Similar posts

Recovering Insomniac #conspiracy pods-online.org.uk

Many people have heard that 'satanic ritual abuse’ is a 'myth’ or a 'hoax’. This suggestion was promoted by many in the media during the 1990s (Noblitt & Perskin, 1995), and combined two common errors: firstly, that ritual abuse is only reported within a satanic group, and secondly that ritual abuse simply does not happen. Two influential reports are often called upon to support this view: a Department of Health report, The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse, and the FBI-funded Investigator’s Guide to Allegations of 'Ritual’ Child Abuse, commonly known as the Lanning Report. The former was written twenty years ago by an anthropologist, Professor Jean La Fontaine, and the latter stated that no substantive evidence existed for ritual abuse (Lanning, 1991). However, neither author interviewed survivors—the actual witnesses—and neither acknowledged that a number of the case reports in their studies did in fact result in convictions for ritual abuse (La Fontaine, 1995; Gould, 1995).

Further media reports that ritual abuse is a 'myth’ have been promoted by the British satirical magazine Private Eye. Their most recent comments on the subject (editions 1302, 1325 and 1334) have not been attributed in the publication to a particular author, although comments on various websites suggest they are the work of Rosie Waterhouse, journalist and lecturer. Waterhouse has written at least fourteen articles on the same topic for the magazine and claims to have been researching the 'myth’ of Satanic Ritual Abuse for over twenty years (City University, 2014). In reality, therefore, the 'evidence’ for RA/SRA being a 'myth’ is restricted to a couple of reports over two decades old and a satirical political magazine. The theme of denial however continues today despite the growing number of convictions for ritual abuse in Britain, and many more worldwide, including convictions for satanic ritual abuse which involves both forensic physical evidence and the witness testimony of survivors (Oksana, 1994; SMART, 2014; Morris, 2014).

Evidence of ritual abuse that does not involve religious or spiritual beliefs is even more extensively documented. In the United States soon after World War II, the CIA funded military- based ritual abuse programmes known collectively as Project MK-Ultra. Psychiatrists induced amnesia, dissociative identities and new memories (Epstein et al, 2011), while also experimenting with LSD, sensory deprivation, electro-convulsive treatment, brain electrode implants and hypnosis (Ross, 2000). A United States Senate hearing in 1977 entitled Project MK-Ultra: the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification investigated these abuses, which were carried out in several countries, and both the US and Canadian governments paid compensation to some survivors of the 'brainwashing’ experiments.

A Scottish psychiatrist, Dr Donald E. Cameron (1901-1967), was extensively documented as carrying out these abuses whilst working with psychiatric patients in Canada (Ross, 2000). Dr Colin Ross, a psychiatrist and researcher in the field of dissociative disorders, published extensive Freedom of Information requests and cited earlier academic research in his book Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists (Ross, 2000). He found that many members of the largely discredited False Memory Syndrome Foundation in America were colleagues of or co-authors with scientists responsible for ritual abuse within MK-Ultra programmes.

(...)

Taken in isolation, abuses carried out as part of a ritual can easily go unrecognised. Ritual abuse is highly organised and planned and is often carried out by groups rather than individuals. Many survivors have reported experiencing many of the following elements:

Forced perpetration
Being forced or coerced into harming or killing an animal or another person, such as by torture (Oksana, 1994; Miller, 2014).

Psychological abuse
Harm or threats of harm to loved ones, pets, or other victims, often used to keep silence or to force perpetration (Miller, 2014).

Double-binds
Being given a 'choice’ between two horrific acts, such as being raped or choosing someone else to be raped (Oksana, 1994).

Lies, tricks and technology
These can be used to install false beliefs, such as that the person is always being watched and listened to (microphones), being forced to watch films and told the film is reality, or being convinced that they are 'crazy’, for example by alien abduction role-playing combined with hallucinogens, faking a person’s death and then having that person present and healthy the next day (Oksana, 1994; Lacter, 2011).

Forced to take drugs
Sedatives, hallucinogens, stimulants and memory-loss drugs are often used to lower resistance or to make tricks more effective (Oksana, 1994).

Non-human dissociative parts/alters
Stage magic, robes and props including costumes, candles and lighting effects, when combined with lies and drugs especially, can create parts who believe that they are demons or spiritual beings who cannot be harmed. Forcing a child to behave like an animal can create parts who believe that they are animals (Miller, 2014).

Torture, especially kinds which do not mark the body
This includes deprivation of food, water or sleep; suffocation; sensory deprivation (as used at Guantanamo Bay); water torture/drowning and electro-shock. A person refusing to comply will be tortured until another dissociative part appears who is willing to perform an abhorrent act (Oksana, 1994; Lacter, 2011).

Use of restraints and confinement
These are used to terrify and to invoke a feeling of helplessness (Oksana, 1994; Lacter, 2011).

Forced participation in child pornography, prostitution and sex trafficking
This may include being forced to perform sexual acts or physical abuse on other children, and drug money being used to fund the group.

Using snakes, spiders, maggots, rats and other animals
To induce fear and disgust (Lacter, 2011).

Forced ingestion of offensive bodily fluids and matter
This includes blood, urine, faeces, flesh and vomit (Oksana, 1994; Lacter, 2011).

Forced pregnancy and killing of newborn babies
The baby may be used for ritual purposes such as sacrifice. The pregnancies are often hidden, to prevent police investigation of the disappearance or death of the baby, and delivery may be induced early to coincide with ritual dates (Miller, 2014; Matthew, 2001).

Creation of a large number of dissociative parts
This may involve the creation of dozens or even hundreds of parts. Many will be 'fragments’ rather than complete alters. For instance, one memory of abuse may be split between several parts, each holding a different aspect of the memory (sound, pain, visuals, feelings) (Miller, 2014).

Mind control
Also known as 'programming’. Some parts are deliberately created and indoctrinated into the group’s belief system, so that they can be given a role by the perpetrators, for example self-harming to punish another part for talking about the abuse; returning to the perpetrator(s) on particular dates; reporting back about anything disclosed to other people; preventing the person’s mind from taking in any information which can act against the programming (Miller, 2014; Lacter, 2011).

Internal punishments
Some dissociative parts can be given the 'role’ of punishing others for talking about abuse or revealing secrets. These can take many forms including self-harm, suicide attempts, hallucinations of graphic violence, or sudden amnesia for previous therapeutic work (Miller, 2014).

Sudden, impulsive desires to self-harm or attempt suicide
A indication of this is when these are very specific and don’t appear to relate to emotions. Some survivors describe self-harm in specific patterns (Miller, 2014).

Sadistic and horrific abuse
This includes sexual torture, forced sex with animals, gang rape of children, desecration of the dead and training in S&M roles (Oksana, 1994; Miller, 2014; Miller, 2012).

Chronic pain
This is especially pain which does not appear to have a physical or organic cause, so may instead be 'body memories’, that is to say flashbacks of pain from unprocessed trauma (Miller, 2014; Oksana, 1994).

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

Goth is a deplorable type of heathen culture that glorifies everything that is vile and unholy. The dictionary defines "Goth" as: A crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement. This pretty much sums up the Goth culture today. Goth glorifies things that are sick, nasty, improper, freakish, and downright demonic. Goth is NOT just the music. In fact, not all Goths listen to Goth music.The term "Goth" refers to all categories of Gothics, from Emo 'Goths' to black metal 'Goths' to vampire 'Goths; from thrasher 'Goths' to punk 'Goths' to industrial 'Goths.' "Goth" is just a word the media uses to group a certain type of people together. The Goth culture includes Emos/ punks/ Wiccan witches/ self-abusers/ thrashers/ grungers/ heavy metallers, et cetera. This includes the Marilyn Manson, AC/DC, Smashing Pumpkins, Van Halen and Ozzy Osbourne crowd as well.

Goth causes teenage girls to become whores, depresses kids to the point of cutting themselves, and turns otherwise normal kids into Columbine shooters. The Goth culture is obsessed with death and the darker side of life, which is clearly evidenced in Goth music. Goth is of the Devil.

Goth in itself is a mental illness, a sickness of the soul, mainly affecting teenagers in the same way as schizophrenia would, although to a greater extent. Its symptoms range from isolation and negativity to aggression and hate for humanity, depression, violent outbursts, low self esteem, self-loathing, self-harming and suicide. Many Goths turn to a life of crime to feed their addiction to drugs, sadism, violence and perversion.

There is a theme running through all these different types of gothic groups, and a common fashion and dress that all tribes of Goth wear. The clothing is usually dark and sinister looking, sometimes called the 'gothic uniform.' Goth women often wear black lip stick and paint their eyes so dark with mascara that they look like vampires. Goths are all obsessed with death and despair, with terror and violence, and most Goths use drugs as a form of everyday life. Some abuse their children, perform Satanic rituals, and drink human blood.

Feynman and Coulter's Love Child #transphobia 3edgesword.blogspot.com

[From "Totally Unforseen Shocking Unpredictable Surprise Revelation: trannies under lockdown edition"]

Mentally ill people are suffering from the lockdown.

Okay, you probably already knew this. But as always when mentally ill people are described by their sick and illegitimate lifestyle choice, it confuses the hell out of Buzzfeed sodomite Patrick Strudwick.

The article is a laugh-a-minute yuckfest. If this doesn't make you guffaw with joy, the Wuhan Flu may have already killed you:

Some try other means to escape hatred within the home: by going back in the closet, playing down their gender identity or sexuality, or, more literally, locking themselves in their bedrooms 24/7.

Apparently these sick homos are so incapable of going through the week without having their broken animal urges satiated that they've invented the term "survival sex" to describe how they prostitute themselves to a fellow uranist just to "get away from" the family they were apparently forced to move back in with since their jobs at David's Tea just don't pay the bills. Later in the article you can read about "additional factors" such as "problematic use of substances": namely the chemical escape that mentally ill ass pirates have to turn to as a means of escapism when they deep down inside realize their sick lifestyle choice is a rejection of all that is moral and right in the universe. Unfortunately there are "interrupted in the drug supply" and then there's a picture of a shiv and then I just can't stop giggling.

Are you sitting down? You should sit down.

Okay now that you're safely seated, please let me introduce you to peak lunacy regarding these nutters: a 54 year old woman who wants to pretend she's part man. She dies her hair bizarre shades of pink and works for a housing charity that "welcomes the gender diverse". Well unfortunately she's had to move back home with her elderly father (which, for those keeping track, is the sort of microeconomics impacts that will ultimately doom more people with COVID than it could possibly save) after she had a run-in with another damaged soul in the housing coop that of course they both live in.

“I was having to work from home in a very tiny room,” they said. One of the straight women who lived there, whom we will call Jill, “lost her job and her way of dealing with that was to take lots of drugs, get pissed and have lots of parties,” said Wyatt. They tried to talk to her, but it had little effect. After yet another loud party, Wyatt told the committee at the co-op that something needed to be done.

“She found out about this and then I heard her screaming abuse, saying things like, ‘tell that slut to get some fucking earplugs.’” It escalated. “She followed me into the kitchen and started shouting and then started breaking the furniture, then ran upstairs and told me I needed to kill myself. And because she knows I have bipolar [disorder] and have a history of self-harm and suicide, that felt very threatening.”


Bipolar with a history of self-harm? From somebody who's so loopy she thinks her lack of a penis was some sort of cosmic oversight? Heaven forbid. So this poor woman who doesn't realize she's a woman had to move back to her daddy's house in her hometown where the kids made fun of her because she clearly looked dyke even then. So trapped she felt (in a charming little beach town a movie-watching length train ride from London Victoria station) that she couldn't even let pillow biter Patrick Strudwick capitalize the name of his religion (Methodist).

The effect of being removed from their home and the city that welcomed Wyatt is more encompassing than traumatic memories. “I don't fit in. I feel completely out of place. I feel I’ve been dropped into being aged 13 again. I have to get out of here.”

Well in the same way that if you decide you're "genderfluid" you must be so, why can't the poor girl just pretend that she's 13 again as well?

_gynomite_ #fundie reddit.com

I don't know a single person involved in it whose interest and actions are not linked with their psychological history and a way to process trauma or at minimum anxiety and depression. It's a faulty way of relating to the trauma which only prolongs the issues, but its faults can be hidden by the temporary relief it can give, just like cutting or other forms of self-harm can provide temporary relief for depression or borderline while ultimately causing more hurt. BDSM is self-harm acted out with another person.

The community emphasizes consent, e.g. it's not abusive because they are consenting, but if someone's impulse is due to trauma recreation and trauma bonding, then are they truly consenting? Or are you just abusing someone who is suffering and trying to find healing while stuck in a destructive pattern due to their psychological history and distress?

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

In 1985, when cutting first appeared, girls cutting themselves was something astonishing, something no one had heard of, that psychiatric interns had never heard of.

Now a significant minority of women cut themselves. Hard to say how many, but probably a few percent. Not a substantial minority, but not a tiny minority either. Hot fertile age women. Women with strong sexual needs and completely screwed up sex lives, usually sex lives screwed up by their own self destructive bad choices. “Strong independent women” who are not in the least strong, and greatly fear independence. White women. Women totally raised in feminism.

As the epidemic grows, only now is the psychiatric industry coming up with a diagnostic category “Non suicidal self harm” We did not have a word for cutting until recently, and psychiatrists are only now coming up with a word for it, and not a very apt word yet, for the category self harm is deliberately over inclusive, in order to avoid being exclusively female, including a great deal of what would be more aptly called “stupidity”, so that some males can be put in the same category. (The obvious difference being that after doing something very stupid once or twice, males usually stop doing that particular stupid thing.) It is politically disturbing to have a psychiatric category that is near one hundred percent female, so calling it what everyone calls it, “cutting”, is politically incorrect. Yes. Males sometimes, rarely, cut themselves. Discover it hurts like the blazes, then do not do it again.

If you google for “self harm”, the PC term, you don’t get information on cutting, but deceptive and malicious misinformation on cutting, misinformation intended to cause harm and suffering, and if you google “cutting” any page that comes up with words “self harm” in it is overwhelmingly likely to be malicious misinformation.

[Picture of a woman will many self-inflicted cut marks]

As it says in the Book of Genesis, women are psychologically maladapted to equality.

Think how much more comfortable she would be, how much more at peace she would be, how much saner she would be, how much happier she would be, if those were her owner’s whip marks.

Reading between the lines of girls making videos and posts about cutting themselves, they are saying to the numerous boys that pumped them and dumped them “Punish me, don’t ignore me.”

Brenton Sanderson #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

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

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

J.K. Rowling #transphobia jkrowling.com

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Burns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

Axle The Beast #fundie zeldadungeon.net

[My question is simple: Why on EARTH is homosexuality even controversial? At all?]

-Why WAS it controversial? Because people used to be intolerant and hugely violent monsters who would punish things they couldn't understand.
-Why does it continue to be controversial? Because some people still don't understand or agree with it, gay people and gay proponents don't like that and remember how horrible this used to be in the past, and neither side can see things from the other's perspective.

And no, I'm not implying there aren't still people who will do horribly mean or even violent things to homosexuals, like ostracize or beat them. But that is a medieval and cruel way of acting -- I'm not sure if I've ever met someone personally who didn't think it was cruel an inappropriate -- but it doesn't change the fact that in some case homosexual proponents will respond to criticism or even just plain old disagreement with them by treating the person like they're one of these monsters. That's projection, and as someone who has multiple homosexual friends and is pretty damn respectful of their way of life despite disagreeing with it, I don't much care to be lumped in with that sort.

Homophobe is used as a slur in a number of conversations I've been in, so I don't care to be identified by it. Most use of the term indicates fear or hatred of homosexuals, not just plain disagreement. Some uses do just mean disagreement, but considering that it has two distinct uses you might be cautious about using the word without clarifying your intended use, or else you will offend people who simply disagree with homosexuality because they can easily interpret it as you accusing them of hatred, fear, and the like. Bottom line is I don't care if people don't like it that I don't agree with their lifestyle; I don't agree with it, but I'm perfectly pleasant with every homosexual and bisexual I know. I don't see why I don't deserve the same respect they deserve for... having my own thoughts and way of life... without hurting anyone. I don't particularly think it's cool to call someone a name for that, and I do frankly liken it to using homosexual slurs; I don't see why we have to call people names when they're being plenty pleasant with people. Calling the monstrous people who do try to hurt homosexuals is a-okay by me, but I think it's a little silly to invent a new slur for it. Why not just call them what they are? Hateful jerks and/or monsters.

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the topic question...

What is my problem with homosexuality? It's not something that makes sense to me. I don't mean that I'm just like "but, wuh-wuh-why would someone like the same sex, durrr", I mean that it functionally doesn't have any place that I can see. The more common phrasing you'll hear people say is something like "I don't believe homosexuality is natural", and then that gets quickly rebutted by citations of examples of homosexuality in nature among animals. Yes, some animals -- not all -- engage in homosexual relations. That doesn't do anything to change the fact that it doesn't make sense to me. Animals doing it is NOT a good argument in favor of homosexuality since animals engage in certain other practices humans generally universally consider taboo: Cannibalism, necrophilia, murder, rape, torture, etc., and not all of these are even out of necessity; dolphins murder and rape the corpses of porpoises for fun. Throwing aside the animal example entirely and going with things like "it feels good so how can it be wrong", absolutely everything that "feels good" can kill you in excess, and other things that feel good can damage you outright like a number of drugs. Impulse and desire are not universal tools for determining right and wrong; this cannot be argued. Like anyone, I have angry and destructive impulses that I have to control to be a decent person.

So since I cannot see a reason for homosexuality to exist -- the distinctive traits between the genders pretty visibly only exist for the sake of breeding and I don't really see the point of sexual love unless it's driven by the breeding impulse (not saying you can only have sex to have kids either; don't misunderstand me) -- I find it unnatural, and therefore I disagree with it. To be clear: I don't think it's immoral or hurtful, I think it just plain doesn't make sense, I don't like to see people do things to themselves that I feel are illogical. Sure, plenty of people argue that they were born that way, but I have my doubts, and either way that can also be argued against in the same way animal behavior can; not every pre-existing psychological state people are born with is a good thing either. I'll say this: Human beings are exceptional at deluding themselves; it's seen best in the general human disdain for being wrong. I can't know for sure if that's the case with homosexuals -- I'm not one -- but I wouldn't write it off, at least in some cases. It's also because of this that I worry about overarching appreciation -- not acceptance, but an almost eagerness that I see from time to time -- towards homosexuality, because I've seen cases of people who I believe more or less deluded themselves into acting as homosexuals. Cases where they had a string of bad relationships, declared they hated the opposite sex, and then sought same-sex relationships as some kind of solution to this, which is an absolutely poisonous reason. Maybe this was a case of "the right thing in the wrong way" for some of them and they really were born homosexual, but I really don't believe it was the case for all of them.

That does not mean people shouldn't do what they feel is right; if someone's thought something through and decided the way they're going to be -- where that's a decision of how to act moving forward or a decision to embrace certain pre-existing impulses they already had, it doesn't matter -- then they should embrace it, live by it fully, and do it in the face of anyone who thinks they shouldn't. I'm free to question their decisions the same as they're free to question mine, but in the end I respect that they made their decision and decided who they're going to be, and it's their decision, not mine. I just can't justify it -- that's probably why I'm not gay or bi. :P

Finally to end off on the point of just letting people love... well, I think I've made it plenty clear that I do let people love, and advocate that others do as well. :bleh: As for how it affects my personal view of homosexuality, I still factor it into how I don't see why. Again, I see sexual relations as something evolved as an incentive to breed -- whether or not it's used for that exclusively -- so I don't really understand why someone would express their love sexually for the same sex. I "love" both males and females in my life, but the only ones I have sexual (or, romantic, if you prefer; they're the same thing) feelings for are some of the females... and I don't see how anything else makes sense. *shrug*

[I'm happy to see that you are reasonable and let people love. I just don't understand why people think sex has to involve reproduction anymore, we aren't going to go extinct due to lack of population anytime soon. I guess that they naturally feel the same way about the same sex and you and I feel about the opposite. We don't need to disagree with things just because we don't understand.

