Fukuyama’s End of History or restarting history from Evola’s Kali Yuga, — whether we’re Jack Donovan’s mindless, masturbating bonobos or Tyler Durden’s pissed-off “middle children of history,” — surely it bears consideration that one of the most popular shows on television depicts a zombie apocalypse and mankind’s forced return to that prehistoric condition of “raw masculinity,” “relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes.”

Ask yourself: why would the Last Man watch The Walking Dead? Not to mention Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Left 4 Dead, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, World War Z, Resident Evil, the Zombie Research Society, ‘5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen’ ([I]Cracked[/I]), ‘10 Essentials for Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse: A Practical Guide’ ([I]The Huffington Post[/I]), ‘Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse’ (the CDC, for God’s sake), ‘Montana TV Station Warns Of Attacking Zombies’ (NPR), ‘“Canada will never be a safe haven for zombies,” Foreign Minister John Baird tells House of Commons’ ([I]National Post[/I]), ‘Zombie apocalypse cancelled by Quebec government’ (CBC), and of course the Walking Dead zombie swimsuit calendar.

Audrey Russo #fundie barbwire.com

[Barack Obama said, "[R]emember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often were justified in the name of Christ."]

First the truth on the Crusades, as I've mentioned in the past:

- The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews...forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, and a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering "Muslim lands'". (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)

- The motives of the Crusaders were pure. They were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a "peaceful," native Muslim population.

- The Islamic world ripped through the Christian world on a bloody Jihad crusade to propagate Islam. Muslim imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles (larger than the British Empire at its peak). The Jihad crusade went from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

Second, as far as terrible deeds committed "in the name of Christ":

- When Muslims commit violent Jihad in Allah's name, according to the Quran (as ISIS, et al, does), they are being true to Islamic doctrine and reflecting the character of Islam's founder Muhammed.

- The same CANNOT be said of Biblical Christians. If a so-called Christian commits a violent act and attempts to justify it in the name of Jesus and claims the New Testament, he is NOT reflecting the character of Christianity's founder NOR can his actions be supported by the New Testament.

Thirdly, Slavery:

- Slavery was not the product of White men or Christians, but rather the work of Arab Muslims (who still utilize it today in Africa).

- The Abolitionists, who ended Slavery, were in FACT Christians. The man responsible for ending Slavery in England? A Christian by the name of William Wilberforce.

[...]

And finally, Jim Crow:

- Jim Crow Laws were a Southern Democrat response to Republican President Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation. It was NOT a Christian action. The Christians were the Abolitionists. They ended slavery. So any reference to Christians and Jim Crow Laws, is patently deceitful.

Fuck Banter #fundie shit-tankies-say.tumblr.com

( holy shit the Juche idea is fuckin reactionary nonsense how could any Marxist in their right mind support it???)

It’s about preserving the national character of a subjugated, sanctioned nation.

( get the fuck outta here you brainless north-korea defending bill cosby apologist twat juche is nationalist reactionary nonsense more similar to mussolini’s italy than anything marx envisioned. you should be ashamed to call yourself a marxist you piece of shit)

Nationalism for oppressed nations is justified as imperialism aims to destroy them and their independence.

Successful resistance movements all championed national liberation for oppressed nations as an important aspect for anti-imperialist struggle and by extension, internationalism; Vietnam, China, Burkina Faso, Cuba etc.

As for “history is shaped by the masses not material structures”. This is a big misinterpretation of juche and wasn’t imposed on them by anyone, but rather decided democratically by the anti-Japanese resistance to be the ideology of the Korean revolution.

Tbh I would have thought that someone who wants to see the destruction of every socialist state for not being good enough would be someone more suited to not be considered a Marxist. There’s already a word for someone who cries about the internal imperfections of small, sanctioned states while ignoring the objective conditions of world imperialism. We call them liberals.

LittleBoy #fundie #sexist incels.co

[SERIOUS] Normie speak to Incels

"You have no empathy whatsoever" = You are one logical minded son of a bitch who won't be a victim of my emotional manipulation, blackmail or gas lighting... DAMN YOU!!!