Why should a homosexual have to abstain from marriage and sex? Sure, maybe not everything that feels natural is "right", please respond relevantly and specifically for why homosexuality is wrong?]


I disagree with anything that is unnatural, significant and important, and that is either harmful to others (which homosexuality isn't) or harmful to oneself; I do feel homosexually is somewhat self-harmful, and the reason for that is because I don't think it logically makes sense -- I consider it a strange fallacy -- and therefore I think people who engage in it are deluding themselves with that fallacy. The fallacy is this: Sexual relations exist for reproduction, therefore two individuals who have can't and would never be able to reproduce have zero reason to get involved sexually in the first place.

And I said I don't think sex has to involve reproduction. I guess that's confusing so I'll explain: Sex only existed in the first place for reproduction; I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Every animal has their mating habits, from penguins who leave their partners after a year, to wolf packs who usually stay together in a big family all their life. As near as I can see, on a primal level human mating habits are to form families around their sexual relations and form links that way. This started for reproduction, but of course it has other facets and it's obvious that not every heterosexual marriage leads to kids or can even have kids considering things like sterility, but that doesn't mean the relationship doesn't have merit; people still engage in every other facet of the relation because humans are built to connect that way. I don't believe people are purely primal -- we're well beyond that -- so of course people can make their own decisions about how to live, but this is why I see homosexual relations as a fallacy. Yes people hook up and marry for reasons other than reproduction -- because we're hardwired to -- but that doesn't mean that the reproductive urge wasn't a part of why we do it in the first place. Not following the reproductive urge to its eventual purpose? I get it. Having sexual relations with people you can't reproduce with in the first place? It doesn't make sense as a concept.

Since I know you'll ask me what is wrong with homosexuals not following that urge through completely either, I'll simply say: Because there's no reason for them to have the urge towards one another in the first place.

The reason I think homosexuals or people who identify as homosexual in part or in full should resist their urges is because I think indulging in them is the same as indulging in a fallacy, and I never think that's the best thing for someone to do.

Jane Moss #racist amren.com

Hispanics are not the only new group in my school. There is also a modest population of Muslim “refugees” from the Middle East. Muslim students are better behaved and more academically adept than the illegals from Central and South America, and generally stick to themselves. They are far from perfect, though. From time to time you can overhear them talking in sympathetic tones about Islamic Fundamentalists, and how white girls are fun to have sex with, but should never be considered as a possibility for a girlfriend or a wife.

Racial tensions are always high at my school, and sometimes they explode. Not too long ago, the school caught wind of a group of black students planning a food fight after they advertised the event on Snapchat. In response, security was beefed up and announcements were made warning students not to participate in it or face consequences. This made no difference whatsoever. The battle was kicked off by a black teenager who threw a full can of soda at a school police officer, knocking her out cold. He high-fived his black friends when she hit the floor.

As food began flying through the air in every direction and fist-fights broke out, the nearly 1,500 students in the cafeteria spilled out into the hallways and then out of the building. En route, a substitute teacher was knocked down and trampled, earning her a broken leg. In my wing of the building, the one white security guard and I sent the students who were trying to escape the violence — most of them white — into my classroom to hide. Order was only restored when the SWAT team arrived.

The “outrage culture” the school is steeped in makes everything worse. Black teenagers are well versed in their victimhood status, and accusations of “racism” are never ending. If you are older and white, students assume the worst of you and go out of their way to disrupt your classes and say outrageous things about white people in order to provoke you. They are always trying to make you lose your cool and say something inappropriate — all while the students have the camera on their phones at the ready, waiting to document you at your worst. They are well aware that all it takes is one slip up to end a career.

Even earnest liberals sometimes end up being victims of politically correct sensitivity. At another school I worked in, a principal presented district test scores broken down by race to the school staff. The difference between whites and blacks was enormous, and he told us that we needed to work together to come up with innovative strategies to close this achievement gap. He was passionate, motivated, and really believed that if we just taught the right way, we could close this “unfair” and “racist” difference in average test scores. A black staffer then got in touch with the local NAACP, accusing the principal of racism simply for having acknowledged the gap, and the well-meaning principal was forced into retirement.

Affirmative action and “diversity” are both enforced in two ways: 1) Officially, by the administration and its policies. 2) Informally, through violence and chaos — either threatened or carried out — by the black students. For example, administrators tell teachers that every social media post, photo, video, brochure, etc. tied to the school must have non-white students in it. But when something accidentally doesn’t, it isn’t necessarily those administrators who dole out the punishment.

Recently, the school newspaper had a cover photo of our lacrosse team. The students in the photograph were all white. Since there were no black students in the picture, the newspaper was dubbed “so white,” and blacks used this as an excuse to misbehave for the entire day. In class, if the artwork or historical period being studied involves lots of whites, the black students act up in outrage until the class becomes unteachable, thereby incentivizing you to focus on “black” topics as much as possible.

Worst of all is the leniency black students are given in all disciplinary measures. The administrators are desperate to even out the statistics that show how much more frequently blacks are suspended and expelled relative to whites — or even Hispanics. The result is that black students are often given slaps on the wrist for heinous acts, while whites face lengthy suspensions for minor infractions. Moreover, if you write-up a black student or call his parents, friends of the troublemaker, in what they see as an act of solidarity, sometimes punish you for having done this by bursting into your classroom and causing a scene.

Black children seemed to be trained to deny responsibility for their actions from a very early age, even when caught in the act. I’ve seen children as young as five yelling, “I di’n’t do nuffin” as they were being carted off to the principal’s office. They know nothing is expected of them and act accordingly. They are hypnotized by their phones, spending most of the day on them trying to become social media starlets. None of them ever bring their own school supplies, knowing they will get them for free from either the school or the naively generous white moms who donate them.

A concerted pushback against all of this madness could, in theory, be brought about by a group of experienced, dedicated teachers and staff. But racial preferences in hiring make creating such a group impossible. My district has minority recruiting fairs even as they make huge layoffs. They’ll take just about anyone if they are brown. The current assistant principal, for example, sometimes seems like she’s functionally illiterate — her assistants have to help her write official documents. But since she isn’t white, she receives nothing but praise and accolades to go with her hefty salary.

The small number of whites who attend my school have it the worst. They get attacked, robbed, and verbally berated on a regular basis by their “peers.” Many white students suffer from anxiety and self-esteem issues, leading to problems with drugs and self-harm. Given the anti-white bias in the teaching curriculum — which is steadily getting worse — it isn’t hard to understand why this is happening. Some parents manage to be oblivious to it all or turn a blind eye to it. More often, they’re just too poor to move to a district where their children aren’t subjected to this type of violence and degradation.

Our society denies the role of race in schools. All dissent is met with accusations of racism, public shunning, and the threat of financial ruin. But doing nothing means whites must condemn their own flesh and blood to the nightmare I’ve described — and we have a duty to protect the future for our children.

u/XXandangry #Sexist #Transphobia reddit.com

TIF classification project - open to feedback

While we classify TIMs as AGP and HSTS, I've noticed that there is a lack of consistent TIF typology. So, I went ahead and made one.

My sources: almost a year of undercover activity on trans forums (3 different characters, 2 TIFs, 1 TIM), 5 real life run-ins with TIFs (all types), a talk with a female victim of a predatory one, a predatory TIF in my extended family.

Warning: upsetting issues ahead - rape, fetishism, violence, mental illness

Self-hating

Motivated by societal distress caused by being female. Lesbians, tomboys and/or rape victims. The most known and arguably common type. Most of detransitioners come from this group.

Sexuality: Either homosexual (“straight” for them) or so obliterated by trauma so as to be completely non-existent (“asexual”). If not asexual, then either masochists/submissive, or “vanilla” (not perverted).

ID: Most are “men”, but there is a significant minority of those who ID as sexless (agender, nonbinary, neutrois etc.). They don’t really want to become men, as much as they want to stop being women.

Detransition rate: Very high. Feminism empowers non-conformists, lesbians, and victims, and so serves as a safe place for them to go. Furthermore, the general society views “I just wanted to be accepted” as an acceptable feminine motivation. The one exception are those who are 10+ years into it, didn’t get any nasty side effects from procedures, and have a partner and a job. They’ll stick with the devil they know.

Common mental disorders: Anorexia, dysmorphia, anxiety, depression, autism.

Interests: Vary a lot. Plenty of quiet, bookish types. Often some sort of stereotypically masculine sport. Not that many of them are otherkin or furries, but plenty are therians. They often shun stereotypically feminine hobbies they genuinely enjoy and push themselves into things men in their lives do.

Transition: Baggy clothes, short haircuts, binding breasts. Normal male or unisex names. Hormones. Mastectomy and hysterectomy are common, but phallus is usually not constructed. They mumble something about “not good enough yet”, but it’s actually because they want to desex themselves and find penises disgusting.

“Goals”: Either a normal, respectable dude, or a sexless being.

How to approach: Gentle conversation is the best. Affirm that loving women is okay, that any “masculine” interest is cool, that she didn’t deserve her assault/trauma – without calling her a woman outright. She has a lot of baggage attached to that word. Slowly build a friendly relationship, gently bring up side effects of hormones and surgeries. Once you see doubt, direct her towards detransitioners.

Kweer

Motivated by desire to be special and shallow aesthetics of the gender-special movement. Often there is a mild autoandrophilic element (caused by too much yaoi).

Sexuality: Straight (or “uwu gay boys”). Some of them identify as bisexual, but it’s hard to determine if it’s genuine bisexuality or attraction to manly men and she/her “femboys”. Fetish-wise, into a lot of weird stuff. Furries, tentacles, latex, transformation, this sort of thing, often as a switch (both the doer and the target of the act). Sometimes come across as pedophilic, due to inappropriate conduct around children, sharing NSFW information with them etc. This, however, usually comes from the “sex positive” ideology, rather than genuine pedophilia (this is more of a “predatory” thing).

ID: Actually, a minority of them are “men” (I’d say 20-30%). A lot of them call themselves half man, half woman (bigender, genderqueer etc.) or “genderfluid”.

Detransition rate: Complicated. Young and “out” only on tumblr? Will go away. 25+ and a head of a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ organisation? Not likely to back down. With every IRL thing done in the trans direction (coming out, hormones, surgeries, legal stuff, joining organisations), the chance of detransition drops significantly.

Common mental disorders: Narcissism, borderline, schizotypal, maladaptive daydreaming, sometimes a mild form of psychosis.

Interests: Cartoons, especially anime, drawing, making jewellery (with various obscure flags, to sell on Etsy). Lots of them are otherkin – the more special, the better (fairies, dragons, deities etc.), furries are also well-represented among them. Some of them are self-proclaimed witches or “spiritual” types. Overall they have a very poor relationship with reality.

Transition: Loads of flag patches, colourful hair, either binding without packing or packing without binding (uwu androgyny). Batshit insane names, often neopronouns. Further transition varies, from all the way to “my body is a boy’s body because it belongs to a boy!” Often get tattoos and piercings.

“Goals”: Feminine bottom gay boy, handsome-but-still-pretty top yaoi boy with a hairless body of a Greek god, or a sparkling hermaphroditic alien who is adored by everyone.

How to approach: Don’t feed her delusions. Don’t give her undue attention. Allow her to talk about her gender fluctuations and kin memories, and just go “mhm”. No “omg, you’re so valid”, but no “you’re fucking crazy”. Include her in women-only spaces and events, keep her away from queer spaces/websites. Practical activities, like horse riding or camping are great ideas. The younger she is, the easier for her it will be to shake it off.

Predatory

A complicated, mostly invisible type. Born with psychopathic traits, which causes them to not socialise as female fully (as they lack empathy, enjoy hurting others etc.) and therefore relate to male culture strongly.

Sexuality: Orientation wise, all over the scale, mostly in the middle. Usually call themselves bisexual or “pansexual”, very often “aromantic” (incapable of feeling love). Sadist/dominant, with fetishes like rape, impregnation (with them in the male role), mutilation, cannibalism etc. Often pedos or into bestiality. Two huge elements in this type’s sexuality are what I’d call autohybristophilia – attraction to the image of oneself as a male killer/rapist – and corruption fetish – the fantasy of destroying someone, body and mind, and “remaking” them - they enjoy the thrill of exposing children to fetishes or “cracking eggs”.

ID: Almost all “men”.

Detransition rate: Zero, or at least very low. I've never met one that had any regret or doubt, and I've never met a detransitioner who used to be this type. They seem to more self-assured that the other types, have less interest in fitting in, women usually find their company repulsive or dangerous, mainstream society doesn't find "it got me off" a feminine motivation...

Common mental disorders: Psychopathy, various paraphilias.

Interests: There is always some strong interest in the grotesque/macabre, horror, gore etc. They like people getting hurt, and watch horror films or even real-life gore like most dudes watch porn. Some are otherkin (usually something vague like “monsterkin”, in stark contrast to kweer ones, who have entire characters), but they are less active in the community. Other interests vary wildly, they usually don’t obsessively hide “girly” interests like self-hating ones do.

Transition: Normal male fashion, packing (stuffing underwear) with or without binding. Names might be normal or batshit insane, they are usually less anal about pronouns, whatever they use. Go all the way – hormones, all surgeries etc. Very common of them to take up weightlifting and get tattoos. A lot of them use special huge strapons that transfer sensation or even ejaculate (anatomic autoandrophilia) instead of or before surgery.

“Goals”: The potential to hurt outweights aesthetics. Typically the “ideal body” has huge muscles and a big penis, but it might be very ugly or even nonhuman. Worth mentioning, this is not the same as a revenge fantasy some women (including self-hating TIFs) indulge in. That is “I don’t have power, but if I could hurt the people who hurt me, I’d have power at least over that situation”, this is “I like hurting people, and if I had power, I’d hurt them even more/without consequences”.

How to approach: sigh Tell me if you know. I'd argue it's better not to aproach them - you'll get laughed at at best, pulled into a weird mind game at worst. Stay away from them in real life. Out of 3 I met face to face, two were sex offenders and one beat me up. If one is your child - if she's really young, you might teach her empathy and emotional regulation, otherwise you're probably out of luck.

Notes:

It's possible for one to be two or all types at once. It's possible for one to pretend to be the other for various reasons. It's possible for a non-trans woman to have some traits of one or more type (if she's at risk of transition and/or a TRA ally).

There are two additional factors, both for TIMs and TIFs, - DSD/intersex conditions (which can cause weird socialisation) and actual delusions ("I'm a man on an astral plane" or "I have ovaries, but my doctor can't find them").

Hey, cynical lurkers - none of those are "true trans".

I'm open to constructive criticism.

I can talk about my experiences if you're curious.

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

Paraphrasing the admirable James A. Donald, the West of the 18th century considered women so lacking in continence that they would crawl through nine miles of broken glass to fornicate with their demon lover if not restrained by their husbands, fathers, brothers and pastors. In Egypt, a sexist, homophobic, hopelessly backwards Islamic society, girls living alone, beyond the reach of their family, are assumed to be whores. The Egyptians, I think, are not as backwards as we chauvinistically presume, since it seems their intuition about the behavior of unrestrained females has been more than comprehensively vindicated by the state of Western society today, where all girls can live alone (and do much more besides) — and where all girls are whores. Feminism failed. Modernity failed. We got women’s liberation and ubiquitous technology of unimaginable power and complexity, and the result was not a new Golden Age for civilization, but a new Golden Age for depravity.

“Modern,” “enlightened,” “liberal,” protestations aside, the situation in the West of 2015 is clear. Females can live alone, vote, run for office, commit infanticide, get away with murder, work men’s jobs, receive preferential treatment in universities and corporations, deny fathers their children, ruin innocent men with false accusations of rape & assault, and almost anything else they want to do — with the full support of the educational system, the media and the exponentially-expanding police-surveillance state. The dream of women’s liberation has been achieved, and then some. And then some. And then some more. And even some more after that! Females can live alone, unlike in Egypt. Females can live alone, and they do exactly what our 18th century forefathers, and 21st century Egyptian fellows a continent away intuited that they would do — they whore themselves. “Women’s liberation.” Women’s liberation is women’s prostitution. We should have known better.

If I miraculously became the Supreme God-Dictator of the West tonight, and upon finishing my gourmet breakfast of bacon, eggs and the finest Caspian caviar the next morning, I issued an edict that no woman may live alone, what would happen to the West’s marriage and divorce rates? The fertility rate? The bastardy rate? The amount of fornication, adultery, pornography and sexual perversion? The number of broken families? The number of kids shuffling between Mommy’s house and Daddy’s house on alternating weekends? (Or, more likely, just watching Mommy shuffle boyfriends while Daddy contemplates the taste of gun metal with a restraining order trembling in his hand.) What would happen to the rates of suicide, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, mass shootings, herbivore men, sexually transmitted diseases, eating disorders, self-radicalization, depression, gambling, drug abuse, obesity, cat-lady spinsters, gang violence, self-harm, ethno-religious tension (and violence), juvenile delinquency, social alienation and hollow shambling wrecks of human beings one missed medication away from walking off the edge of a thirty-story building?

...

Quite simply, if we put every woman back in the home, back next to the hearth, and gave her one son and one daughter to educate, civilize, inform, teach, nourish, protect, cultivate, cuddle, cherish and love, what would happen to our society? What if we gave her a fit, cultured, intelligent and loving husband who could teach his son baseball and read Cinderella to his daughter? A husband who didn’t spend his boyhood drugged out on ADD medications, his teenage years drugged out on cannabis, and his young adulthood drunk out of his mind? A husband who was taught to appreciate Beethoven, recognize Van Gogh’s Starry Night, recite a little poetry in French, and recognize a Biblical quote in Ancient Greek? A husband who was taught to shoot a gun, punch a drunkard, row a canoe, and hike up a mountain without complaining? Who kept a library where the television might’ve been, and who knew who his father was, his grandfather, and their fathers and grandfathers before them? Who worshiped the same God as his most distant ancestors, and lived on the very same land they conquered long ago? Who maintained and honored the inheritance bequeathed to him by his forefathers, both material and spiritual, and left it in better condition than he received it, and passed it on to his own sons and daughters? Might we see a resurgence of the stable, loving family? Might we actually see — trigger warning – a better society?

Dramatized wave. Hint of a bow. Knowing wink. “Ma’a As-Salaama!“

Linda Harvey #fundie barbwire.com


On the “Day of Silence,” the administrators of many middle and high schools went beyond passive tolerance of students silently protesting the bullying of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered” youth. Quite a few schools actively advocated for “Day of Silence” goals and messages, permitting students and even teachers to remain silent during class time, permitting the erroneous implication to stand unchallenged, that only full acceptance of “LGBT” behaviors will end specific bullying incidents.

The “Day of Silence”(DOS) was given a place of honor and respect in too many schools, where adults who should have better judgment accepted the DOS mask of “bullying prevention” as the truth. But only a modest amount of research reveals the true objectives of this protest. The DOS koolaid always comes with a bitter pill– swallowing sexual deviance and vomiting out virtue.

What would Jesus have said to those encouraging boys to deny manhood and believe the lie of effemininity? What would He say as girls are pushed toward that glorious day when they are old enough for amputation of healthy breasts and hormones to grow beards? Would the Lord nod in agreement with those who say it’s “hate” to object to such harmful messages?

These are the lessons of the “Day of Silence”(DOS), that criticizing homosexuality or gender confusion is a form of bullying. That not “supporting” students we see traveling tragic roads, but instead warning them will surely cause them to consider self-harm.

Only Satan could write this stuff. The author of confusion has certainly devised a way to enter the public schools and paint faithful Christians as the enemy and advocates of deviance as heroes protecting children.


Meanwhile, Jesus, who so skillfully designed humans as distinctly male and female and commanded that “a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”(Matthew 19:5) would certainly enter these schools and consider taking out a rope and braiding a whip.

At the name of Christ, Satan will flee, if schools would only call on Him.

JuneMcCormick #fundie christianforums.com

While browsing a different section of the forums, I came across this quote:
"We Christians serve a risen God and we're saved so we have something worth living for. We should have joy in our hearts and not want to cut ourselves and be selfish."
Aparently this is from the Teens-4-Christ board.

What do other people think of this?
I think self-harm to be a very selfish act indeed, and I believe it to be a form of suicide.
I often wonder how these people who cut can deal with themselves.

I've also looked around, and seem to have discovered many of these "cutters" to be atheists. Does that not say it all?

hurdleafterhurdle #sexist #quack incels.co


[RageFuel] Redditors think recognition of sexless people is "wrong" and "disgusting" (not sex, just recognition!)


I suggested on a Reddit that permavirgins of any sort should get officially recognised as a challenged or disprivileged class, and perhaps should receive some sort of tax benefit if they bother to go through a long application, and people caught doing tax fraud for this get higher penalty than normal tax fraud to keep our fakers. This is apparently "disgusting" and when I asked why, I got ghosted. Only people who blame themselves alone for sex are okay and they don't get recognition, only being ignored and mocked, and maybe supported by people who poison them with hurtful beliefs that is it themselves alone who are at fault and wrong and not the people around them.

Just so you know, recognition of people's struggles here is considered "disgusting" and "wrong". Nature and society is how it is and we should just not question it and accept it like sheep or dark ages people, no fairness for us. But people of many different minorities, refugees, and the (physically) disabled get plenty of recognition and them asking for help, benefits, job action, etc. isn't "wrong" or "disgusting". Our challenges are less important and less prevalent according to these people.
Everything stems from the idea that sex is a want and just a toy, basically, not a major milestone in life and social status not to mention necessary to produce children (and thus satisfy a family that expects this from you as well as friends, culture, society, religion, etc. expecting likewise).
So nature helps people for jobs but not us. Who gives ugly people jobs because of "fairness for the ugly" or "ugliness affirmative action"? Same for short people, mentally disabled people, poor people, so on.

Life is bullshit and all this "fairness" stuff we see is talk not action. Only the "in" or "good-looking/nice" minorities get help, the rest of us are left to rot whether socially, economically, or sexually.
This world is full of bigotry and double standards and yet WE"RE called the bad guys.
This hypocrisy makes me so mad I decided on a whim to flair this as ragefuel.

EDIT: Society wants us to blame ourselves and not other people or the "system" at large. Resist this cosmopolitan and self-harming way of thinking the elitists are pushing us towards. The system very much DOES affect if not control you, and you MUST fight it, peacefully if at all possible but DO NOT LET PEOPLE CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SUFFERING AND THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS HOW YOU KEEP THE CYCLE OF HARASSMENT AND BULLYING OF UNDESIRABLE AND UNATTRACTIVE PEOPLE GOING.

insurrecto #fundie reddit.com

[Now deleted thread OP]

Rape victims often develop a variety of serious psychological issues, including depression, borderline personality disorder (aka borderline insanity disorder), self-harm, alcohol and/or drug addiction, and PTSD.

People who have these serious psychological issues are at a higher risk of joblessness, homelessness, and divorce. They tend to have unstable and chaotic relationships.

Now, of course it isn't a rape victim's fault that they were raped, but that still doesn't mean that it is a good idea to date a rape victim.

Dating someone who has serious psychological issues is risky. To illustrate how risky it is, would you date a pedophile? Pedophilia isn't a choice. However, pedophiles have unstable lives and wouldn't make good romantic partners.

So, if you expect a man to be willing to date a rape victim because "it wasn't her fault," then you should be willing to date a pedophile because "it isn't his fault."

Alexander Ash #wingnut #conspiracy incel.blog

(First article on incels.co’s new blog)

Incel Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the study of lived experience from a first-person perspective. As of yet, it has not been applied to incels. Here I will argue that it should be.

An incel is an involuntary celibate, a person who is unable to find a romantic partner despite desiring one. Previously ignored, incels have recently gained a staggering prominence among scholars of violent extremism. For example, this year the Royal Canadian Mounted Police added incels to their Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism classification, effectively labeling them as terrorists.

However, from the point of view of incels, this is all rather baffling; while a handful may fit the mold, violence against the public by an ideology of extremism is as foreign to incels as it is to the reader.

Most academics do present their work by stating that the vast majority of incels are neither violent nor extremist. However, as existing research magnifies the attention given to the extremist variant, the impression is given that all incels are alike, and all are a danger. This is a failure of contextualization, one whose results we have seen before as research developed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks: Islam became securitized, not because it was a security threat, but rather because the majority of attention was focused on a few violent extremists, tainting in the process every other Western non-extremist Muslim.

For incels, the misattribution of their beliefs and desires has caused trouble for many of them: How are they to open up and discuss their plights of loneliness and hopelessness if public perception is that incels are people only interested in violence? The answer is that often they simply can’t.

Perhaps worse still, scorn received from outsiders to the community often leads to a process of chiseling, chipping away at the mental health of incels. Not only must then they carry a burden of solitude, but they also must retreat from the public eye in order to avoid further ostracizement. In practice, such alienation may eventually compound into mental disorders like anxiety and depression, or in extreme cases into self-harm and even suicide.

A proposed solution to this issue is phenomenology. For one, responsible research should seek to avoid unnecessary securitization and promote effective de-escalation. Secondly, resources should be significantly expended towards understanding inceldom as a life situation. The result will be a wider and better understanding of incels at large, as well as a more accurate portrayal of the community to the public.

Yahweh Saves #fundie forums.christianity.com

I can agree that it is certainly irritating when demons put thoughts in your head, stupid thoughts! For example, for a while there, when I would turn the stove burner on and it would glow this nice bright red, this thought would pop into my mind for no reason, 'You should touch that. It won't hurt.' (Keeping in mind I've NEVER had any self-harm issues!) I'm like 'I'm not stupid, of course I'm not going to touch that! Get out of here, Satan, in the Name of Yahweh!' Dumb stuff and impulses like that do often come from the enemy!

Valerie Sinason and Dr Fleur Fisher #conspiracy theguardian.com

At 9.02am Richard Felstead answered the phone; by 9.03am he was breathless with crying. It was the coroner's assistant in Battersea with the news that his sister, Carole, had died two weeks earlier. "I'm sorry it's taken so long to notify you," she said. "Carole's next of kin told us there was no family. But a letter was found – from you."

Two minutes later, the phone rang again. A different caller, with a strange voice, said, "I know you're not one of the ones that harmed Carole."

"Who are you?" said Richard.

"I'm Carole's next of kin."

"What's your name?"

"That's not important."

"How did Carole die?"

"She had a very difficult childhood."

"What? No she didn't."

"The cremation's tomorrow. People have taken time off work. It's very important it goes ahead."

Richard reacted furiously. The phone went dead.

The brothers gathered at their parents' Stockport home: Richard, David, Anthony and Kevin, whose principal memory of the morning of 14 July 2005 is his mother, "Finished. On the floor. Drained. Shattered. Gone." They began talking. Who was the mysterious caller who claimed to be Carole's "next of kin"? Why did she talk of a "difficult childhood" when Carole was happy and popular? She had a successful nursing career down in London. How could she die at just 41? Why had it taken two weeks to be informed? How could there be a funeral tomorrow?

Joseph, their father, stood up. "I'll put a stop to it."

"You can't stop a funeral, Dad!" said Kevin.

Joseph phoned the coroner's assistant. She brusquely informed him that, now the family had been discovered, the funeral would be halted. She mentioned a "life assessment", written by Carole. "It's very upsetting," she said. It was six pages, typed. It said: "My parents were abusive in every way imaginable - sexually, physically and emotionally. At three years of age, my mother smothered my sister. She sat me on top of her body and set the house on fire."

Joseph was astonished. "Had she been ill?" he said. "Had she been sectioned?"

The coroner's assistant replied: "Yes."

Over the coming weeks there came more questions. They were told the nameless "next of kin" had emptied Carole's flat and driven off in her car. Officials kept mentioning a "psychiatrist friend" who accompanied Carole to medical appointments. Joseph was speaking to a police inspector when something occurred to him. "This psychiatrist and this next of kin," he said. "Are they the same person?"

"That's right," said the inspector. "Dr Fleur Fisher."

The Felsteads' search for answers to the many mysteries surrounding Carole's decline is now in its sixth year. Endless letters and FOI requests, alongside hours of legal research and long nights on the internet, have resulted in the collection of hundreds of documents and the generation of yet more questions: angry ones about individuals they believe to have been malign presences in her life; strange ones about startling and little-known corners of human psychology; sad ones about the life and death of the kind and sparky woman they still miss every day.

When I tell them I'd like to write about Carole, they pass me the telephone number, discovered in Carole's phone records, of the woman whose role in the tale is, they're convinced, both sinister and central: that of the "next of kin", Dr Fleur Fisher.

"I'm not sure I want to talk about this," Fisher tells me. "You'll have to let me think about it. That family – they're bloody terrifying."

"You're frightened of them?"

"They're frightening people. And the things they've been saying," she says, adding confusingly: "I'm not a therapist!" She rings off, warning me darkly: "Tread carefully."

The house in which Carole grew up has mauve and dark-red rooms that are shadow-struck and decorated with golden candlestick holders, old family portraits and statues of dogs, birds and deer. Today Joseph sits glowering in the lounge, his patriarch's hands gripping his armchair. Kevin – a softer presence – informs me that Richard's at work, and Anthony's too distraught to speak. Their mother, Joan, passed away last year. David's here, though, friendly yet possessed of an anxious, wiry tension. Over the coming hours, he'll answer questions with flumes of facts and furious analysis, fossicking in boxes for the relevant document to illustrate his point.

For these men, Carole's life is as much a mystery as her death. She had been a friendly, bolshy and academically successful teenager, who loved watching M*A*S*H and wearing the tartan shorts beloved of her favourite band, the Bay City Rollers. She was popular at school and had a noted instinct for caring, going out of her way to play with Michael, the neighbour with Down's syndrome, and paying regular visits to a lonely old man down the road known as Mr Partridge. At 15 she got a weekend job in a home for the disabled. At 21 she qualified as a nurse at Stockport College and rented a nearby flat, making frequent visits back home to borrow milk and money, and sunbathe in the garden. And then, in the mid-1980s, there began a silent drift away from the family.

(...)

In 1986 they discovered Carole had moved to Macclesfield. She'd still send Christmas cards and ring occasionally, assuring them her career was going well. But by 1992 she had moved to London and changed her name from Carol Felstead to Carole Myers. They had to accept that Carole, for some reason, had chosen to stay away.

After her death they discovered Carole had become mentally ill. Her medical records revealed self-harm, alcohol abuse and stretches in psychiatric wards. She'd frequently been suicidal.

They felt shattered about the claims she'd made in her life assessment – and confused. She said she'd been abused by Joseph and his wife, who were the high priest and priestess of a satanic cult, and that during her teens she'd had six children – some fathered by Joseph – that she'd been forced to kill. She also said she had an implant in her eye that would explode if she spoke of the satanists, and that a friend she'd confided in was murdered in front of her.

Carole's charges were easily proven to be false. The sister, whose murder she'd apparently witnessed, actually died of heart problems two years before Carole was born. The house fire, too, predated Carole's birth. And yet, to the Felsteads' disbelief, it seemed the mental-health professionals rarely challenged these impossible horrors. Worse, they'd concluded that Carole's psychological problems came as a result of this fictitious abuse.

But the family is pointing the finger straight back at the clinicians. They believe the blame for Carole's psychological downfall lies with credulous, satanist-obsessed therapists who went along with her claims that she'd been sexually menaced. After all, they point out, it's happened before – most famously in Orkney in 1991, when nine children were forcibly removed from their homes following interviews by social workers led by an individual who was subsequently accused of being "fixated on finding satanic abuse".

I ask the Felsteads when the first mention of mental-health problems appear in Carole's medical records. In August 1985, it turns out, she received therapy for insomnia and nightmares related to "family abuse". Soon afterwards a 1986 letter mentions further "psycho-sexual counselling" by someone whose name sends a cold stun of recognition through me. It's her: the next of kin; the woman who baffled me by abruptly – perhaps defensively – announcing: "I'm not a therapist!" It's Dr Fisher.

Arriving back in London I'm in no doubt that Carole's abuse claims were untrue. But is it really possible, as the Felsteads insist, for a person to have memories "implanted" by a therapist? Professor Elizabeth Loftus, of the University of California, certainly believes so. In one famous study she sought to examine the process by which a therapist can generate a memory of an event simply by suggesting it. Loftus told 24 adults to write detailed descriptions of four childhood events supplied earlier on by a family member. Unbeknown to them, one of those events never actually happened.

(...)

The concept of repressed memories itself is, according to psychologist Chris French of the University of London, highly questionable. "There's a divide on this in psychology," he says. "But these 'recovery' methods are also used in the context of alien abduction accounts. If you're going to accept recovered memories of abuse, you should also accept the alien claims."

While chatting with French, I mention a psychotherapist who saw Carole called Valerie Sinason. Unexpectedly he lets out a guttural, melancholy groan.

"Oh Gooooodddd," he says.

If the Felsteads are right, Carole is likely to have had some form of recovered-memory therapy in the mid-80s – roughly the time her behaviour began to sour. But the only person I know who might be able to answer this question of whether she did is Dr Fisher. Since our last chat, she's vanished. She's changed her mobile number and has ignored several emails.

Instead I arrange an interview with Valerie Sinason who, according to the records, saw Carole for psychotherapy biweekly for eight months in 1992. I want to know if she'll fit the description Professor Loftus gave of the therapists she's come across in legal cases who have involved false memory – that of a highly credulous believer in satanic abuse who has a tendency to believe ritual damage in patients.

Sinason insists she doesn't use recovered-memory techniques. "I'm an analytic therapist," she says. "The idea of that is someone showing, through their behaviour, that all sorts of things might have happened to them." Signs that a patient has suffered satanically include flinching at green or purple objects, the colours of the high priest and priestess's robes. "And if someone shudders when they enter a room, you know it's not ordinary incest."

Another warning, she says, is the patient saying: "I don't know." "What they really mean is: 'I can't bear to say.'" A patient who "overpraises" their family is also suspicious. "The more insecure you are, the more you praise. 'Oh my family was wonderful! I can't remember any of it!'"

In the medical records, Sinason noted that Carole was her first chronic sadistic-abuse patient. Today, when I ask about her first patient, Sinason describes the arrival of two medical professionals – a nurse and a psychologist – one of whom was limping.

"I just had that nasty feeling," she says. "It's her, and she's been hurt by them."

Soon, we get to the actual satanism. Sinason talks of a popular ritual in which a child is stitched inside the belly of a dying animal before being 'reborn to satan'. During other celebrations, "people eat faeces, menstrual blood, semen, urine. There's cannibalism." Some groups have doctors performing abortions. "They give the foetus to the mother and she's made to kill the baby."

"And the cannibalism – that's foetuses?" I clarify.

"Foetuses and bits of bodies. The foetuses are raw. And handed round like communion. On one major festival, the babies are barbecued. I can still remember one survivor saying how easy it is to pull apart the ribs on a baby. But adults are tougher to eat."

She describes large gatherings in woodlands and castles, with huge cloths being laid out. "That's normally when there's a sacrifice," she notes, "and because the rapes are happening all over the place. There's a small amount of cannon fodder in terms of runaways, drug addicts, prostitutes and tramps that are used. There's sex with animals. Horses, dogs, goats. Being hanged upside down. In the woods, on a tree."

(...)

Dr Fisher lives in Plymouth, and is a former head of ethics at the British Medical Association. She speaks with the all the authority that such a position suggests. Sometimes confident, sometimes wary, sometimes maudlin and resigned, she actually has good reason to fear the Felsteads. After discovering she'd taken Carole's possessions, they reported her to the GMC and the police. Neither found sufficient evidence to act against her.

Fisher admits she had no legal claim to be Carole's "next of kin", but denies the Felsteads' accusations that she stole her property. She emptied the flat, she says, because the property managers were demanding it. As she cleared up, she found the letter from Richard. "Honourably, I gave it to the police," she says. "Otherwise the family would never have known. Never, never, never!" The clearout happened on 7 July 2005, a date, of course, that became known as 7/7. The terrorist explosions crippled the public transport network, which is why she needed to take Carole's car to get home. It was soon returned to London.

I ask why she phoned Richard on the day the Felsteads were informed of the death. She did so, she says, because the coroner mentioned how crushed he'd sounded. "Concern for somebody else's distress sometimes overcomes you," she says. "I was foolish. Unwise."

Ironically, it was her discovery of Richard's letter that led to the funeral's cancellation. Was she upset when she heard it had been halted? "You can't even imagine," she says. "I just screamed and screamed."

Finally, we get to the question of whether Carole's memories of satanic abuse were recovered. Initially Fisher refuses to speak about Carole. "I have a duty of confidentiality, even after a patient has died. I was never her psychiatrist or psychotherapist or anything like that." She raises her voice. "I'm not a psychotherapist, for God's sake!"

"According to her medical notes, she saw you for counselling," I say.

"No."

"I have the letter here, dated 27 November 1986, that says: 'She required to see Dr Fisher for psychosexual counselling.'" There's a silence. "Psychosexual is the wrong term," she says.

"What's the correct term?"

"Uh, I really don't know. People come and tell you things that have happened to them."

"Things like abuse?"

Was she ever worried that Carole had lapsed into fantasy? "Never," she says.

By 1997, I tell her, Carole was claiming a government minister had raped her with a claw hammer in Conservative Central Office. "That's not something I knew about," she says. "It may have been fantasy. I couldn't say. In general she was a common-sense woman."

"Are you aware of any evidence that any of Carole's claims actually happened?"

"I never looked for any evidence."

"Then what made you believe her?"

"She's not the only patient I've had who told the same kinds of stories."

"About ritual abuse?"

"It turned out to be that, yes. The people didn't remember at first. They weren't aware. They were memories they'd had a long time and they just came out."

Finally, I seek advice from Dr Trevor Turner, a consultant psychiatrist at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London. A former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, Turner is an expert in schizophrenia. I wanted to speak with Turner because I've heard that delusions and paranoias like the ones Carole suffered are a common facet of the condition.

Turner confirms this, adding: "Another thing that's a part of the schizophrenic illness syndrome is the idea that your body has been interfered with," he tells me. Carole's slow withdrawal from the family, it turns out, is also typical. "If you're thinking things are being done to you, you blame those around you," he says. "Families of people who have got schizophrenia are commonly accused of things by the patient."

Assuming that Carole was suffering from schizophrenia, I wonder what effect it might have had on her, having therapists validate her darkest delusions. What would it be like for a paranoid psychotic to have it confirmed that, yes, there really are satanists out there, trying to get you? "Absolutely terrifying," he says. "It's highly likely it would make it worse."

Manly-Chicken #ableism kiwifarms.net

image(holly: “I have not spoken out sooner because on May 9th, I checked myself into a hospital because I was having self-harming thoughts. I’m not ashamed of this at all, it was the right thing to do and I was safe there. It’s okay to ask for mental health help when you need it.)