"You have to work on yourself bro" = You don't have what it takes, you never will & now fuck off & go & play in the Sandpit out of sight, out of mind you ugly dirty unwashed inkel

"You have to have confidence bro so work on it" = Fuck off you ugly bastard & talk to yourself in a mirror for hours on end while I go & enjoy Chad & garner some orbiters too..

"You're such a misogynist" = Damn you, you annoying son of a bitch... You've cottoned onto my game plan & my actions... How dare you hurt my aristocratic feelings you proletariat pleb...

"All Women aren't like that" = My mother & my sister since I don't know any other woman outside of my immediately family & vicinity...

"This is why you're inkel" = You've frustrated & annoyed me by dowsing out my fallacious arguments & now I'm going to insult you... Inkel...

"You're not entitled to anything" = Same as previous comment now piss off whilst I rail at my Orbiters that the 3 Chads I gave hand jobs to never called me back yesterday as I was EXPECTING their ever devoted undying love which I so totally deserve...

Anymore feel free to add.

Lilou and John #racist #wingnut amerika.org

As you will understand if you continue reading, the White Art Collective is indeed something everyone should follow if they have any desire to know anything about contemporary counter culture.

But half a year ago we had no idea what to expect. The dissident right can sometimes get very picky with whom they choose to fraternize with and we were not sure whether our anti-establishment burn-last-year’s-fields-to-give-way-to-new-crops mentality would find an audience in the White Art Collective.

We knew that WAC played different kinds of music by artists of European descent but would they like our free speech mongrel rock? After all, we are Lilou and John, the “two crazy Swedes,” not the most traditionalist folks and we have a reputation of being troublemakers to people on all sides. Reactionary in a bull shark manner perhaps, but would we fit in with what could possibly be a tribalistic bunch of preppers who just might suspect us of being Communist infiltrators?

Half a year later we are more than happy to say that we were not only welcomed with open arms, but we have also had the honor to work alongside some of the most interesting new artists today.

White Art Collective is only a few years old and the man behind the famous Saturday Night Livestreams and the many new programs that have emerged lately under the WAC umbrella, Jeff Winston, has proven to be a man of ideas and visions. Today the WAC-pack is more and more beginning to be something of an icon-in-the-making of contemporary counter culture on a global scale. The artists come from many countries, including Australia, Great Britain, the US and Sweden. This is not a local riot. It is a rhythm that rocks the entire planet.

The very idea to create a platform for artists who are not welcome in mainstream media because of a politically incorrect combination of ethnicity, worldview, lifestyle and music taste was a brilliant move and something we had hoped for ever since we released our now almost legendary album Dissidentica in 2017 that paved way for a new way of looking at dissident music and media, at least in Scandinavia.

You see, White Art Collective is far away from the angry vibes of European old school Rock Against Communism. Do not misunderstand us — RAC is one of few original working class genres that have survived in a post-Soviet world that turned the Marxist-Leninist dogmas into law — but the White Art Collective is something brand new.

We find barbershop-influenced retro-pop, rock-identitaire, neo-folk, singer-songwriters, art rock, jazzy steampunk-ska crossovers and dystopian Gustave Le Bon-inspired fusions of fashwave and psybient techno that you will not hear on any radio station.

Just try to remember where was the last place you heard an eccentric experimental Swedish cello-enthusiast who mixed his instrument with spellbinding pagan rhythms like something the mythological Shetland seal god would play in Mollie Hunter’s A Stranger Came Ashore?

Better off Red #conspiracy stormfront.org

I'm writing this because not only do I enjoy reveling in the schadenfreude and chagrin of your ilk, but I feel as though I'll be contributing something constructive to your forum rather than the usual irrelevant and mundane rubbish. Whether or not your moderators will approve this depends on how much confidence that your moderators have in you and the white nationalist/right wing dogma as a whole.