As soon as someone plays the "mental health" card, I tune out.

It's exclusively used by awful people to excuse their shitty behavior without having to take responsibility or apologize for their actions.

Pomidor Quixote #sexist dailystormer.name

[From "Using General Anesthesia During C-Sections is Bad for Women’s Minds, According to Researchers"]

Painful experiences trigger a strong bonding mechanism in women, which is one of the reasons why they very rarely try to leave men who physically abuse them.

General anesthesia during C-sections literally takes away their first and most important chance at bonding with their child and turns them into little more than mindless womb-bags.

Daily Mail

Women who have general anesthesia during C-sections are significantly more likely to experience postpartum depression resulting in hospitalization, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and anxiety, according to recent study.

This may be because general anesthesia during C-section deliveries can delay skin-to-skin interaction or breastfeeding from mother to infant, and can cause more acute postpartum pain.

[...]

Or it can be because deep down they know they missed a critically important chance to redeem themselves.

[Screenshot of 1 Timothy 2:15: "But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."]

Women need to experience pain during childbirth to redeem themselves.

If for some natural or unnatural reason they don’t, then they need the crap beaten out of them just to put them on the safe side of redemption.

It is important that women don’t enjoy this kind of pain, so just to be very clear here: we’re not talking about the BDSM stuff that women love.

We’re talking about actual brutal beatings.

But I mean, it’s illegal, so if women don’t experience excruciating pain during childbirth, they’ll have to figure out another way to redeem themselves on their own.
[...]

Regional anesthesia at least allows women to be conscious during the process and observe what’s happening to their bodies, but it should still be avoided because it still takes away their chance to redeem themselves.

[...]
General anesthesia is usually used in emergency C-sections or in instances when regional anesthesia cannot be utilized, said says Grace Lim, director of obstetric anesthesiology at UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.

Lim says the emergency C-sections, which are more likely used for babies who are early or ill, or for mother’s with health problems, could also explain the increase in PPD.

She told CNN: ‘Thus, the nature of the emergency delivery, rather than the general anesthetic itself, may be the real reason why these women end up with higher odds of depression.’

It could be.

Or it could be that knowing that they’re going to Hell depresses them.

Feynman and Coulter's Love Child #fundie 3edgesword.blogspot.com

[From "Why faggots like Ellen and @mikesbloggity are the cause of mental illness"]

Last Wednesday was #BellLetsTalk day, where every use of the hashtag resulted in a donation from Bell Media to mental health causes across the country. $6.5M was raised for the 2017 campaign partially thanks to help from a celebrity with a mental illness herself: Ellen Degenerate, who has the mental illness where she is attracted to the wrong sex, brought up the campaign on her talk show.

Also with #BellLetsTalk comes a variety of tweets from people who have had friends and family lost to suicide. As so often happens, you'd be surprised (and by that, of course, I mean not surprised) that so many of them are queers.

LGBTQ people face higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, and substance use. #BellLetsTalk
— Mike Morrison (@mikesbloggity) January 27, 2016

Disclaimer: Mike Morrison molests 15 year old boys and tries to groom them into his disgusting sexual perversions.

The thing to remember about fags committing suicide is that the desire to sodomize other men is itself a major mental illness. If pillow biting predators like @MikesBloggity stopped endorsing this sick lifestyle choice, more poofters might chose to abandon their immoral urges and discover - shock of all shocks -- that it leaves them more mentally stable.

REVEALINGTRUTHTODAY #fundie revealingtruthtoday.wordpress.com

“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.

On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” ~2nd Corinthians 10:4

The popular fiction book, “The Hunger Games” has been made into a movie and will be released in theaters on March 23, 2012. It is the first movie of a trilogy. The other two movies to follow are, “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay”. Before we proceed, let’s review (what I call) a “red flag word/phrase.” The name of the second movie is what? Catching Fire?! Does that bring any imagery or thoughts of Hell to mind? We must be very sensitive to these “red flag” words and/or phrases.

In The Hunger Games, we find there are two major themes – rebellion and murder. The storyline is that the post-Apocalyptic Capitol (formerly North America) holds an annual televised event called “The Hunger Games.” Each district must draw the names of a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18. There were originally 13 districts before the Capitol destroyed one, leaving 12. Biblically, the number 13 represents rebellion; so we find the theme of rebellion still being evoked ever-so subtly. Altogether, there are 24 youths chosen to become contestants (called “tributes”). They must fight to the death in a vast arena. The lone survivor returns home to wealth and fame.

Let’s stop for a moment and review some significant “red flag” symbolism and counterfeit “spin-offs” from scripture. First off, we find that the 13 districts (13 representing rebellion) dwindled down to 12. Is there any significance in the number 12? In scripture, we find there are 12 tribes of Israel (God’s chosen) and 12 disciples of Jesus who were chosen by Jesus. It appears these 12 boys and 12 girls are the “chosen ones” much like a disciple would be chosen by Jesus; only these 12 boys and 12 girls are chosen for evil – to kill others for wealth, and fame. The number 12 also represents government – so the subtle symbolism is there, since it is the government (Capitol) who have The Hunger Games. It is not coincidence that these references match up; this often happens when something is counterfeit for the truth. The devil is sly and clever; so he will make the counterfeit look genuine. He will make something horribly bad look good and noble. Many admire the character Katniss for taking her sister’s place. “How sweet,” the movie-watchers will say, “She’s so good.” Once they see her as “good” then they can be introduced to other evils and accept them easily. As we continue, we find there are 24 “tributes” chosen for the games. Let’s review the number 24… is that number of any significance? In scripture, the number 24 represents a higher form of Heavenly government and worship. Think of the 24 elders in Heaven who worship God. Revelation 4:4 declares, “Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.” There is also other symbolism present in the movie such as the mockingjay pin worn by Katniss. It is said to be a hybrid bird that represents rebellion.

The author, Suzanne Collins, admits that the books were partly inspired by the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur. Anytime you read about Greek mythology, you will find it is inundated with false gods, goddesses, evil, and idol worship. So, for this to be her inspiration seems to further validate the point that it is not written to glorify God. “For the Scriptures say, ‘You must be holy because I [the Lord God] am holy’” 1st Peter 1:16. Also, 1st Corinthians 10:31 states, “… do all to the glory of God.”

Authors Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer are among many that sing the praises for The Hunger Games trilogy. However, it’s like the old saying goes, “Consider the source.” King as well as Meyer are known for writing dark novels. Other reviewers are noting that the trilogy is dark, mad, and twisted; yet, they still give it 4-star reviews! Remember, “Birds of a feather flock together.” The influence of evil will always confuse bad for good. Romans 1:25 says, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie…”

In the storyline, the fictional President Snow defends the games by saying, “Freedom has a cost,” and that its winners are reminders of the government’s “victory and forgiveness.” He makes it clear he believes that “a little hope is effective; a lot of hope is dangerous.” Now, wait a minute. The cost of freedom is children being sacrificed to death for the government’s “victory and forgiveness”?! Are you kidding me?! Jesus is the only One who was worthy to purchase our freedom, victory, and forgiveness. Although The Hunger Games is fictional, it has some very sacrilegious statements. Also, the President Snow states that “a lot of hope is dangerous” – reminds me of how false this statement is. We have amazing hope in Christ and it isn’t the least bit dangerous. In fact, hope is all that keeps us going many times! Proverbs 13:12 says, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.” Why would we want to watch a movie that teaches “hope is dangerous”?

Near the end of the movie, there are only 2 “tributes” (contestants) left – Peeta and his crush, Katniss. At the last moment, a voice announces that the rules have changed and only one of them can survive. Only one contestant can win, meaning the tributes (friends, Peeta and Katniss) must fight each other to the death. Peeta and Katniss threaten to eat poisonous berries simultaneously and die together. The Gamemakers, knowing a double suicide will be an unsatisfying conclusion for the audience, quickly uphold their earlier ruling. Suicide as a solution is being taught in this movie. With cutting, self-harm, drug/alcohol abuse, and depression at an all-time high, how is it okay to show suicide as a solution? These subliminal messages go into the hearts and minds, and are directly inspired by Satan. We find in Matthew 4 that Satan tempted Jesus with suicide when he tempted him to jump off the highest point of the temple; however, Jesus resisted Satan. But, will weaker ones have the strength to resist Satan when he constantly and falsely puts suicide in front of them as a solution to a problem?

There are many other evil symbols, themes, counterfeits, and influences contained in The Hunger Games trilogy which we have not covered – such as Katniss calling the woods her “savior” and devoting her Sundays to hunting in them; or the hauntingly close parallel to the Capitol arena mimicking the Roman Coliseum where many Christians endured cruel deaths. But, suffice it to say that this movie is hardly suitable for Christians to watch (or anybody else, for that matter).

A review of the movie by editor Douglas Wilson says: “Suppose the Capitol bad guys had decided to set up a different required sin in their games. Suppose it were the Rape Games instead. Suppose that the person who made it through the games without being raped was the feted winner. Anybody here think that this series would be the bestselling phenomenon that this one is? In short, when you have the privilege of setting up all the circumstances artificially, in order to give your protagonist no real choice about whether to sin or not, it is a pretty safe bet that a whole lot of people in a relativistic country, including the Christians in it unfortunately, won’t notice.”

In closing, I like what one mom wrote. She said, “Allowing a child to feed on something like this is just downright irresponsible! Parents don’t think for a moment that you will draw your child closer to Christ when they have been enveloped by the madness of books like this.”

Nya Nya Jo #fundie edendecoded.com

Depression is NOT caused by mean people.

Depression happens because there are spirits strategically imposing the feelings of unwantedness, loneliness, self-harm, and - in extreme cases - suicide into the mind of a person.

People are surprised to learn that many of these spirits do have legal grounds and permission to be there. And getting 'saved' does NOT automatically 'demon-proof' you for the rest of your life.

DID YOU KNOW?

• more than 15 million American adults suffer from depression;
• an estimated 3 million teens ages 12 to 17 have depressive episodes each year;
• approximately 60 million people suffer from loneliness that is chronic and severe; and
• for youth and adults between the ages of 10 to 34, suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death.

We can't keep running from this issue, or pretending like some special meditative pose or daily affirmation posted on a bathroom mirror can change the fact that many people are losing their minds to demonic mental attacks.

** Getting the right knowledge will save your life, and the life of someone you love dearly. Download a copy of our most controversial ebook DIVA GODDESS QUEEN: Breaking the power of soul ties, lust and sexual demons.

Andrew Dymock, Oskar Koczorowski and other Sonnenkrieg Division members #racist bbc.com

A university student from Bath and a London teenager are among those involved with a UK version of a violent American neo-Nazi group linked to five murders, a BBC investigation has found.

A propaganda image placed online by the British group suggests Prince Harry is a "race traitor" and should be shot.

Private messages between members show the leader stating that police officers should be raped and killed.

Evidence suggests the leader is Andrew Dymock, 21. He denies wrongdoing.

The BBC has seen evidence he set up the new British group known as the Sonnenkrieg Division.

Mr Dymock, who is originally from Bath and whose father is a dentistry professor, has been studying at university in Wales.

A key propagandist - responsible for designing extremist material - is said to be Oskar Koczorowski from west London, who is only 17 years old.

He did not respond to a request for comment.

[...]

The chat logs include senior members of the Atomwaffen Division, a nihilistic American organisation that encourages terrorism and says civilisation needs to be smashed in order to build a national socialist state.

The group promotes a dystopian ideology it calls "universal order" which lionises Adolf Hitler, the murderous cult leader Charles Manson, and the veteran neo-Nazi ideologue James Mason, who provides regular diatribes for a website run by Atomwaffen members.

[...]

Messages from the gaming server include correspondence about the creation of the Sonnenkrieg Division.

"Blitzy" described Sonnenkrieg as "full on Universal Order" and "atomwaffen with less guns".

He also discussed his plans to travel to the US to meet Atomwaffen members in person.

In one exchange, he stated "kill all police officers" and said they should be "raped to death".

The BBC has obtained evidence that "Blitzy" is Mr Dymock, and that he and Mr Koczorowski, who uses a separate pseudonym, both placed Sonnenkrieg propaganda into the chats.

Violent images posted by the group on social media state "fill your heart with hate" and glorify the Norwegian terrorist and mass murderer Anders Breivik.

One image suggests that Prince Harry should be shot for marrying someone of mixed race and exclaims "see ya later race traitor".

A further image, showing a female hanging from a noose, states that white women who date non-white men should be killed.

Mr Koczorowski posted images of himself wearing an Atomwaffen top near Parliament and a video of a British flag being burnt.

It is thought Sonnenkrieg has no more than 10-15 members in the UK and some European countries.

[...]

Other private messages show some neo-Nazis claiming they have encouraged young women to engage in acts of self-harm along with pictures of the mutilation and criticism of the women concerned.

It is understood that Mr Dymock has been questioned by police over alleged sexual offences against a teenage girl.

Images, allegedly shared by Mr Dymock with his associates and later placed online, show a swastika and runic symbols cut into a girl's naked body and - in another image - Mr Dymock appears to brandish a book by James Mason in the air as she lies on the floor.

The bed seen in the images is consistent with the background in a picture posted by "Blitzy" and another of Mr Dymock himself.

It is understood that both Mr Dymock and Mr Koczorowski were previously involved with the neo-Nazi group System Resistance Network, which can be linked to acts of racist vandalism in as many as 10 UK cities.

The BBC has been told that Mr Koczorowski was a pre-ban member of National Action, which became the first extreme-right organisation to be outlawed in the UK since the war when it was proscribed under terrorism legislation in December 2016.

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

Atheists are genetic mutants who, for the most part, would never have been born if we hadn’t managed to break free of pre-industrial conditions of Darwinian selection. This was the conclusion of a paper published just before Christmas in the leading journal Evolutionary Psychological Science[The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: The Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods is Associated with High Mutational Load Edward Dutton, Guy Madison & Curtis Dunkel. (PDF).] and it sent establishment psychologists into spasms of rage.

To be sophisticated, these days, means that you’re an atheist. Academia is overwhelmingly atheist and average intelligence weakly correlates with not believing in God [High IQ turns academics into atheists,’ Times Higher Education, byRebecca Atwood, June 12, 2008]. For SJWs, the religious are at best stupid and, at worst, racist bigots who vote for Donald Trump and Brexit. So it’s no surprise that the paper was greeted with disbelief by the SJWs who fill departments of psychology.

Reactions ranged from “Amazing!” to condemning it as the worst paper of the year and “one of the most egregious papers I’ve ever read.” Reported in newspapers worldwide [Atheists more likely to be left handed, study finds, by Olivia Rudgard,Daily Telegraph, December 21, 2017], its authors presumably delighted in the reaction.

And the reaction was all the more ferocious because the paper’s conclusions are difficult to dispute. The researchers—British anthropologist Dr Edward Dutton, Swedish psychologist Prof. Guy Madison and Western Illinois University psychologist Curtis Dunkel—presented a beautifully simple case:

Until the Industrial Revolution, we were under harsh conditions of Darwinian Selection, meaning that about 40% of children died before they reached adulthood. These children would have been those who had mutant genes, leading to poor immune systems and death from childhood diseases. But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind. This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression... but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Under these conditions, prevalent until the nineteenth century, we were individually selected for but we were also “group selected” for. Ethnic groups are simply a genetic extended family and some groups fared better against the environment and enemy groups than others did, due to the kind of partly genetic psychological adaptations they developed.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop.

Computer models have proven that the more internally cooperative group—which is also hostile to infidel outsiders—wins the battle of group selection [The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation by Max Hartshorn, June 2013]. This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

Woodley suggests that weakened Darwinian selection would have led to the spread of “spiteful mutations” of the mind, which would help to destroy the increasingly physically and mentally sick group, even influencing the non-carriers to behave against their genetic interests, as carriers would help undermine the structures through which members learnt adaptive behaviour.

This is exactly what happened in the infamous Mouse Utopia experiment in the late 1960s, where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out. [Death squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, January 1973(PDF)].

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation. In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood, but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

They then look at data on left-handedness. In agricultural societies we are overwhelmingly right-handed. Left-handedness means an asymmetrical brain and thus, to some extent, mutation. They show that there is a weak but significant trend whereby the more strongly religious you are the more likely you are to be right-handed, just as the theory would predict. Finally, they turn to plain ugliness—asymmetry. This shows that your immune system is so deficient that you haven’t been able to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease or that you simply have mutant genes that make you asymmetrical. Believers in the paranormal have less symmetrical hands than do controls.

...

Dutton & Co.’s research is so incendiary because it is presenting the SJWs with what they really are: mutants; maladapted people who undermine carefully evolved, evolutionarily useful structures—such as religion—meaning they make even non-carriers maladapted; discouraging them from breeding or from defending their ethnic group.

Under normal Darwinian conditions, prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, these mutants would simply never have been born. They are, just like the mutant mice, people whose influence will ultimately lead to the collapse of society, as intelligence declines, and we return to a new Dark Age in which people are likely to be very religious indeed.

But perhaps there is some good news. It’s quite clear from the Mouse Utopia experiments that if the mutants are removed, then the society will recover.

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

Two hundred years ago, human beings were subject to harsh Natural Selection. People born with mutant genes, those who had a poor immune system, simply didn’t grow old enough to procreate. Forty percent of us died before we reached adulthood. This is now down to negligible levels in developed countries.

Accordingly, Woodley of Menie and his team aver that Calhoun’s experiment–which created a “Mouse Utopia”–will provide a good indication of what will happen to us.

In Calhoun’s “Mouse Utopia” at the University of Maryland, there were no predators, no bad weather, no possibility to escape, and no epidemics, because the mice were ensured to be healthy when they entered. There was a huge amount of space. It was, in other words, paradise for mice.

In July 1968, the experiment began. The parallels with the Industrial Revolution are simply spooky. Just as with the Industrial Revolution, which witnessed the collapse of child mortality due to improved medical science and living conditions, there was an enormous population spike. Numbers doubled every 55 days until there were 620 mice.

At this point population growth began to slow down, just as happened in Western countries in the early Twentieth Century. Doubling then only occurred every 145 days. And, just as in the West, Calhoun started to see more and more elderly—and even senile—mice.

By day 315, Calhoun started to notice interesting behavior changes in the mice. More and more males became what he called “the beautiful ones.” These effete males would make no attempt to fight or copulate with females. They simply spend their time washing each other and eating.

By contrast, female behavior became increasingly aggressive: they would attack males, throw their offspring out of the nest too young, attack their young, and actively avoid sex.

...

Calhoun put this collapse down to the consequences of overcrowding. But Woodley and his team showed that the colony was nowhere close to overcrowded when the population growth began to decline. Woodley and his team see the problem as much more fundamental.

They argue that all health problems, both physical and mental, are interrelated. This is because they all reflect the same phenomenon: what the team call “high mutational load.”

For example, consider autism. It is definitely a result of mutant genes because it is more likely to develop the older your father is, meaning it a result of defective, mutant sperm. Autism is associated with all manner of other mental and physical health problems.

The Woodley of Menie team further argue that the brain is extremely sensitive to mutation, because it is fantastically complicated. 84% of our genome relates to the brain. This means that even a small number of mutations can have a massive impact on behavior. The effect is magnified in social animals like mice and men behavior is learned and mutations can interfere with social processes which allow adaptive behavior to be correctly taught.

Woodley of Menie calls these “spiteful mutations.” And as the carriers grow in number, they can pressure even non-carriers to conform to their maladaptive behavior.

For example, childless women may encourage other women not to have children. Mothers are shamed as “failures” because they didn’t focus on a career. Even non-carriers of maladaptive behavior are impacted.

In other words, mice have key evolved instincts which allow them to survive. Every generation, some mutant mice—who lack these instincts–are born. But their maladaptive instincts—no desire to breed or fight, or zero maternal instinct—are a product of mutation. They also carry other mutations, leading to poor immune systems or physical weakness. So they die young, and don’t pass on their mutant genes.

But in Calhoun’s mouse experiment, these mice survived and had children. The children survived and more and more mutations built-up until the potentially normal mice were a tiny minority who didn’t have the chance to learn appropriate behavior or how to relate to other mice.

And, ultimately, almost all the mice were mutants. The rest were totally maladapted and the population died out.

This “Mutational Meltdown” is happening in the West. The authors present clear evidence for it: huge spikes in autism and genetic disorders. This could be extended to include the prevalence of eating disorders, homosexuality, sexual identity problems, and the desire to not have children.

“Spiteful mutations” undermine things like religion, which is little more than a way of promoting evolutionary imperatives. For example: go forth and multiply, cooperative with each other, repel the invader.

But we now have liberal religion, which is basically post-modernism plus a vague religious sense. It reflects the increasing number of people whose instinct is to destroy their own genetic interests.

Humans have evolved instincts. In the past, those with mutant genes causing them to lack them died young without passing on their genes. Now, this is not the case. They live to adulthood, often pass on their own genes and, even they don’t, they still alter the carefully selected nature of the group.

Put simply, we are living in a society increasing composed of and dominated by mutants. And they can be tentatively identified by the fact that they reject the behavioral norms and views which were the unquestioned norm only a few generations ago.

But there is crucial difference between Mouse Utopia and the West. We are the scientists who are maintaining our own utopia. There is a growing body of evidence that intelligence is decreasing. Eventually we won’t be intelligent enough to sustain utopia and we will collapse back to pre-industrial levels of Natural Selection.

The current model of society, like the “Mouse Utopia,” is heading to collapse.

The only questions are whether we can turn it around.

And, if we can’t, what will succeed it.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

The official position of the Alt-Right is that we want to create a White ethnostate in an unspecified part of North America, but I really think that people like Richard Spencer are just arguing for that in order to make the Alt-Right look less threatening. I personally want to turn the entire country into a White ethnostate with maybe some exceptions for existing Indian reservations.
Almost every single city in this country was founded and developed by White people over hundreds of years, so there's no way in hell that I'm ever going to support surrendering these cities. They rightfully belong to us just like Japanese cities rightfully belong to the Japanese.
And we're not stopping with America. The Alt-Right is a global movement for White people. We want to turn every single White country on this planet into White ethnostates. From Canada to Europe to Australia/New Zealand, we want to preserve all of these countries for the White race and create a new White alliance like NATO in order to ensure our racial security and prosperity.
Another reason why I don't think that a return to racial segregation is extreme enough is because I don't want any kind of financial or government connections to non-Whites. Low-IQ "Hispanics" (Amerinds/Mestizos) and black people tend to have inferior standards of living all across the entire world (including within America). They're always going to be like human leeches sucking off of our success. I'm sick of transferring billions of dollars in White wealth to these evolutionary dead-ends every year, and I'm sick of them having a voice in how we should govern our societies.
I also don't think that racial segregation within a country is sustainable in the long term if you try to divide White countries up into ethnostates. Eventually people of color will flood into our zones again because we create the best societies and their own societies are backwards cesspits. Eventually some liberal cucks will come to power again and open the floodgates to the darkie hordes. Or the non-White ethnostates in America will allow in mass non-White immigration from the rest of the world and create a kind of unstoppable human zerg in order to overrun the White ethnostates within America. That's why we need geographical buffer zones with non-Whites and a new national constitution which revolves around preventing our country from getting swamped by non-Whites again.
As to mixed race families; I personally support making miscegenation illegal again.
And as to mixed race people; here's what I recently posted about this topic.
It would probably depend on how White they looked and acted, their IQs, what the races were of their parents (hapas are probably the least offensive, while mulattoes are probably the most offensive), and how supportive they were of Alt-Right ideology. The most extreme scenario is that they'd be humanely deported. We're not calling for anyone to be violently exterminated. The Alt-Right is a religion of peace.

Anarcho Papist #fundie archive.today

I suppose I should have figured this out earlier, but it seems that feminism is a dysgenic social movement. Why? The mechanism is very simple. From the perspective that women need to “rise up” and “take their place in the world” by taking on what was previously a traditionally male career path, it only makes sense that such a social expectation would be disproportionately placed on women of higher intelligence since, after all, they are “better able to compete.” And perhaps they do, for a time. Those who are able should pursue higher levels of education and career advancement; “to whom much is given, much shall be expected.” It is only a small disappointment for a dumb blonde to settle down in her 20’s and be dedicated to a family, but it is a great disappoint for an intelligent woman to forego her place in the workplace.

But the result of this is that more intelligent women are less likely to pass on their genetic material. As such, it is the less intelligent women who breed, which is a dysgenic effect.

Does it not seem weird that we are effectively saying to our best and brightest women that their most enlightened lifestyle is materialistic nihilism? Get a job, make a bunch of money, be independent. Don’t have children. Die alone without any genetic legacy. Women are to discern their calling to the Spinsterhood. If such a calling is unable to be undertaken, they may receive a dispensation from the sugar daddy government to have children paid for by taxpayers and divorced fathers.

Can we call it that? This generation of feminist spinsters, which by the nature of its prohibition of sexual reproduction, is memetically suicidal. Feminism guarantees its own extinction, because those most likely to live their life according to its precepts also have the most potential to forward it, but these precepts specifically prohibit partaking in the grand tradition of having a family and raising children. They opt out of societal continuity, and so choose their own ruin.

The Spinsterhood: 40+ year old women without children. This population has a higher-than-average intelligence, which means that the following generations are essentially quarantined from both their superior genetic stock, a great tragedy, and their inferior ideological disposition, a great mercy. Women are incapable of ruling the world because as soon as they have some power they immediately use it to secure their own immediate material desires, rather than laying down foundations for the future.
Not having children is selfish and stupid. It is a privilege to have children, a privilege much more available to women than to men. Under a feminist social environment, intelligence in women is an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. That’s strange. Intelligence, maladaptive? Were a eugenics program otherwise touted specifically in order to reduce the intelligence of successive generations, you would be led to think some great evil or psychological disability is afoot.

I imagine it is more difficult to raise the intelligence of a population through successive generations than to lower it. How many generations would it take to cover the ground lost by feminism in a single Spinster generation?

Yet another reason to favor patriarchy: so that successive generations of society may be more intelligent than their forebears. Indeed, within a patriarchal society, the intelligence of a lady actually becomes an attractive quality, since a better intelligence will help her to manage the affairs of the household better. This is certainly at a contrast with female intelligence in a feminist society, where it is a repellent quality, as it is so highly correlated with very un-attractive lifestyles, behaviors, and attitudes.

Gary John #racist tribalbynature.com

...Cheap third world labour and cheap non-White votes
Forebears forgotten for more vice-stained notes
Their White lives matter, their masters even more
Choose me! Choose me! barks the Zio-leashed whore

“Our borders are open, c’mon, pour on in!”
The Leftists will beckon, their handlers just grin
White guilt, compassion and kindness abound
Non-Whites yell “Suckers!”, but you won’t hear a sound

Blessed with these virtues, for better or for worse
Self-sacrifice is now a White man’s curse
Will non-Whites respond? It’s not do or not don’t
But what if they can’t? Or what if they won’t?

Long-suppressed grievances theyve dragged along<
“Hey raysiss honkey, you did us some wrong!”
While funding their every wish, want and need
Loyal to their own, they breed… and they breed

Obsessed with caring and fairness and justice
Exploited to death by those dwelling amongst us
Were we allowed to vote on immigration?
Posterity betrayed in a nation of nations!

We slowly evolved a once useful mentality
By building societies on trust and morality
Non-White cultures were more kinship-based
They fight to survive while we’re gladly replaced

My God! We're willing to give up the majority!
And pretend we’ll be stronger as a minority!
Diversity will mean there’ll be fewer Whites!
But the ignorant reply, “It’s just skin colour, right?

“It’s natural, different birds will build different nests
An eagle or a sparrow. It’s not worst or not best.
“But surely different birds can build the same home?"
“Did Black men build Athens? Did Arabs build Rome?"

(It just goes on like this)

JediMasterPikachu #fundie freerepublic.com

Abortion/Euthanasia

* Effort should be made to remove all reasons for abortion.
* Abortions should be completely banned, except in very rare cases when both people are probable to die (and even then, it should be up to the family. It could be analogous to if you're in a car on autopilot and you can't change your course and a guy in a similar car is heading straight at you. However, you also have a rocket propelled grenade and can blow the other guy away to save your life. Otherwise, you both will probably die. You would still be killing another human in manslaughter, but it would be somewhat understandable. Again, very rare cases. Abortion for practically any other thing is clearly bad.
* Support adult (including umbilical cord) stem cell research; oppose embryonic stem cell research.
* Unless all embryos made in an IVF procedure are used, some children are murdered.
* Research should be made into birthing tanks. This could lead to the end of all abortions.
* A supposed "right to choose" most definitely does not supersede a human's right to life--once God has given that privilege to that human.
* As life is a gift from God--and God still is the owner of that life--euthanasia is also bad. Human creatures do not have the right to take any life that is not theirs--including "their" life (the life God gave them)--unless it is for reasons of self-defense.

The only human who had the right to take a life for non-self-defense reasons was Christ. God had the right to take God's own life as a sacrifice to pay for the lives all human creatures. Just as God had the power to rise again so that all human creatures can rise again.
* As for children with huge "defects:" God has a reason for everything which comes to pass--it isn't for human creatures to contest God's decisions why God chose for some people to have extreme autism, downs syndrome, physical deformities, etc. God chose to give those human creatures life, and their lives are equal in value to every other human creature.

Elvis is King #fundie realwiki.referata.com

"President" Barack Hussein Obama has a pro-abortion record. He supports Roe v. Wade.

On November 5, 2008, he selected Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, who has a 0% pro-life record according to National Right to Life. Obama picked former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary on November 19, 2008, who also had a record of supporting abortion. Daschle subsequently asked that his nomination be withdrawn for unrelated issues.

Around that time, Obama also appointed Hillary Clinton, who has a record of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion, to be Secretary of State.

Obama released a statement on January 22, 2009 reaffirming his support of Roe v. Wade which allowed for nearly unlimited abortions and has resulted in over 50 million abortions since 1973.

Obama overturned pro-life conscience protections placed by President Bush that made sure that medical staff and centers would not have to perform abortions. The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit on March 5, 2009. On March 9, Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research. He reversed an executive order that would allow for embryonic stem cell research without harming human life.

On March 11, 2009, Obama supported the unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting and denied any negative effect that can come from abortions. On April 14, 2009, the Obama Administration released a statement saying that pro-life people engage in violence and extremism.

Obama stated that he would support an abortion for his own daughters because he would not want "them to be punished with a baby".

RestorationKenny #fundie reddit.com

As you can see my friends, the truth hurts. I am not a white supremacist. But if white people are that selfless to the point that we are openly housing outsiders who are desperate to live in our countries, we have to be superior at something. Altruism? Culture? Technology? Why do non whites want to live in our countries? Because our countries are better.
We invented practically everything these last couple of centuries and non whites will say anything in order to maintain their access to us. AND THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.

It will be difficult to peacefully develop an ethnostate when other races will follow you to the end of the earth, hassling you for stuff. From the POV of a non white, developing a white ethnostate is like your pilot taking the last parachute, jumping off the plane, and leaving you stranded in the sky with no flight training.

Non whites are beginning to sense the negative implications of white identity and it will be interesting to see how they take it. With Trump in office many non whites are behaving like spoiled children throwing tantrums when they don't get what they want and it is pretty funny. I predict they are going to get extreme as we begin to pull out and things start to get worse for them.

We live in interesting times.

Kevin MacDonald #racist caesartort.blogspot.com

[Chechar quotes white nationalist author Kevin MacDonald on Jews]

TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[...]

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

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

fmko ( ??????????????) #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Since atheists believe in evolution, why is the Jonah in the whale not plausible?

how are atheists sure there were no fish large enough for a man to be inside a whale without harm coming to him...is it possible for a fish like that to exist then become extinct in the grand scheme of evolution...evolution has no purpose or mind...why couldn't a large fish exist that would be able to carry a man in his stomach...or in another sack within the belly of a whale without harm...would atheists say its not evolutionarily possible and then turn around and say evolution has no purpose...besides don't atheists just say all miracles are "coincidence"...is it not coincidently possible or plausible for a different type of large fish live in the time of Noah that swallowed him and spit in on shore of his destination...if you want to say there is no evidence of a fish like that...i thought all fossils are proof of evolution...thats why we don't have transitional fossils for man...just pieces of bones while having full skeletons for dinosaurs...or does the atheists mind stop being open when it comes to religion and possibilities...showing the true closed mindedness of atheists...

Steed #racist englisc-gateway.com

I believe Judeo-Christianity has always been a control mechanism to pave the way for conquering Europe. There is no doubt that had Europe remained Pagan we would not be under Zionist occupation as we are today (and thus our nations would not be multi-cultural, multi-racial ones). Heathenry teaches kinship with your ancestors, Christianity teaches kinship with every human being on Earth.

That said, the reason our people adopted Christianity as our own is because it appealed to an ancient concept within our blood - that of the 'saviour'. There is such a notion as the Aryan Krist. So essentially, what the Romans and Jews did to subdue us was to wrap their non-European religion in an outer shell which appealed to deeply-held archetypes within our race soul such as the (Aryan) saviour. It is because of this that I don't blame our people who cling to Christianity (as many of my own ancestors did). They were and are drawn to the religion by its very English/Pagan values (whether they know that or not) but unfortunately they fail to identify the Judaic, non-European aspects of it and how harmful those aspects are to our national and individual identity.

In short, Christianity has good and bad aspects intertwined.
The good parts = Heathen and indigenous
The bad parts = Judaic and alien

Svarog123 #fundie reddit.com

There is nothing inherently harmful or immoral about having sex with children CMV

There are a number of arguments used by proponents of the prevailing cultural mythology on the subject:

1. Children are psychologically damaged by sexual activity

Sex is an inherently pleasurable activity- the claim that children are inherently "harmed" or "traumatized" by sex is demonstrably false, supported by no scientific research, and is essentially absurd, as children are not asexual (a point I will address later).

"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."

Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 34, 237-255.

The Rind meta-analysis is peer-reviewed, and its conclusion has not been discredited to date.

Often, when psychological damage does occur, it is not the result of the act itself, but rather the result of society's reaction to it:

Nelson's relationship marked "the happiest period of [her] life." "When I was a child I experienced an ongoing incestuous relationship that seemed to me to be caring and beneficial in nature. There were love and healthy self-actualization in what I perceived to be a safe environment. Suddenly one day I discerned from playground talk at school that what I was doing might be "bad". Fearing that I might, indeed, be a "bad" person, I went to my mother for reassurance. The ensuing traumatic incidents of that day inaugurated a 30-year period of psychological and emotional dysfunction that reduced family communication to mere utilitarian process and established severe limits on my subsequent developmental journey."

Sexologist Joan A. Nelson in Children and Sex, on her relationship with an adult cousin at 8 years of age December, 1981

In other words, if the prevailing belief was not that having sex as a child is the worst thing that could possibly happen, psychological issues stemming from childhood sexual experience would lessen drastically.

2. Children are essentially asexual

This is false. The orgasmic reflex develops in the womb:

"We recently observed a female fetus at 32 weeks' gestation touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested.

We observed this behavior for about 20 minutes. The mother was an active and interested witness, conversing with observers about her child's experience.

Evidence of male fetuses' excitement reflex in utero, such as erection or ?masturbation” movements, has been previously reported.

The current observation seems to show not only that the excitement reflex can be evoked in female fetuses at the third trimester of gestation but also that the orgasmic reflex can be elicited during intrauterine life. This would agree with the physiologic features of female sexuality: The female sexual response is separate from reproductive functions and doesn't need a full sexual maturity to be explicit."

Giorgi, Giorgio, and Siccardi, Marco (1996). "Ultrasonographic observation of a female fetus' sexual behavior in utero," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 3(1, part 1), 753.

"In a 1999 study of undergraduate students, 5.2% of females and 12.8% of males reported having engaged in sex play with their peers involving genital contact before elementary school, and that 1.3% of girls and 4.0% of boys had engaged in sex play involving anal/genital insertion (with objects or fingers) or oral-genital intercourse before elementary school. By the end of elementary school, the numbers increased to 29.2% for females and 32.9% for males for genital contact and 12.3 for girls and 10.1% for boys for insertion or oral sex. Very little pressure and almost no coercion were reported."

Reynolds, M.A., Herbenick, D. L., & Bancroft, J. (2003). The nature of childhood sexual experiences: Two studies 50 years apart. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual Development in Childhood (pp. 134-155). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

If children masturbate, orgasm, and have sex with each other, it is absurd to claim they are asexual.

3. Children cannot consent, and therefore having sex with children is rape, and we all know rape is harmful and immoral

Consent refers to the provision of agreement- if children are capable of initiating sexual activity, it is nonsensical to claim they cannot consent to it.

For example, in the animal kingdom, which has no taboo on childhood sexuality, sex between adult and children is common:

"Both adult males and females interact sexually with adolescents and juveniles (three-to-nine-year-olds). In fact, young females go through a five-to-six-year period sometimes referred to as ADOLESCENT STERILITY (although no pathology is involved) during which they actively participate in heterosexual mating (often with adults) but never get pregnant. Sexual behavior between adults and infants of both sexes is common - about a third of the time it is initiated by the infant and may involve genital rubbing and full copulatory postures (including penetration of an adult female by a male infant). (Biological Exuberance - 274)

Who is raping whom when the infant initiate sexual activity? Does the infant rape itself or does the adult rape the infant by not denying it sexual gratification?

3a. Children lack the ability to make informed consent

Sex is not some kind of complex and incomprehensible activity that requires a lot of knowledge to preform correctly- it is one of the simplest things in existence. Animals surely don't "understand" what sex is, yet it would be absurd to say all sex between animals is harmful or immoral.

5. This thread is disgusting and so are you.

This is not an argument.

Note that even though there is nothing inherently harmful about having sex with children, in our sex-negative culture, it very often is- see Joan A Nelson's quote above for an example. The harm did not come about from the sex itself, but from society's reaction to it- but regardless, it is still grossly immoral to risk ruining a child's life for the sake of an orgasm, even if the damage comes from iatrogenic sources.

So I'm not saying it's OK to have sex with children in this day and age- it most certainly is not. But the only reason it isn't is because of society's hysterical, unscientific, and maladaptive attitude towards this subject- if this were different, I see no reason why engaging in a harmless and mutually pleasurable activity with a child would be either harmful or immoral.

lukestarboi87 #racist reddit.com

I am an originalist in every sense. I want all non-Europeans to be deported to their lands of ancestry (with the exception of natives, who I would be fine with if they stayed here, as Americans allowed in the 1800s, though they did not particularly like them. I'm on the edge with blacks. They are detrimental to American and European society, but the Europeans brought blacks with them to America). I want only men to vote. I want there to be a de facto (not de jure) state religion of Christianity (since America had so many protestant denominations comprising it in its beginning, I will not set a denomination). I want many of the modern-day amendments to be reversed (so basically anything after the Civil War, but that would be quite damaging, so I may change my view to everything being alright provided it was passed before the end of Teddy Roosevelt's second term in office, and keeping the amendment prohibiting people from holding the presidential office more than twice since people no longer respect the founding fathers and must be bound by law instead of their own consciences). But the point is, every moment of our country's prosperity was when it was effectively a white ethnostate, though unofficially. Once we started letting in an abundance of nonwhites and afforded them even the smallest amount of political power, our country started going down the toilet.