Let me get to the point: you've lost. And that everything to do with your leaders and ignorance. In fact, the only thing any of your leaders has ever gotten right, is the communist threat that is now more imminent than ever in your already increasingly socialized society (socialism being the pretext to communism).

Seventy years ago, communist ideologues planned how they'd deconstruct the west in order to impose their dictatorial system of control - America in particular.

There were two schools of thought. There were the reactionaries who maintained that a violent revolution was the only way to impose communism on a nation such as America. The other, more realistic school of thought, was that communists would infiltrate every aspect of society and transform it incrementally from within. As you can plainly see, the latter school of thought [has] prevailed.

The level of success that we've achieved over the past half century allows me to openly say what was once considered ideological suicide. It also allows me to critique your movement and the right wing/nationalist movement as a whole - which is exactly what I'm about to do.

Let me start by addressing the stated [white nationalist] claim that there's a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy. When I first read that, I couldn't stop laughing for several minutes (funny stuff). While you people have and continue to argue over the Jewish boogieman, you've been up against a communist conspiracy that has been taking place quietly behind the scenes the entire time. Of course, I anticipate the obligatory argument that communism is essentially a Jewish phenomenon, and in the most technical sense of the word that could be argued using anecdotal evidence; however, making that argument is akin to arguing what caused someone's cancer rather than taking the correct measures to stop it from metastasizing.

While a disproportionate amount of Jews were certainly at the forefront of the Bolshevik movement in Russia (the premise for your fallacious 'communism-is-Jewish' argument), communism later became with rife with antisemitism. Communist ideologues of many ethnic persuasions in the west saw the value of the anti-antisemitism taking hold in the former Soviet Union. So in an [ironic] twist, it was antisemitism that arguably served as the framework to developing a strategy of divide and conquer in the west.

Communist ideologues correctly hypothesized that by pitting diverse groups people against each other and empowering minority groups, they could create the social environment necessary to divide and conquer the white majority - while at the same time incrementally tearing away at the moral fabric that was holding your nations together (morality being the backbone of all successful societies).

In short: had your leaders been focused on the real enemy during and after the 1960s, your ideology quite possibly could have prevailed - at the very least, as far as the core tenets of traditional conservatism is concerned. The entire right wing movement has failed miserably because of ignorance, infighting, ideological divides and greed. White nationalism is merely one example of right wing ineptness.

I'll pause shortly, as I do not wish to waste much time on something that may not be posted. If this should be posted, I'm willing to continue this discussion and elaborate - but only with your more rational members. I will not respond to any reactionary nonsense. At the risk of sounding condescending, this post is more for your benefit. I say that knowing that you have been thoroughly defeated with absolutely no chance of ever morphing into any sort of viable threat.

Perhaps we could discuss how the left owns your children? Perhaps we could discuss how the average liberal or self-defined 'anti-racist' is nothing more than a well-meaning useful idiot, and how minorities have been used as pawns? Perhaps we could discuss the role of global corporatism and the international money handlers? Perhaps we could discuss the reality of the egalitarian illusion that those on the left have created?

DukeofQin #racist reddit.com

Yes, I oppose continued Asian immigration to the West. Well to be specific, I oppose Chinese immigration to the West as I dont really care about what others do. The reason I do so is because I view the weltanschaung of the contemporary West as diseased and have no desire for its memetic virulence to spread further. More importantly I want to preserve the genetic inheritance of my forefathers and have no desire to see my kinfolk actively genocided by selfish hypergamous race traitor women.

Though keep in mind my opinion is a distinctly minority view since this is a sub populated by Eurasians of various ancestry who still share a fundamentally Western liberal outlook while I am a Han Chauvinist reactionary. My opinion is probably also not in line with most actual Chinese for that matter (women mostly) because they are fairly ignorant of racial relations in multiracial societies. They just want the status and prestige they can showboat to their social peers while grossly ignorant or in the case of Chinese women, callously indifferent to the inevitable consequences. That being a slow motion racial annihilation that is fundamentally no different than an enslaved race being bred out of existence by having their women folk taken by conquerors.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Secularist Media War Against the Ark Continues

Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure. Sadly, they are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking.