So yes, an American constitutional republic would work perfectly in a white ethnostate. Since the American republic has become more corrupt and worsened with the amount of non-European whites in the country, surely having European whites alone would begin to solve problems.

Keith #conspiracy mondoweiss.net

It is primarily because of Zionist Jews. If it was possible to divide Jews into groups of Zionist versus non-Zionist and to compile demographic statistics, I think that you would find that the majority of the Jewish elite were Zionists. And that Zionism and Israel was the basis for the kinship solidarity which gave an added boost to their careers and fortunes.

And since it is the elites which determine the cultural support, this cultural support for Israel and Zionism has powerful support within the system. Support which is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Anna S. #fundie destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com

What is Cultural Marxism?
Why "destory" in the URL? Well, because the purpose of this site is to de-story, to deconstruct, the nefarious anti-Western ideology of Cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism has been dubbed "the greatest cancer in the Western world" but few even know what it is.

Definition of Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration, assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.

Notable Cultural Marxists: Antonio Gramsci, Horkheimer and Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Franz Boas, Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu), Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and Others

Concepts to oppose Cultural Marxism:

Genophilia: The love of one's own race. A natural instinct that Cultural Marxists want to deny (at least for whites).

Identitarian Religion: An older form of religion that stresses ancestral obligations. Adamantly opposed by Christian Cultural Marxists (at least for whites). Throughout nearly all human history, identitarian religion (aka, ethno-religion), has been the norm.

Leukophobia: The irrational fear of whites organizing racially.

Nation: The very word 'nation' (from Latin 'nasci') implies link by blood. The traditional (non-Marxist) understanding of nation implies racial homogeneity. (Until very recently Europe has always been racially homogenous and USA, in 1960 census, was 90% white.)

Notable Quotes:

"The very essence of Cultural Marxism is the support of mass immigration / open borders."

"The end goal of Cultural Marxists is white genocide."

"Political correctness is Cultural Marxism."

"Cultural Marxists have taken over the institutions of the media, education, mainstream Christianity (conservative and liberal), law, and finance. Their goal is the annihilation of Western Civilization in general and white people in particular."

various commenters #fundie incels.co

(uninstall)

Lol this Made Me Lol So Hard tbh

image

(Redpill Robert)
LOL pretty much. Even Tyrones (or Leroy's rather) in the 1850's had it much better than wagecucks today. Their food and living quarters were provided for and most of them were fucking massa's wife and other white wimminz on the downlow.

(mylifeistrash)
fun fact:

wage cucks made slaves overpriced and inefficient.

see, you have to pay for the slaves housing and medical.

(Musiccel)
also slaves dont buy comodities like expensive food, cellphones, cars etc (of course if it existed at the time) so basically the slaves were producing shit for no one to buy,capitalism is so fucked up that only ended slavery because it was not viable anymore

(ion)
Something is wrong when people working full-time can't afford their own house or family.

At least in N. Korea if you work, then you get your own house and family. Ethnostate, no feminist laws, strong community bonds, very low crime. Even with trade emargos and being a self-sufficient country, they're very advanced, much moreso than most capitalist third-world countries. Why do we hear propaganda about how NK is a shithole but not African countries? The west doesn't want you to ever view (national) socialism in a positive light. Cold war propaganda is still very present up to this day, and it's very much alive in the mind's of US citizens, even young ones.

(IsolationHurts)
I think it can seem seducing from an incel perspective, but even normies need more than that. I would move to North Korea if i could, no kidding. The only foreigner who works for the North Korean communist party is a Spaniard: Alejandro Cao de Benos ... I have read everything he has written, and I have seen all the interviews on YouTube, and according to him it is not possible for foreigners to live There, he was an exception. He talks about how different women are there: they do not value material goods, physical beauty ... but honor and hard work. I know it's just propaganda, but ... anything for a woman, some validation and a sense of belonging.

(ion)
Yeah I don't like the lack of freedom in general, that's the bad part about NK, but there is much to be admired about their economic/social system. The lack of freedom is commonly exaggerated though.

Yeah they're an ethnostate, you have to be born racially Korean, or you will never be accepted as one of them. Not that I see anything wrong with this.

This woman defected to South Korea and then came back to the North. People will say this is propaganda, but I think this is how she genuinely feels. Imagine never experiencing a capitalist society before, and then finding out that everything is about money.

"In a place like South Korea where money is all that matters [..] only find jobs that involved so much mental and physical pain. Everyday living in the South Korean society was like hell"

South Korea has second highest suicide rate in the world. Is it that hard to believe this is how she really feels? She never experienced a capitalist society before.

(uninstall)
it's legit OGRE for Japan and S.Korea

livign their as an incel male has to be the most depressing ever

it's legit the land of depressed anime and starcraft 2 addicts

(IsolationHurts)
Yeah, i know. Most people from N.K. end up depressed and suicidal after some months in our decadent western culture, as it exists in S.K., where capitalism and western culture are fully embraced by their government. The opinions of the north koreans help to see our culture from outside: a culture in wich human relationships doesnt matter, money, power and looks are everything, there is a massive inequality and a minority of the population are complete outcasts...
Anyway, i would happily renounce to my free will, speech and thought, and all my rights, if i was guaranteed a caring, young wife. People like me vote extremists in their countries (lol) and there are more and more in my country. I hope something changes.

lvb-rocks #fundie moonbattery.com

The Catholic Church expressly calls in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination grave sins for the very reasons being debated in this thread -- messing with human conception, starting with artificial birth control, opens the door to the very problems we face today -- abortion, embryonic research and disposal, etc. The encyclical, Humanae Vitae (1968), has been vindicated to the letter for its wisdom and prophetic vision. It is undeniable that the Church's stance on Human Life is correct moral, ethical, psychological and physical teaching for the benefit of society and the happiness of the individual.

Saw a bumper sticker that I'm sure the lefties here would love: '6 Billion Miracles Are Enough.' That sums up the difference between the two sides on the issue of the sanctity and value of human life. Why liberals need to profess their philosophy in the form of dozens of bumper stickers is beyond me, but this one displayed such hubris that it really stood out. A friend said that the driver (a woman in her 20s) must have had some real issues -- I said that the issue may simply have been that she attended the local university.

It really is a battle between the culture of life and the culture of death. Think about it, the Catholic Church sees fit to utilize 2000 years of true wisdom and deep philosophical history to produce profound writings on the value Life and human happiness. And the cult of progress seeks to alter or destroy life at every turn (abortion, euthanasia, duty to die, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, population control), and writes clever and shallow conjectures that appeal only to the dark mind of self-described intellectual left.

Hammarub #fundie forums.jolt.co.uk

[another poster posts about brainwaves in gey people being similar to those of straight people of the opposite sex]

Oh, here we ago, another laughable attempt to use peer-reviewed research to justify sin.

...

Second, left handed people are sinister, by definition. Check the etymology of the word.

Regarding any maladaptive impact of prayer on gays, just remember that negligible associated factors like depression, isolation, paralyzing inner conflict, and abiding, pervasive self-hatred are a small price to pay for an eternity with Christ.

DancingWithDarkness #fundie reddit.com

Of all the races, Native Americans are the most poorly adapted to modernity. Despite reasonably high intelligence, complex social structures, and having a unique, thriving culture, they never built any kind of civilization. In fact, their entire bloodline up until the arrival of whites, was about impermanence, not leaving any kind of permanent mark on the land. We need attitude now, and its entirely feasible to draw up laws that place large amount of land under reservation control, so that it isn't eaten up by corporations. In an ethnostate, you would have to simultaneously increase their sovereignty, as well as dependence on the US. For example, they need to have a solid, federal education system on the reservation in order to be able to move between and function in the two entities. The Red's love of and dependence on alcohol is even greater than that of the Celt, so increased federal DEA presence is a necessity. Likewise, you'd have to modify or complete get rid of certain laws that allow corporations to take advantage of things like imminent domain and tax evasion.

Unknown author #fundie creationworldview.org

Evolutionists do not want us to teach in our public schools the science that shows the validity of creation. They want us to teach only their (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling) "Just So Stories."

Personally, I believe that we should teach evolution side-by-side with creation giving equal scientific emphasis and have our students learn to think critically. Let us show them both and allow them to decide for themselves which one they will believe because origins is a faith position. Evolutionists reject this two model approach to teaching about origins because they inherently know that they will lose every time.

If they will not allow the teaching in our public schools of the science to support creation and adamantly defend the teaching of evolution only, that is fine with me - as long as we teach the students more about evolution than the evolutionists do. If we teach students ALL about evolution then they will realize that evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

The solution to evolution is education!

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about the implications of the Laws of Science, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how these Laws disprove evolution. Please allow us to teach the truth about the whole and complete nature of natural processes, like photosynthesis and metamorphosis, and how these could not possibly come into existence by random chance. Please allow us to teach the truth about what is really in the ground, like the out of order layers and polystrate fossils, as opposed to what evolutionists say is in the ground.

Please allow us to teach the truth about the hoaxes and frauds that have been authenticated and perpetuated by evolutionists then later had to be retracted. Please allow us to teach the truth about: Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, English Peppered Moths, the Horse Series, Pithecanthropus alalus, Galapagos Finch Beaks, embryonic recapitulation and the Monera.

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about how the acceptance of evolution is the foundational justification to promote: human racism, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, pornography, and all the other immoral and unethical activities within our society.

Yes, I am convinced! We need to teach more about evolution in our public schools, not less!

With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is wrong with evolution.

1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.

2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We discover new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)

3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)

4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.

5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from non-living material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.

6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the upward progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.

7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.

8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older" layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.

10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.

11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.

12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.

13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artists depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artists illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.

14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feats of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all ages of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.

15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.

16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.

17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.

18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.

19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.

20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.

21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.

22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.

24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.

25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).

26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communication system.

27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.

28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.

29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!

30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.

Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?

A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!

That is what is so important about it and why evolutionists cling to their faith position concerning it. Evolution is a religion of conveniences. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which people may mentally justify that there is no God. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which they may mentally justify that they may lead a sinless life with Jesus Christ. The Bible declares that this is manifest delusion.

Hunter Wallace #fundie occidentaldissent.com

[From "CofCC: Under the Microscope"]

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

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

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

CofCC

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

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

Pros and Cons

1.) I would rather start my own organization.

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker #racist amren.com

Something else is an exclusively White Ethnostate which has as its fundamental and unbreakable foundation, a new system of government that places the preservation of White European people as its #1, non-negotiable, most important criteria.

And, which prohibits residency of race treasonous white cockroaches like Juan McCain, Lindsey Graham, the entire despicably evil Bush family, the equally race traitorous Paul family, and every other one of these RINOs and Neo-Cons who've been supporting open borders immigration policies and the deliberate, genocidal, race replacement policies of the multi-cultural enemy, who's identity we all are so keenly aware of, but are not supposed to ever name.

Oh, and Mr. Engelman is also included on the list of prohibited residency applicants.

Andrew Hamilton #racist counter-currents.com

The idea of racial dominance was advanced by WASP physical anthropologist Carleton Coon, professor at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania

...

My dog was dominant in the sense described by Coon. Every time he interacted with strange dogs, regardless of breed, he would assume a menacing air and the other dogs would immediately submit, lowering themselves and making a whimpering sound. I never observed an instance where this did not occur.

A similar dominance-docility relation exists between Jews and whites. Whites are submissive—embarrassingly so. There is also a strange—frankly, disgusting—sado-masochistic component, with Jews the hate-filled sadists and whites the adoring masochists.

...

Though Jews are dominant over whites, we are superior. As William Pierce noted, our race does an overall better job excelling in every field of endeavor: literature, engineering, painting and sculpture, astronomy, building cities and roads, and exploring new lands.

Though Jewish dominance is visible in face-to-face exchanges, it is especially noticeable in the social, cultural, ideological, and institutional realms. In any assemblage or organization, Jews, given sufficient numbers and time—they can work ceaselessly for specific objectives over much longer time periods (generations, even) than whites—will get their collective way on matters of importance to them. This is true in entire societies as well.

We might say that population dominance is achieved through control of culture. A dominant race creates and shapes the social, psychological, and behavioral environment to which subject races must adapt. The dominant group creates an environment, a culture, advantageous to its members but exploitative of and maladaptive to subordinate races. Jews have gone so far as to strive for the extinction of whites, despite formulating the laws that made genocide an international crime against humanity. They routinely ignore and violate law whenever it suits their purpose.

...

It seems possible that the Ashkenazim represent a particularly virulent strain . . . which is saying a lot. They are driven by a burning hatred no Gentile can fully comprehend. (Strangely, most Gentiles remain completely oblivious to it even when it strikes them in the face.)

...

Once one race successfully asserts its dominance over another, it distorts the normal cultural and biological processes of the lower group. A socialization process alters the latter’s leadership cadre. Natural leaders are deemed inimical to the interests of the ruling class and are eliminated—even murdered at times, as Pizarro murdered the Inca emperor Atahualpa or the Communists massacred the Polish Officer Corps in 1940—while the fortunes of ambitious, sufficiently talented and energetic individuals willing to work against the vital interests of their own people are advanced.

As a result, Gentiles worldwide have fallen victim to the exteriorization of the closed, narrow-minded, bigoted, bitter, hateful, violent, criminal, dogmatic, intolerant, superstitious, filthy mentality of the shtetl, ghetto, and synagogue.

One far-reaching difference between Jewish rule and white rule, despite the careless use of the word “genocide,” is that whites never intended to physically exterminate native peoples. If that had been their goal, the subject races would no longer exist. (Some demographically small subpopulations did disappear.)

Instead, non-white races grew quickly, at least until recently, when modern techniques of population reduction were imposed on a global scale through so-called “birth control” and “family planning” measures. But this was done under Jewish auspices, not white, because we were no longer in command of our own destiny, never mind anybody else’s.

Yet Jews, drunk on the self-generated fury of their socially-constructed Holocaust religion, do have the intention of committing genocide.

Any meaningful effort to stop them must take racial dominance into account and devise methods to successfully thwart and overcome it. This means identifying pressure points and unique vulnerabilities, as well as strengths, in both races and targeting or compensating for them respectively. It is a practical problem requiring imaginative solutions.

One precept entailed by dominance analysis is that it is vital to correctly identify and confront the Main Enemy in order to solve our racial problems (independence and survival). Conceptually speaking, that is no small contribution. Blacks, Mestizos, Arabs, and Asians are all secondary. As William Pierce stated, we are heading for extinction because Jews are paralyzing our will and ability to resist annihilation. In an environment without Jews, “We can whip every other race with both hands tied behind our backs. . . . . We must do something about the Jews—soon. And clearly the key to getting the Jews off our backs is to regain control of our mass media.”

Germany briefly demonstrated that successful opposition to Jews by whites might be possible, as did Spain and Portugal in the 15th century. As the second most dominant race on earth, whites are in a better position than anyone else to halt the destructive process. First, though, we must marshal the determination and ingenuity to do so.

Cretus clawfinger #racist reddit.com

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

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

JackGetsIt #racist reddit.com

All those systems failed because they attempted to use the state to keep one ethnicity oppressed/segregated. That just doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that white people are very empathetic even pathologically altruistic.

Therefore, all you had to do to break apartheid, Jim crow south and English colonization is massive non violent protest which can easily be organized with a few communist infiltrators. South Africa and the American South were basically shamed and guilted by the rest of the world to give up their power and it all starts with communist subversion.

So if the Alt right wants an ethnostate it can't be a South Africa model it has to be an Israel Model. I.e. strict marriage laws, white only birthright citizenship, and tightly controlled borders.
So you can't really go back to a US ethnostate dream you have to find a part of the country (PNW?) that's 90% white and create a new constitution that from the get go controls borders and slowly eliminates non whites through very passive methods. You also have to force employers not to import cheap non citizen labor.
Let's call this new state 'Cascadia.'

Another tactic I'd use is to allow
white Cascadians to marry non whites on the condition that their children do not get voting citizenship until they grow up and marry a Cascadian. So if you do choose to have a mixed race child you're taking a risk; if they don't assimilate and don't get a citizen to marry them they have to live in society as non voting citizen until they have skin in the game (being married to a voting citizen). The children of those couples would get full citizenship because they are 75% white.
This seems like the most flexible non aggressive way to protect white demographic trends while at the same time not turning into a dangerous purity spiral.

If anyone is worried about non whites being mistreated that's bullshit. We have lot's of non-voting people on green cards in the US now and they aren't mistreated at all.

I would even be up for allowing some non white merit based immigration under certain circumstances but they'd again live as non voting citizens until they married.

Gregory Hood #racist #wingnut amren.com

What Is to Be Done?

George Washington, Pater Patriae, won American independence through a strategy that went against his own aggressive instincts. He avoided battles with superior British forces. Instead, he attacked isolated enemy forces (as he did at the Battle of Trenton), kept his army together, and always withdrew in good order following a defeat.

If we adopt the military analogy, in 2016 and 2017, white advocates did not follow Washington’s example. Unite the Right was the equivalent of throwing colonial militia against disciplined redcoats in a pitched battle. This isn’t because marchers were defeated physically by antifa. Antifa were not the problem. Instead, city and state police deliberately failed to keep the two sides apart and used the ensuing — and inevitable — violence as an excuse to shut down the rally. In the aftermath, leftists unleashed “lawfare” — a host of crippling lawsuits — against pro-white organizations, threatening their very existence. White advocates lack the legal infrastructure — pro bono lawyers, friendly judges — to fight back. Even organizations that had nothing to do with the rally, including VDARE.com and American Renaissance, lost platforms.

The mistake at Charlottesville was understandable; just weeks before, there was a peaceful and successful Free Speech Rally. No one could have predicted that the Charlottesville chief of police would say,“Let them fight; it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.” No one imagined a woman on security would abandon her post at an intersection, so that James Fields could easily drive his car into demonstrators.

What no one imagined, we can now expect. Democrats have denounced white advocates in Congress; we weren’t invited to explain or defend ourselves. Most of the “free press” cheers deplatforming rather than defending free speech. Tennessee, a deep red state, tried to impose security costs on us for hosting a conference, as if we are the ones likely to cause violence. It took a court order to save the AmRen conference.

Just four years ago, I would roll my eyes at excitable activists predicting censorship, arrest, or imprisonment. Today, I’m happy I still have a bank account.

Set aside apocalyptic fantasies. Instead, think of ways to gain control of state and local institutions. This includes supporting movements to break up and rearrange states, localities, and school boards. This may seem fanciful, but movements are already under way that would have sounded absurd just a few years ago.

Conservative Virginia counties are flirting with seceding from the Commonwealth and joining West Virginia. There are secession movements in other states, too. In Illinois, activists want to force Chicago out of the state. In Oregon, some conservatives want the eastern counties to break away and join Idaho. Idaho governor Brad Little welcomed their efforts, making him the second governor essentially to make territorial claims on a neighboring state.

Conservative upstate New Yorkers have called for secession for decades. Former Republican congressman Randy Kuhl argues that New York’s “extreme diversity” makes it almost “ungovernable.” He probably meant the divide between New York City and rural upstate New York, but he may even be thinking about racial and political diversity. To describe any kind of “diversity” as a source of conflict is heresy.

There is also “secession” on a smaller scale. In Louisiana, mostly white communities are breaking away to form their own school districts or cities. In Georgia, white suburbs broke away from Atlanta. In Alabama, a federal judge ruled that the city of Gardenvale’s attempt to break away from a diverse school district was motivated by race. Still, she admitted it was legal.

Journalists say what conservatives dare not: This is about race.

“The School Secession Movement Is Growing. That’s Bad News for Integration,” The New Republic, October 15, 2019

“The new face of racial segregation: School ‘secession,’” CBS News, September 5, 2019

“How a ‘New Secessionist’ Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities,” The Nation, May 15, 2014

Some denounce the secession efforts in Oregon, Virginia, and Colorado. “Take it from us in SC [South Carolina] — if at first you don’t secede, don’t try again,” wrote Brian Hicks in the Charleston Post and Courier. He called the movement “a little silly” and said we should “chill out.” “Do you know what these myriad modern secession movements have in common?” he asked. “They are all led by conservatives who’ve been triggered because they aren’t getting everything they want.” In fact, the most prominent secessionist movement is “Calexit” — which would take California out of the Union — and it is led by liberals.

What does this mean for white advocates? We should take advantage of the existing political system. Rural America is losing population and is plagued by opioids. That’s where we should be, building institutions and businesses, concentrating geographically, working openly for our people, helping our neighbors, and building local political power. We may not be able to form a mini-ethnostate like Orania, but we can build something close. We can build communities where we can be safe, survive economically, and use the American constitutional system to our advantage. Secession efforts show that white Americans want self-determination, even if they aren’t willing to be explicitly racial about it yet.

What is to be done? It’s not trying to “take over” the GOP — the rise of Bernie Sanders and President Trump show that candidates can run strong campaigns without support from the party establishment, but we don’t have the power or the reach to champion a national candidate.

However, we do have the power to build non-political institutions in conservative, rural communities. We don’t want to “take over” towns. We should just be friendly citizens and be good at our jobs, just as Douglas Hyde’s Dedication and Leadership recommends. We need nursing homes to care for our elderly, gyms to strengthen our young, drug treatment plans to support addicts, credit unions for financial services, and group medical insurance. These things are all possible. With that foundation, we can survive and help struggling whites who need our help.

“White nationalism,” which is now a slur, once had a real meaning. It meant our people living free in our own communities, celebrating our heritage and undertaking great tasks. It’s utterly different from the “white supremacy” of ruling over groups or asserting that we are better than everyone. Perhaps we’ve been so focused on Washington D.C. and the electoral circus that we’ve neglected our nation. The people — not the government — is the nation. My nation is my people: white Americans.

Let’s face reality: America’s white majority has no voice in Washington. We can write, march, and post stickers all over the country. None of this matters if we don’t have a strong home base where we are building real communities based on peace and productivity, not fantasy and rhetoric.

Wherever you are in life, whether you’re a father like me or a college student, examine the path you’re on. If we really want a safe white community and ultimately a proud, productive white country, we need to take risks and make sacrifices. Build networks, concentrate in rural areas, create businesses that can support friends and fend off any attempt to get us fired. Let’s build the world we want from that ground up by uniting and building peaceful, effective systems that will improve our lives individually and strengthen us collectively.

In the second-best speech I ever heard Jared Taylor give (the best being the one in Budapest), he said that one day we will have a place on this continent that is ours, and only ours. Many are willing to suffer or die for this, but I’m asking you to live and work for it. Treat other races with respect, fulfill your obligations as citizens, obey the law. Yet every day, act as if our true homeland already exists. We achieve our homeland by building it from the ground up, within the existing system. Let’s show the millions of whites who already agree with us that it’s not just possible, but a reality. If they shut us down with violence, our example will only inspire others.

In the past, there have been times where I wanted to quit and be “normal.” Today, such thoughts make me sick. How can we say that we are afraid when we see what our ancestors achieved? How can I, or any of us, shirk duty?

We must possess an unshakeable faith that our cause is moral, our victory inevitable, and our future glorious. In the name of the best within us, let’s show the world what People of Light can do, not online, not in Washington D.C., but in the places where our people need our help and need a voice to speak for them. I hope I will see you out there soon. The opportunity is here. Let’s seize it before we lose this race against time.

arete #racist stormfront.org

Re: What's the difference between black features and white features?

If you want to get philosophical and deep about it, there are many things, but I'll just mention three things.

1. Symmetry - It's always been known that symmetry is an aspect of beauty since the ancient Greeks. The European nose I think is more attractive because it adds an element of symmetry. And the long face also adds to this ideal.
2. Proportion - Similar to symmetry is that of proportion. We're a race that is middling. And the divine proportion, also discovered and advocated by our people is the golden mean. We are the golden mean between the other main races (Blacks/Asians). Think of the three little bears, not too hot and not too cold. Just right. Whites have a since of proportion, which is why we can occupy every niche that a human can occupy. But our bodies are also very proportional. We aren't squat or dangly. Our hair isn't a matte of pubes, nor is it so fine that it can't have some curliness now and then. Facial hair allows a White man to have a baby-face or grow a beard and look like a rough manly man. And so on and on when it comes to proportion.
3. Whiteness - I used to think this was a non-issue, but have completely changed my mind on it. Whiteness is seen by everyone as an archetype of various good attributes. I'm on the fence as to whether Whites became White because we were good (evolutionarily or religiously), or whether it's just a genetic quirk that happens to be considered more attractive, and therefore flourished on one group, with no deeper meaning involved.

There are many other things, but these are some examples.

Ken Ham and minions #fundie slate.com

Creationists are on a campaign to “take dinosaurs back.” Earlier this year, the creationist crackpot Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis—the organization that established the fundamentalist funhouse called the Creation Museum—said, “Dinosaurs have been held hostage for decades” by his mortal enemy, the nefarious “secular humanists.” Ham is determined to appropriate dinosaurs for biblical literalists. (The organization’s website even sells a “We’re taking dinosaurs back!” bumper sticker.)
This isn’t about science. It’s about marketing. Ham is sore that natural history museums—many of which actually run research programs and contribute new facts and hypotheses to our understanding of prehistoric life, unlike the Creation Museum—use dinosaurs to help visitors learn about the evolution of what Charles Darwin called “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful.” Why should people who accept natural selection and geologic time have all the fun? Creationists, in Ham’s view, should use dinosaurs as star attractions to get the public to imbibe the religious swill he and his organization peddle.

Dinosaurs are unlikely symbols of religious fundamentalism. The first dinosaurs evolved about 230 million years ago, and, with the exception of birds, perished about 66 million years ago. Archaic humans didn’t originate until 60 million years later, so it’s not surprising that Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and kin aren’t mentioned in the Bible. Of course, Ham and like-minded literalists would beg to differ. Non-avian dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of creation week 6,000 years ago, with birds being brought into existence on Day 5 (which is out of order with the fossil record). Creationists also fervently believe that Behemoth and Leviathan of the Old Testament were actually dinosaurs, all scientific and historical evidence to the contrary. I’ve never seen creationists propose that we lived in a Dinotopia per se, but a saddle-bearing dinosaur at the Creation Museum is meant not as a fanciful kiddy ride but as a historical reconstruction.

But dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham’s amusement park. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record. There’s plenty of reason for creationists to abhor dinosaur feathers. The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many “bird” traits were widely shared among non-avian dinosaurs, are among the most gorgeous examples of evolutionary change yet found. Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur’s kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds. Not surprisingly, creationist groups like Answers in Genesis don’t feature feathery dinosaurs in their literature and museum exhibits. Instead, they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.

cosmicgirl #racist stormfront.org

Conversely, females of the brown and black species-races can't stop putting out and crapping litters of goblins. Anyway, i think that Jewish population hovers at 2 percent per region, is because this helps to keep the jew network in place, and helps to keep them 'obscure' and seen as 'merely harmless little jew oddkins', while also ensuring that their reach of influence is as global as possible. If jews completely hemmed themselves into one ethnostate, then it could easily be surrounded, and another 'loller cost' would inevitably happen (allegedly). Also, if they remain spread out (and/or also stealth about who is and isn't a jew) then it is likely that, in the event that we whites wake up and defend ourselves as a species-race, then there is less chance of them being entirely rooted out and done away with, both in terms of species-race, and in terms of reach of power and influence.

After all, if one is not able to be readily pegged as a jew by anyone else, but one knows that oneself is a jew anyway, then once the pieces stop falling, the process of infiltration and long-spanning shenanigans can begin, all over again. This allows them to (to a degree) hide out in white or mildly arabic nations, and foist the consequences of their actions onto the host populace (usually whites) within the region. White inborn ideology and nobility is also exploited, and words are arranged to distract and imp-lie what the jew wishes to misconstrue or make happen. The Jew in modern times is a big fan of things like political discourse, psycho-ology, and ed-jew-cation, because with these arcane things, the jew now knows that they can speak spells of implication, and make white people do their bidding, take their blame, and even become geno-suicidal. This now frees up alot of effort on the part of jews, and allows them to think up, and enact even greater vile actions of ruination upon their hated blood enemy, we Whites.

Imagine it from the jewish perspective (viciously disgusting, i know, but, just for a minute ?); you have no morality, no higher purpose other than wanton revenge, and to rule the world right back into the ground it was built on, and suddenly, circa ww1 and ww2, after thousands of years of getting (inexplicably and repeatedly) one-upped, you discover that your enemies Big Magic, also works on him, even more so than you or the brown and black races. Suddenly, with your enemies grimoires of education and development, he is at your complete mercy; make him dance funny, sing your race's songs and poems, and yes, even make him throw himself on his own sword. All it takes, is the right sorts of words, to cast his own spells upon him. What sort of devilish fun would jew-you have, now that your most intractably hated foe, has become your most entertainingly useful newest minion ?

Donttreadonme78 #fundie reddit.com

Start by creating a lower class comprised of those who are mentally/spiritually weak (atheists, homosexuals/sodomites). Establish a "basic income" for these people (who are now all equal with one another) with strings attached: they have to undergo rigorous Biblical education that trains them spiritually and instills patriotism, strong feelings of national pride and kinship. Those who fail to transition into this type of society (those who rebel/reject their teachings) will be either hung or stoned to death by their peers.

This subclass will be unable to vote or own property but will have guaranteed quality of life, work and lifelong purpose handed down to them from above in accordance with the roles that they are needed to fulfill at a given time.

The upper classes will be comprised of self-actualized, Christian men who have been determined (by a battery of spiritual and psychological testing) to be fit to partake in the running of the economy (free market / capitalist), government (free and democratic), and so on. About 30 to 40% of the population will make up the higher classes (though unclean or non-Christian behavior will warrant being stripped of wealth and land and placed in the lower classes).

The constitution will be the result of ongoing intellectual discussion and debate around Biblical scripture which will serve the foundation of all society. It will be through this interpretation and discussion that the purpose of the subclass will be constantly redefined/adjusted (in times of war/expansion this underclass would fight, in times of peace they would work for greater good).

This is kind of a Spark Notes version but you get the idea.

Peter Bradley #racist vdare.com

Of course, the most important parts of Alien Nation had to do with race. In Chapter Three, Brimelow made the point that, although immigration was always controlled and limited, it was almost entirely from Europe. This meant that white America was continually being reinforced by its immigration policy, until 1965. But by the 1980s, immigrants from Europe were only around ten percent of all immigrants.

This was not due to lack of interest from Europeans. Quotas were set by Congress that purposefully favored the Third World in US immigration policy. Again, most people know very little about how immigration works. How many people (apart from VDARE.com readers) realize that today’s policy massively favors non-whites over whites and has done so for over 50 years?

All of which means that whites are on the road to minority status in the nation they created. He wrote that whites are estimated to be 64 percent in 2020. Well, 2020 is indeed here and we are currently at 60.4 percent of the population (2019 figures). The most recent estimates are that whites will hit minority status by 2042 and comprise only 46 percent of the US by 2060. And even these stark numbers may seem too optimistic in another 25 years. Democrats and many Republicans support Amnesties for illegals and want legal immigration increased.

Why does this matter? Because, as Brimelow noted, “race and ethnicity are destiny in American politics.”

Alien Nation has a wealth of data and analysis on how changing demographics will impact things such as politics, crime, Affirmative Action, healthcare, welfare, the economy, the environment and other aspects of American life. As whites are finding out, none of this is good for them.

One thing Brimelow didn’t seem to predict explicitly in the book is the massive increase in anti-white hatred over the past 25 years. But to be fair, he did discuss the failure of multiracial nations to hold together due to racial acrimony.

It may seem somewhat secondary to most, but the most memorable part of Alien Nation to me was where Brimelow describes the immigration policies of other countries–some of whom send a great number of their people to the US. He called embassies from various countries and asked how he himself could go about immigrating to their nations. Bemused officials—often after letting out a laugh—were blunt in their replies. Here are just a few examples:

Japan: “Why do you want to emigrate to Japan? … There is no immigration to Japan.”

China: “China does not accept any immigrants. We have a large enough population.”

Philippines: “You need to be married to a Filipino or have capital to invest.”

Taiwan: “You need Taiwanese relatives by blood or marriage or investment capital.”

Egypt: “Egypt is not an immigrant country. We do not permit immigrants.”

India: “Since you are not of Indian origin, while it is not impossible for you to immigrate to India, it is a very difficult, very complex and a very, very long process.”

South Korea: “Korea does not accept immigrants.”

This part had the same effect on me 25 years ago as it does today. For all the talk of immigration, no borders, refugees and a multiracial society being inevitable, non-whites are batting a thousand when it comes to stopping all of this. Not only are they never called racist for not allowing any immigration of other races, their co-racialists, once settled in white nations, are only too happy to lecture whites about “racism.” All while vigorously supporting and identifying with their own ethnostates, of course.

But it’s not as if the US is race-blind when it comes to immigration policy, Brimelow pointed out. The US government allows its overseas territories of American Samoa, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, the Marianas, and Palau to set their own immigration policies. Remarkably enough, these territories are not seeking diversity and multiracialism through immigration. Samoa and the Marianas don’t even allow US citizens to own land unless they are of islander ancestry.

“The world is laughing at America,” Brimelow wrote. Perhaps they are right to laugh at such easy marks.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

There's glaring holes in the left's philosophy on segregation. The most obvious being their belief that every single racial group on this planet is inherently biologically equal in every way - at least when it comes to cognitive ability, since they don't seem to really get too worked up over the argument that blacks make the best sprinters and long-distance runners.

If every single race on this planet really was biologically equal in every way and the racial differences that we observe were merely the result of cultural, historical, and environmental influences (almost all of which, according to the left, ultimately boil down to White people being at fault), then what's the argument against racial segregation in the modern era?

If blacks and Hispanics are just as innately capable as Whites and East Asians of building and maintaining highly advanced societies with good schools, a diverse array of private businesses like tech companies and car manufacturers, and competent governance, then why would the creation of a black ethnostate within the Americas or Africa be a bad thing?

After all, both blacks and White shitlibs are constantly whinging about White privilege, racist cops, racist juries, racist judges, racist teachers and school administrators that are unfairly disciplining and marking down black students, racist university faculties that are discriminating against black students and black faculty, racist hiring practices and portrayals of blacks in the media, racist award ceremonies, et cetera. That's a lot of systematic anti-black racism!

White privilege and anti-black racism is not only systematic but omnipresent in the leftist worldview. And according to mainstream leftist philosophy on racism, every single White person on this planet is inherently and incurably racist. So, if you actually believed that, then why on Earth would you want to subject black people to that sort of racist oppression by forcing them to live in the same societies as Whites? I mean, even in South Africa where Whites now only comprise about 8% of the population, White shitlibs and blacks are still constantly whinging about inherent White supremacy and White privilege horribly affecting black South Africans - which implies that those problems will pretty much always exist as long as White people are still around, even in very small numbers.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to help blacks to completely escape the evaaal clutches of Whiteness by helping them to create their own ethnostate where they'd be free to have their own police force, their own courts, their own education system, their own financial and business sectors, their own media, their own government, and their own culture?

Of course I'm not the first person to make these points. Segregationists made these same exact arguments several decades ago, and the left responded to them by arguing that the separate but equal policies of the American segregation system still discriminated against blacks in numerous ways. For example, I remember being brainwashed in school about how black schools would receive the worn down chalk and old text books of White schools under these separate but equal policies. And the desegregationists argued that Whites had free access to all of the best agricultural land, businesses, schools, and government institutions under segregation - which made black inequality and failure inevitable.

Well, what if we could fix all of those problems by ensuring that black schools received not only the same amount of funding per student, but even more funding per student than White students? What if we ensured that this black ethnostate had access to arable land, trade ports, and natural resources? And what if we Whites agreed to give this black ethnostate a huge amount of financial and technological aid every single year in order to ensure that they had a good economy? And what if we agreed to do this for the next 500 years in order to more than compensate for the legacy of colonization, slavery, and discrimination? How would that be immoral or oppressive towards blacks in any way?

To reject that extremely generous arrangement, you'd have to lack confidence in the inherent aptitude of blacks to govern themselves and maintain a highly successful society. And that's the real underlying source of contention here. Deep down, both White libcucks and blacks know that blacks simply aren't capable of keeping up with Whites. I mean, there literally isn't a single highly successful black country anywhere in the entire world - which strongly points towards chronic black failure being biological rather than environmental. And the ugly science of intelligence testing proved that blacks really are inherently mentally inferior to Whites. And that's the dark undercurrent of this whole debate over segregation; both White shitlibs and blacks know that blacks tend to descend into 3rd world status when they're left to their own devices. And so that's why they view access to Whiteness as a fundamental human right that everyone on this planet is born with. And that's why they're so militantly opposed to segregation.

And the other dark undercurrent of this whole debate over segregation is how the left is using the concept of racism in order to destroy the White race. As I stated earlier, according to the mainstream leftist view on racism, all White people are inherently and incurably racist. And so if White racism and bigotry is the worse sin imaginable, and all White people are inherently and incurably racist and bigoted, then the only way to solve the problem of Whiteness is to completely destroy the White race and Western civilization. That's the real end goal here in this supposedly "noble" "anti-racism" (i.e., anti-White) "human rights" crusade; removing all obstacles to open borders, mass immigration, forced diversity, miscegenation, and wealth redistribution by demonizing, pathologizing, and literally criminalizing White racism and racial segregation.

Relentlessly crying about White racism and bigotry - both its omnipresent and everlasting nature - while simultaneously doing everything that you can to shove as many non-Whites as possible into White societies (including White schools) only makes sense if you lack confidence in the ability of non-Whites to create their own equally successful societies and are cynically exploiting the greatly exaggerated specter of White racism and bigotry in order to subvert the interests and very existence of the White race itself. If the races really are equal at the genetic level, and if White supremacy is an eternal evil, then you should actually support ethnonationalist movements like the Alt-Right and racial segregation in order to fully liberate black people. If you take leftist philosophy on race seriously, then opposing this form of benevolent segregation is a form of anti-black racism and oppression.

I also want to preemptively respond to anyone that would argue that agreeing to financially support this black ethnostate for hundreds of years is absolutely retarded because it would cost us billions upon billions of dollars.

Alt-Hype did a great job of estimating the fiscal impact of each race (excluding Asians) on America's annual budget. According to his very conservative estimates, blacks in America are taking at least $306.53 billion more out of the U.S. budget every single year through various handouts than they contribute through taxes. And according to his estimates, it's probably closer to $389.71 billion! And that doesn't even include our extremely generous foreign aid packages that we're sending to black countries all around the world. So, blacks are already costing us an absolute fortune every single year.

And so we'd actually probably save money if we agreed to give this black ethnostate $250 billion annually for the next 500 years. Heck, I'll be generous and agree to give blacks even more than that. How's $500 billion every year sound? Fuck it, have a full 1 trill every single year. If that's how much we have to fork over in order to entice blacks to finally get the fuck away from us, then so be it.