In one sense, such negative, misleading, and outright false reporting doesn’t worry me. As Christians, we know we will receive opposition like this—and after 40 years in Bible-upholding ministry, I have become used to such antics by those who oppose us. Nowadays, it seems very few reporters in the secular media actually want to report facts regarding what they cover as news. When it comes to reporting on theologically conservative Christians like those of us at AiG, whose ideology they strongly oppose, many writers have an agenda to undermine Christianity as they file their stories.

I’ve found that not only do these kinds of reporters generally do very poor or lazy research, they will actually make things up for their agenda purposes. They often just quote others, who themselves have quoted yet others, who have quoted even yet others. Urban legends have now been created around our life-size Noah’s Ark, mixing misleading and untrue statements gathered from a variety of sources, often not using primary sources but hearsay.

A Recent Case in Point

Let me give you a recent example. Reporter Linda Blackford wrote a recent front-page article on the Ark Encounter for the secular newspaper the Lexington Herald Leader of Kentucky (the state’s second largest paper). Her article was titled “Town Expected Flood of Business after Noah’s Ark Opened. So Far, It’s a Trickle.”1

After reading that headline and then her article, I was convinced that she (and probably her editor) had an agenda even before she began her research and writing. She was determined to convince readers that the Ark Encounter wasn’t successful and that it hadn’t had much of a positive economic impact or created jobs in Grant County. As she ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the reporter misquoted the few people she did interview and deliberately wrote an article that hid the whole truth about the tremendous economic impact that the Ark Encounter has had on all of Northern Kentucky. Her motivation? Well, because her newspaper has been known for antagonism toward anything Christian, and AiG has experienced this agenda from the paper over the years, what’s occurred here is yet another example of its anti-Christian bias.

[...]

Intolerant Atheists

The Herald-Leader isn’t the only secular media outlet spreading such maligning anti-AiG propaganda. Many secular bloggers and organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have produced videos and/or printed articles filled with misinformation and deliberate falsehoods in their attempt to hide the truth about the success of the Ark.

Many articles, for example, have actually stated that the city of Williamstown, where the Ark is located, is liable for the $62 million dollar bond offering that was part of the funding for the Ark. That’s simply a lie. Answers in Genesis is totally liable for that bond offering, which states:

The Series 2013 Bonds shall not be general obligations of the Issuer but special and limited obligations payable solely from the amounts payable under the loan agreement and from funds and property pledged pursuant to the indenture. The Series 2013 Bonds and the interest payable thereon do not now and shall never constitute indebtedness of the Issuer or the Commonwealth of Kentucky within the meaning of the Constitution or the Statutes of the Commonwealth, and neither the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky nor any political subdivision thereof shall be liable for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation or agreement created by or arising under the indenture or the Series 2013 Bonds from any property other than the trust estate. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Issuer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Series 2013 Bonds.3

Yes, the bonds were issued through the city, but the city is not responsible for one cent of this offering. Some articles even say the bond offering is part of the TIF—which is simply ridiculous! The amount of misinformation and outright lies about the Ark project is staggering.

Why so many lies and misinformation? Simply because we are in a spiritual battle, and the intolerant secularists are so upset with such world-class attraction like the Ark (and Creation Museum) that publicly proclaim a Christian message. They will resort to whatever tactics they deem necessary to try to malign the attractions.

Of course, negative reporting and commentary result in more advertising for our facilities! As I witness all this opposition and see such opposition backfiring, I am reminded again of what Joseph declared and how it applies to us today:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

Christopher Cantwell #fundie mirror.co.uk

The 22-minute Vice documentary captured the events surrounding Saturday's planned Unite the Right rally - from Friday night's torch march reminiscent of KKK rallies to eerie calm on Sunday night.

The rally by neo-Nazis was halted as violence broke out in the Virginia city and a state of emergency was declared by the state's governor.

Vice correspondent Elle Reeve went behind the lines with white supremacists and, in particular, Cantwell, 36, who believes a race war is inevitable and argues for an "Anglo ethno state" without blacks, Jews or immigrants who aren't white.

Footage shows him reacting in pain after being pepper sprayed at the torch march and again ahead of the rally at Emancipation Park, where white supremacists gathered to protest the removal of a statue of a Confederate general.

As milk is poured into his eyes to relieve the burning sensation, a man with him chants "Heil Cantwell", playing off the Nazis' salute for Adolf Hitler.

Later, a shirtless and agitated Cantwell marches with other white supremacists after the rally was scuttled by riot police, and he blames anti-racism activists for sparking the violence.

Cantwell, who was due to speak at the rally, says: “We’re not non-violent, we’ll f***ing kill these people if we have to."

The documentary is filled with chilling declarations and warnings from white supremacists, including Robert Ray, who says: "We’re starting to slowly unveil a little bit of our power level, you ain’t seen nothing yet."

[...]

Harrowing footage shows an aerial view of the car attack, which killed paralegal Heather Heyer, 32, and injured at least 19 others as anti-racism activists marched through the streets.

The following night, at a hotel in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, Cantwell is shown with two assault rifles, three handguns, a knife and body armour as he reflects on the weekend's violence.

The self-proclaimed fascist, who hosts a "shock jock" internet radio show, says: “I’d say it was worth it. We knew we were going to meet a lot of resistance.

"The fact that nobody on our side died I’d go ahead and call that points for us. The fact that none of our people killed anybody unjustly I think is a plus for us."

Cantwell, of Keene, New Hampshire, claims the driver who ploughed into pedestrians and two other vehicles was attacked first, denying that it was an unprovoked attack.

James Alex Fields Jr, 20, has been charged with second-degree murder after the car.

[...]

Cantwell defended the driver and showed no rergets over the loss of life, saying: “He saw no way to get away from them except to hit the gas and, sadly, because our rivals are a bunch of stupid animals who don’t pay attention they couldn’t just get out of the way of his car.

“I think it was more than justified. The amount of restraint that our people showed out there, I think, was astounding.”

Cantwell, smirking, predicted further protests and more violence, adding: "I'd say [Charlottesville is] going to be really tough to top but we’re up to the challenge.

“I think a lot more people are going to die before we’re done here, frankly. Why? Because people die every day.

"People die violent deaths all of the time, this is part of the reason we want an etho state.”

leftexincel #fundie #sexist #moonbat reddit.com

How would I go about sharing my two cents as an ex-incel from a left political perspective (communist)?

Disclaimer: not an 'AMA'.

I'm 20 something years old and with an inhuman amount of effort I've 'ascended' to being a normie, with my own day job's income and place, a halfway finished BA at a university, a couple of girlfriends (none higher than a '4') and a current girlfriend I've had sex with on multiple occasions (also probably no higher than a '4' or maybe '4.5' if I asked the layman), all met at work and school.

I'm by no means very attractive naturally (though I've fixed much of it with callisthenics, proper self-care, proper amounts of sleep, improving my posture and facial expression, etc.) spergy (diagnosed with Asperger's, personality development disorder, MDD), rather frequent drug user and had the typical bleak loner and clown-like childhood.

In spite of what I would call the 'reactionary' character of the online incel community, I highly sympathize with it and believe that it is the product of legitimate structural failures of modernity against men and that the cause lies in the increased social demand to be more than just an authentic individual and partner to a woman, but a full 'product' that needs to be valorizable as more than a partner but as a commodity and status object in general.

With the decline of old rigid patriarchal structures this subjectivity in relations has opened up but in a world where, increasingly, value must come from socioeconomic status, which can primarily be sold materially in the form of: disposable income or other forms of capital, a conformed physical appearance and outwardly matching confidence and (sexually enticing) personality; all elements that improve one's ability to sell oneself and acquire the means to purchase others. Attraction is a financial transaction exchanged for either financial or social capital, and one must have both or be able to acquire either one with the other to succeed in obtaining intimacy. I strongly believe that 'neurodivergent' incels in reality fail to find intimacy because they would never want to sacrifice their authenticity for conformity, and that this is then communicated through a resentment of the object of desire (an authentic female companionship).

I'm not much happier now that I've improved myself, but in effect that is the real problem: anyone can 'ascend' if they truly try hard enough, but it will never really fulfill any real needs, because the real desire is for a world within which folding oneself over so hard just to fit in and obtain what is today arguably the most important form of social capital, a female companion, is so necessary.

My ideal would not so much be a world in which society itself coerces women to (once more) conform to being the guaranteed other to men (enforced monogamy, arranged marriage, social division in sex, etc.), as this would equally remove any element of authenticity, but rather a world in which propertied social capital is an impossibility and as as such serves no real inherent added value in the experience and reproduction of daily life but that sex and romance is then reduced purely to its own, non-vital element of life. I realize the former is that which is attractive to you because, on a metaphysical level, you have already concluded that there is a difference between men and women so fundamental that it cannot be changed by altering society to have the woman be less of an object (inherently, you believe this will always be the case), but to me that reality is not only false but untennable: if our predicament is in effect that we have strayed from a metaphysical essence (patriarchal society) by introducing subjectivity and that we must either return to that essence or suffer mentally, then I would honestly rather kill myself twice over as it would imply that the human experience as such already exists, that there is nothing to discover or experience whatsoever but something in particular one must just as well conform to as the current predicament.

Essentially this means that for all intents and purposes incels are right about the present state of things, and do identify a problem, and are right when saying that, objectively, when one is an incel, there is little more to do than try to 'looksmaxx' or whatever oneself to be as close to a 'normie' as possible. And likewise I share the agreement that this is a decrepit state for a society to be in. I simply don't think salvation lies in the past.

I'm not sure I'm making much of a point here anymore, so I'll leave it at this. I haven't gotten into why I'm a communist now and, frankly, I don't think it really matters in more than how I roughly view the incel question on a macro-scale. Again, I know this is no AMAs, and I wasn't looking for an AMA either. I just wanted to tell you my experiences and perspective and get your opinions on them straight.

If this wasn't the right place to make this post but such a place exists please link me to it before nuking.

E: apologies for how everything in the title starts in caps; nothing else here is formatted that way and it looks stupid.

Gregory Hood #wingnut #racist amren.com

What Next for the Democratic Socialists of America?

“I want to firebomb the White House,” said leftist activist Sythan Pok, “and you can quote me on that.” Politico did so in a respectful article about the “young left.” If someone said this at an American Renaissance conference, I’d predict swift federal action, and in-depth investigations about who to blame for “radicalization.” However, one of the nice things about being on the hard Left is that you never have to say you’re sorry. It also means you can keep organizing, agitating, and building power without much media or government scrutiny.

Bernie Sanders’s once surging campaign collapsed because the moderate wing of the party threw its weight behind Joe Biden, and Senator Sanders tried to appeal to woke non-whites instead of white workers. However, like the prediction that Texas will eventually go blue, this “political revolution” hasn’t been prevented, just delayed. It will take a different form than the one Mr. Sanders expected.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown 10-fold since 2016, according to organizer Kristin Porter. Just a few years ago, MAGA events around the country attracted white advocates, paleoconservatives, and traditional conservatives. These groups are weaker today. Conservatism Inc. tolerates far fewer nationalists within its ranks than it used to. Socialist groups are stronger than ever and already have many elected officials.

Many young socialists are driven by race and cultural issues. Mr. Pok says he was “the only brown kid in Utah.” (Unfortunately, this is not true, especially because the Mormon Church supports non-white immigration.) Another leftist organizer, Hunter Quaffman, says he is “queer.” Nikki Velamakanni says young people, “especially young people of color,” have a socialist vision for America. Another socialist says that though Senator Sanders probably won’t win, he’ll be “just as excited on behalf of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she runs for president.” These young activists clearly think in terms of race.

Senator Sanders started a movement, but he won’t finish it. He lacks the toughness to fight like a real revolutionary. He also promotes broad programs that would theoretically benefit white working class people. Non-whites would gain relatively less. I’m not a socialist. I doubt such programs would work, especially with open borders and a majority non-white population. However, whites are already subsidizing non-whites. We already have a sort of racial socialism.

What’s coming next will not be Senator Sanders’ “democratic socialism,” but the racial socialism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. The Green New Deal, a supposedly universal program, has set-asides for non-whites. Miss Tlaib and others support reparations. The last DSA conference was extremely “woke,” with outraged delegates on the floor protesting “gendered language.” Senator Sanders, for most of his career, defended broad social programs and disdained identity politics. After him, democratic socialism will be driven by racial grievances.

In the short term, socialists will blame the Democratic National Convention (DNC), the media, and establishment candidates for consolidating behind Joe Biden. One Bernie Sanders campaign organizer has already promised Milwaukee “will burn” if Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. My colleague Chris Roberts predicts at least some “radicalized” leftists will conclude there is no political solution and will turn to violence, as the Weather Underground did.

My response is that this has already happened, and almost no one noticed. A Sanders supporter shot Congressman Steve Scalise in 2017. Willem Van Spronsen used an unregistered AR-15 to attack an ICE facility, but the normally anti-gun media barely covered the story. The Trump Administration has not gone after antifa groups, leftist gun groups, or radical political movements even after attacks on government personnel and property. Instead, the FBI is arresting Trump supporters, such as those in the Rise Against Movement.

Still, it is a good thing Bernie Sanders did not win the Democrat nomination. He was the last candidate who could sell socialism to working-class whites. His non-white replacements are ethnic chieftains and media mascots, not leaders of a mass movement.

The DSA organizes freely. Socialist podcasts can raise money on Patreon while white advocates have a hard time keeping a credit card processor or a bank account. According to Jack London’s The Iron Heel and Noam Chomsky’s theories about power, the corporate press should be supporting reactionaries. Instead, it gives self-avowed communists generally favorable media coverage as they post almost whatever they want on social media, raise money, sell merchandise, and host podcasts.

There will be Bernie maniacs. There might be violence or some demonstrations at the DNC, assuming the coronavirus doesn’t cancel it. That won’t discredit the socialists, who are in a much stronger position than white advocates. We don’t have legal and financial protection, nor can we openly organize without a tremendous fight.

Conservatives shouldn’t be complacent. Just as demographic change eventually dooms conservatism, it also dooms capitalism. The difference between a President Sanders and a President Ocasio-Cortez is that she would think in terms of race rather than class. It would be South Africa style “socialism,” or redistribution of wealth on racial, not class grounds.

Some white leftists may become racially conscious when the new socialist movement casts them out. Others may claim to be non-white or queer, or use some other way to avoid being associated with whites and the historic American nation. The new socialist movement will be a tribal hodgepodge, unified by its contempt for traditional American history and culture. These new socialists will have plentiful resources. They will be dangerous foes.

However, there’s also an opportunity. There is still a political opening for nationalist policies that will help American workers, defend national sovereignty, and advance white interests. The coronavirus outbreak is more evidence that America needs sovereignty and independence, not more globalism and mass immigration. The Republican Party can still become the “workers party” President Trump promised during the 2016 campaign, even if he didn’t complete the transformation.

Whites, “left” or “right,” must unite to fight for our interests. This campaign has already shown white “Bernie Bros” what the DNC thinks of them. While some leftists will drift into bitterness or even violence, far more will join our ranks. The “libertarian to alt-right” pipeline is dry, but I think the “Bernie Bro to Dissident Right” pipeline is about to open up for business.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.

throwawaynumber8mill #fundie reddit.com


[ in response to someone asking a self-proclaimed non-offending pedophile how he knows he wont abuse a child ]

I don't know, how do you know you won't go around raping and molesting everything you're attracted to?
The reason nonviolent "soft" pedo's like him can be so certain, is the same way you can be certain, or not, that you would not rape or molest a grown women in a vulnerable state. There was a post somewhere that I lost that was getting upvoted heaps that said "how can you be certain if you weren't put in just the right circumstances where odds were good nobody would know about it, that you wouldn't slip and ruin a persons life". Well imagine that scenario with an adult women. Maybe she drank too much at a party, passed out, and nobody else is around. Although a small margin of ethically devoid human beings would take advantage of a women in that scenario, the majority would not. The point is you can have ethics, and still be attracted to young girls. It's the same for pedo's. Although you're attracted to young girls, you can still have a moral and ethical objection to molesting and raping children or ANYONE else.
As to the point about "well what happens when you have kids?" it's the SAME THING. I'll assume you're attracted to adult women. Does that mean you should avoid adult women because you might molest or rape them? When you go to work, or school, or church, or reddit meet-ups, whatever, just because you're attracted to someone or some thing does not mean you're just going to start raping it no matter HOW attractive it is.
In all of the drama of this thread I haven't seen 1 link or suggestion of someplace someone can go talk to somebody if they want to change or feel guilty about their proclivities.
I am glad, SO glad this post came up because it's the only rational discussion of the issue I've seen ever. But also because I feel hugely relieved to know I'm not alone.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

He is most certainly meant to polygynous. We are descended from far more women than men, indicating that among our ancestors most men failed to reproduce, and a few men reproduced massively.

Civilization requires patriarchy and monogamy, but any argument for monogamy presupposes patriarchy, that women are owned by their fathers, who transfer ownership to husbands. If fertile age women are allowed to wander round fucking who they please, they all fuck Jeremy Meeks – and if Jeremy Meeks is too busy to fuck them, they fuck Jian Ghomeshi. If you emancipate women, Jeremy Meeks gets most of the pussy, and nice guys get used up burned out thirty year olds.

For monogamy to exist, it has to be forcefully and coercively imposed on women. Women have submit.

Monogamy should be understood as a system of rationing to deal with the shortages that result from price controlling pussy.

Monogamy is a part of a deal between fighting men, where each man who is willing to work and fight gets at least one women, men disinclined to work or fight get kicked out, and women are not consulted about the deal.

Mauritania and Brahim Ould Daddah #fundie news24.com

Nouakchott - Showing repentance will no longer prevent the death penalty from being applied for blasphemy and apostasy, Mauritania said on Friday, as the conservative Muslim nation hardens up its religious laws.

The decision follows the release on November 9 of a blogger previously condemned to death for criticising religious justification for discrimination in Mauritanian society.

A new bill will "harden up expected sentences for blasphemers," the government of the west African nation said in a statement released by the official AMI news agency.

"Every Muslim, man or woman, who mocks or insults Mohammed (peace be upon him), his angels, books... is liable to face the death penalty, without being asked to repent. They will incur the death penalty even if they repent," Justice Minister Brahim Ould Daddah said, according to the statement.

The decision to free blogger Cheikh Ould Mohamed Ould Mkheitir for time served after his sentence for blasphemy was downgraded from death to two years in jail caused clashes and outrage in Mauritania last week.

A Muslim in his thirties, Mkheitir was sentenced in December 2014 over a blog which questioned decisions taken by the Prophet Mohammed and his companions during holy wars in the seventh century.

He also attacked the mistreatment of Mauritania's black population, blasting "an iniquitous social order" with an underclass that was "marginalised and discriminated against from birth."

Prosecutors have appealed the decision to release the blogger and are calling once more for the death penalty to be handed down.

Mauritania has not carried out the death penalty since 1987.

Justice Minister Ould Daddah said times had changed since the original law was written in 1983, and "consequentially the law has to move on," AMI reported.