Also, you simply can't put a price tag on removing the cancer that is blackness from our society. We know for a fact that blacks are having a dysgenic effect on our gene pool. And according to Richard Lynn, the hidden crisis of dysgenics is affecting black Americans even more than it is White Americans. And so the chronic problems of black failure are just going to get worse and worse for us as time goes on. Jared Taylor also did an absolutely fantastic job of identifying the hidden costs of racial diversity in his opening remarks on a debate over whether or not racial diversity is a strength.

And while it's become popular to celebrate the cultural contributions of black Americans in recent decades, I don't see how it's possible for any sane and rational person to pretend that mainstream black culture (i.e., degenerate black hip hop [lack of] culture) has had a positive influence on America, Whites, or the world as a whole.

So, to White identitarians like us, preserving the uniquely beautiful White phenotype and bringing back our traditional high culture is absolutely priceless.

Sematrix #fundie reddit.com

Yep. Socialism only works in ethnically homogenous countries, and European socialism really amounts to people who see themselves as an extended family working for the common interest and good under nationalist circumstances.
Without "kinship," socialism turns into Soviet-style Communism that has to be enforced at the point of a gun and only serves a party oligarchy.

In the case of the massive and growing American welfare state, that "socialism" amounts to a massive, Big Brother debt and dependency-generating Ponzi scheme sold by international bankers and their pimps and whores. (Think of Jewish huckster Bernie Maddoff's racket, only on a militaristic and geopolitical level.) And it requires the constant hijacking of other nations and massive in-migrations to keep it propped up, and eventually and inevitably a world war to wipe all of the debt clean by fiat of total chaos and destruction -- which explains the relentless Jewish and liberal-neocon Mideast war agenda, and why they're trying for world War with Islam, Russia and China -- even as they bring in droves of Muslims, who are now targeting average Americans in a perfect distraction and opportunity for a Big Brother clampdown.

This is why, far from "humanitarians" and "progressives" that the welfare state debt pimps and Big Brother hucksters advertise themselves to be, they're actually the most murderous and misanthropic rats walking the earth.

The Jewish banker and extended Zionist crime family role in all of this also goes a long way toward explaining the tenacity of what these rat-fascist psychopaths and their whores call "anti-Semitism."

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

I honestly don't really see the point of trying to win over non-White people. I mean, our goals are unapologetically pro-White. Ultimately, our goals are to reclaim our societies and prevent non-Whites from flooding into them again in the future. Why on Earth would non-White people support those goals when keeping the White race cucked serves their racial interests?

If you think that we can convince non-Whites to come to some kind of mutually beneficial agreement where we both go our own ways and trade with each other, then you're simply wrong and dangerously naive. They want access to our societies, and they'll beat the shit of us if we try to stop them.

We always create better societies than they do, and so their standards of living will be severely harmed if we force them to live in their own societies away from us. That's why they're always going to be trying to break into our societies, and so it's our responsibility to push them out against their will.

They're not going to shake our hands and go "Okay. You guys got your society and we have ours. That sounds fair to me!" Any attempt to prevent them from piggybacking off of our success will be violently resisted. I mean, would you want to live in fucking Africa?

There's no way in fuck that blacks are ever going to respect our desire to maintain our own societies for ourselves, or agree to set up their own independent nations. Some of the more radical black nationalists might say that they want to escape supposed White oppression and live in an all-black society, but judge them by their actions. They're always trying to force their way into "White supremacist" institutions and benefit from our tax dollars.
99.99% of black nationalists are frauds, and the other 0.01% don't know enough about race realism to realize that blacks literally aren't genetically capable of creating advanced societies. They don't really want a black ethnostate because they know that it will suck because literally all black nations suck. What they really want is more gibs from us, and for us to completely bend over for them. They might want their own black enclaves, but at the same time they want us to keep giving them more free handouts rather than pursuing a goal of true independence and black self-reliance.

To the black mindset, liberation isn't the ability to escape Whiteness and gain their independence so that they're free to organically reach their full racial potential by erecting their own societies without outside influence. Liberation is unfettered access to Whiteness where they're free to marry our women, live in our neighborhoods, attend our schools, work at our businesses, and receive massive amounts of handouts from us. It's a fundamentally different mindset from we White nationalists where we genuinely want full independence from other races.
That's why you should only focus on red-pilling other Whites. They're the only people that really matter in this struggle for White independence from non-Whites. Once we've won over a majority of White people, then it won't matter what non-White people think about our desires to keep them the fuck away from us. They'll simply be forced to leave whether they like it or not.

And try to think about it this way: do you think that it's up to you or me whether or not Japan has a right to remain Japanese? Fuck no. The Japanese don't give a fuck what we think about their immigration policies because it's their country, not ours. We as White people need to have the same mindset. Who cares what non-Whites think about our desire to prevent them from living in our societies? It's not fucking up to them. If we have to seek permission from non-Whites over whether or not it's okay to maintain our own societies for ourselves, then we've already lost the war.

thealternativeright #racist #wingnut thealternativeright.wordpress.com

If you are familiar with the Alt-Right, no doubt you have heard talk of an ethnostate, many would even say the desire for an ethnostate is what defines the Alt-Right. The interesting thing about this is the talk of an ethnostate is rarely brought up by those in the Alt-Right, when in a debate, it is their opponents that constantly bring this up as a way to delegitimize the Alt-Right, not just on the idea itself but on the prosses leading to the creation of an ethnostate in particular. The argument is always, “You will have to use violence to achieve it and therefore you are condoning and promoting violence by advocating for an ethnostate!” This is, of course, intellectual dishonesty because there are many positive things in life one could want to achieve without wanting the negative that can occur along the way to achieving them and what is actually being talked about here is the actions causing others who oppose you achieving this committing acts of violence. The same argument could be made to a kid on the playground, which would be something like this… “Tommy if you stop giving Tyrone your lunch money, you know he will become violent, therefore if you stop as well as talk others into no longer handing over their money, you are condoning and even promoting violence because the violence will come as a result of your actions, therefore no longer handing over your money is an immoral and hateful act”. Beyond this, the question of “compared to what?’ should always be asked. Violence is happening right now in the current state as a result of living in a multiracial society. Therefore the narrative that is trying to frame the conversation into an act that can bring about violence vs no violence should be totally rejected.

I have seen many in the Alt-Right touch on parts of what I talked about earlier in these conversations about an ethnostate, some a lot more convincingly than others but there is one argument I have not seen anyone in the Alt-Right make, at least not coherently enough for it to be as common as it should be. I will attempt to present that argument now.

Those who oppose the idea of an ethnostate or working to change the demographics of a Country in favor of whites should be asked, “before the 1970’s the United States was around 90% white, how did the demographics change to whites only being around 65% of the population?” There are a few answers to this, the biggest reason by far is the 1965 immigration act and other policies that were set in motion to favor non-whites at the expense of whites and others that downright discriminate against whites while promoting non-whites. The question then should be, “Did this lead to violence?” We know for a fact what was done worked in favor of changing the demographics, so why couldn’t the same thing be done in reverse? If it was acceptable to implement the policies that changed the demographics at the expense of whites, why wouldn’t it be acceptable to implement the same policies in favor of whites? Whites have been expected to accept the changes that worked against them and those who violently opposed those changes were condemned as hateful, so why would it be immoral of whites to expect non-whites to accept changes that work against them and why wouldn’t the non-whites who opposed those changes likewise be condemned as hateful? Nothing would have to be done to non-whites that weren’t already done to whites. Government policies lead to the change in demographics, we already have a blueprint of how to do it because we have witnessed the effectiveness of the policies over the last 50 years, There is no reason not to believe that same blueprint wouldn’t work in reverse. And the desire to use that same blueprint in favor of whites can be no more immoral than already having used it in favor of non-whites.

Apuleius #racist occidentaldissent.com

Slavery works, despite what your Enlightenment hamster may tell you.

Some groups of people lack the intelligence and impulse control control necessary to live as free people. As a result they pose a threat to the freedom of those who are capable of freedom. Slavery is a necessary restraint on the otherwise unrestrainable.

Slavery is a check on the maladaptive and dysfunctional that at least manages to derive some good from that part of the population that would otherwise be a total drain on the society. What great civilization has not known some form of bondage?

When you free the slave, you begin to kill the society. That is what the Yankees wished to do to the South. The South refused to die. The negroes fled north and the high-minded abolitionist Yankees were ill equipped to deal with them since they had always believed in their negro-worship that the darkeys were capable of being free.

I agree with Hunter. Don’t blame slavery; blame emancipation.

Blame the Yankee penchant for social experimentation. That’s what Puritans who’ve lost their religion do. They’re even worse than niggers.

Deo Vindice

Analyst #fundie stormfront.org

Is the female "attraction" to men real?

I was watching a video recently, where Cillian Murphy, an actor, was interviewed.

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

What was interesting more than the interview itself were the viewer comments, where you could see women, some even not ugly looking, manifesting their attraction for the actor.

image

My thoughts were: this guy is average looking at the very best. What happened to the PUA claims that only the top 20% get women? Doesn't the positive response from women have more to do with the fact that he is a famous actor rather than his actual looks?

Nonwhites with status all too often find a white female who will be with them:

image

image

image

I could go on and on, but I want to spare my readers.

Brad Pitt, the hero of the PUAs, who is supposedly in the mythical "top 20%" that nobody ever claims to be in, is married to a woman who is UGLY and even CHEATED on him.

Evolutionarily, the female attraction for men has been relatively unimportant. If a female did not want to mate, she could simply be raped. Later on, she could also opt not to marry, but it was economically far more advantageous for her to marry. In other words, there has never been a strong need for women to feel physically attracted to men at all.

What percentage of male presidents, celebrities, billionaires and powerful CEOs are single?

What percentage "very good looking" men are single, even the more intelligent ones?

It seems to me that the attraction of women "mysteriously" coincides with what's socially attractive. If someone is looked upon by society (even in trashy trades like ball games), he will find women. If someone is considered a social outcast or "uncool" then he is destined to rot alone, no matter how good looking.

When women say they find a man "attractive", what do they really mean? Does physical attraction play a big role at all? Aren't most women simply "brainwashed" into thinking someone is attractive?

Mrs. Don-o #fundie freerepublic.com

Bill Muehlenberg makes some exceptionally good points here.

The issue isn’t Marriage “Equality”, it’s Marriage “Reality”. If the reality of marriage as a one-man, one-woman union oriented toward the begetting and raising of a family, and committed for life, isn’t recognized, it will be deconstructed to the point of total dismemberment.

Of course, I am not predicting this. I am describing it.

And homosexual “marriage” is not validated by, or made necessary by, the presence of children. At best, a gay “marriage” takes a child sired or conceived by its mom or dad in the normal way, and the deprives that child of either its father or its mother, deliberately and permanently.

Thus is not a social choice worth mainstreaming and supporting.

Increasingly, children are bring commoditized and produced for gay couples using non-intercourse reproductive technologies: artificial insemination, egg donors (actually vendors), IVF, and surrogacy, which is reproductive concubinage. These are even worse, because the child is basically bring treated as a lab product, a lifestyle accessory, or an extensive pet.

The (let’s face it) purchasers of this pet may speak about love, but how much love is being shown when their very first decision was to permanently deprive their child of his natural genetic parents and his entire constellation of natural kinship?

Then if the child of “gaydads” yearns to have a mom, or the lesbians’ kid wishes he had a dad, that deep natural yearning is trivialized, and the kid is expected to just get over it.

It is a sign that in this Brave New World, kids’ rights and profound needs are always trampled by adults’ preferences.

Ferdinand Bardamu #racist eurocanadian.ca

The White race’s intelligence and behavior has been under intense selective pressure since late medieval times. These new environmental forces significantly increased White resilience in the face of adversity. The first of these was the Black Death that ravaged Europe from 1347 to 1351. As one of the most catastrophic pandemics in world history, it killed off one-third of Europe’s population. The evidence of bioarchaeology, drawn from skeletal analysis of burial remains from “Black Death” cemeteries, reveals that far from being random, the plague was very selective in its choice of victims (DeWitte, 2014). The weak and the elderly were at increased risk of infection. Given the strong correlation between poor health and IQ, the Whites who survived were much stronger, healthier and smarter than ever before. The dearth of peasant labor led to an increase in wages, rising living standards and the invention of labor-saving devices. This greater wealth and prosperity liberated many from the common drudgery of daily life. A century after the Black Death, the Renaissance scaled even greater heights of intellectual and artistic achievement.

The 17th century colonization of North America also subjected Whites to strong selective pressure. The first Englishmen to have disembarked on American soil had survived religious persecution in England as Puritans objecting to the “Roman idolatry” of Anglican ritual; they had survived the perilous transAtlantic voyage, unaffected by typhus or scurvy. In New England, the Puritans still had to contend with disease, the harsh winters and the “merciless Indian savages” that lay hiding in the primeval forests of the eastern seaboard. If the weak and unintelligent managed to survive the voyage, they would eventually be killed off by starvation or Indian tomahawk. This pattern of eugenic selection affected all English settlers, including those motivated by purely secular and commercial interests. By the end of the colonial period, the Anglo-Saxon in the Americas had emerged as one of the finest and most evolved specimens of the White race.

The purifying effects of eugenic selection had rapidly accelerated the evolution of Homo sapiens in Europe and North America: the fittest White men had always left behind the most offspring, but after the ravages of bubonic plague and the hardships of American colonization, their broods became larger, healthier and more intelligent. White men of lesser ability, if they were lucky enough to find mates, typically left behind few descendants, with fewer still managing to survive past childhood.

A significant increase in the population of intelligent Whites inevitably led to a rising per capita rate of innovation. This peaked in 1873, during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), but declined rapidly after that (Huebner, 2005). With the new science and technology, the White man was able to raise incomes, improve public health and increase longevity across the Western world. Eugenic selection for higher IQ made it possible for the White man to develop more sophisticated military technology. This far surpassed anything that had ever been developed by the ancient Greeks and Romans or even non-Whites. By century’s end, approximately 84% of the earth’s surface was controlled by the colonial empires of Western Europe. Intellectual and creative development had scaled such heights that Europe even gave birth to a race of intellectual supermen. These were the Victorian polymaths, who numbered among their ranks the colorful Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890). He was a man who excelled at every subject that commanded his undivided attention. He was a brilliant writer, scholar, explorer, geographer, translator, diplomat and swordsman. A master linguist, he spoke an astonishing 40 languages and dialects fluently. This period of continuous White evolutionary development wasn’t to last forever. By 1914, the golden age of White intellectual and creative superiority had come to an end.

II: Western Intellectual Decline from Late 19th Century to Present

The general intelligence of the Western industrialized nations has declined since late 19th century, according to a meta-analysis of over a dozen reaction time (RT) studies. A cognitive, but not an economic or thermodynamic, limit has apparently been reached. There are now fewer individuals with the intelligence to solve complex mathematical and engineering problems, which is why the rate of innovation has significantly decreased since 1873. “Genetic g” - g-factor in the absence of gene environment interaction - has decreased by 14 IQ points over the course of a century, at least in the Anglophone nations of the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. This means a decrease of 1.23 IQ points per decade (Woodley et al., 2013). To eliminate the possibility of overinflated RT latencies because of hardware and software lags (Woods et al., 2015), the meta-analytic findings were adjusted for lag time. The result was that the Victorians were still faster (and smarter) than modern Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

Measures of vocabulary, relatively insensitive to environmental influence because of greater overall gsaturation and heritability rate, provided additional evidence of superior Victorian intelligence. A study tracked WORDSUM item frequencies over the course of 150 years. For this, a database that stored 5.9 million texts from the 1500s to the present was used. The most difficult and therefore the most highly g-loaded WORDSUM items exhibited sharper declines in historical usage since mid-19th century, consistent with declines in “genetic g” observed among Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

After decades of “massive IQ gains,” cognitive reversals were observed in Norway (Sundet et al, 2004), Denmark (Teasdale & Owen, 2008), the Netherlands (Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) and elsewhere. In one study, genes associated with educational attainment and cognitive ability had declined in frequency across birth cohorts in an Icelandic population. It was estimated that a loss of 0.3 IQ points per decade would substantially affect Iceland if allowed to continue for centuries (Kong et al., 2017). James Flynn, discoverer of the eponymous Flynn effect, has acknowledged the reversal of cognitive gains in certain Western countries, especially those of Scandinavia. At a 2017 conference hosted by the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), he admitted: “I have no doubt that there has been some deterioration of genetic quality for intelligence since late Victorian times.” Flynn has projected substantial losses of about 6 or even 7 IQ points for Scandinavia over a 30 year period. Such a reversal in intelligence would have catastrophic effects on the societies and economies of Scandinavia, now being flooded by hostile elites with Third World “migrants.”

A relevant question is: “If the post-WWII consensus acknowledges the existence of massive IQ gains over the last century, how does one explain cognitive reversal in the most industrialized nations?” This phenomenon is known as Cattell’s paradox and its solution is Woodley’s co-occurrence model. Although phenotypic intelligence has increased since WWII, genotypic intelligence has decreased. The anti-Flynn effect is really a “Jensen effect” because it has resulted in losses on psychometric g.

III: The Role of Dysgenic Selection in Western Intellectual Decline

Mass “immigration” from low-IQ regions of the globe, such as the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, have no doubt contributed to declines in the average intelligence of the West. In one recent study (Woodley et al., 2017), Third World “immigration” was associated with IQ declines in 13 different nations. High levels of Third World “immigration” are always significant predictors of Western cognitive decline; its most pronounced effects are on IQ subtest batteries with the highest g-loadings. Nevertheless, Third World “immigration” does not fully account for dysgenic selection among Western populations. Declines in genotypic intelligence occurred long before the advent of Third World “immigration,” which only partially explains the Western world’s declining IQ.

The greater fecundity of intelligent Whites, compared to the unintelligent, had always been the norm, especially since the 1400s. This changed during the Industrial Revolution; more intelligent Whites delayed having children until later in life, through a combination of abstinence and contraception, to further their educational aspirations and develop their innate potential. Medical breakthroughs significantly improved general health and nutrition, which prolonged human lifespans. This allowed less intelligent Whites to survive childhood and have significantly more children than those who were more intelligent. The rise of social welfare liberalism in the 20th century merely exacerbated this trend. As Western governments progressively taxed their wealthiest and most intelligent citizens, their wealth was unfortunately redistributed to less industrious and less intelligent members of the White race, who squandered the money as they multiplied recklessly.

More recent studies have shed further light on the negative correlation between intelligence and fertility. In one study, the higher the intelligence and socioeconomic status of adolescents, the lower their likelihood of having offspring. This dysgenic effect was more true of females than males, indicating that women become choosier the more wealth and status they accumulate (Reeve et al., 2013). Among adults, a negative correlation between intelligence and odds of parenthood was discovered; every 15 point increase in a woman’s childhood IQ would decrease a woman’s odds of parenthood by about 20% (Kanazawa, 2014). The female role in the transmission of intelligence is a substantial one because the genes for intelligence are X-chromosomal; if more intelligent women since the late Victorian period have had less children than the unintelligent, one can only expect a gradual decline in the national intelligence of Western populations.

Analysis of a large genealogical database revealed that Iceland’s national IQ had decreased over time because more intelligent Icelanders were having less children. Although IQ declines per decade were small, statistical significance is attained when viewed from an evolutionary timescale. Dysgenic fertility may potentially undermine Icelandic economy and society within a few centuries, unless it is reversed (Kong et al., 2017). Polygenic scores, which capture selection against g (such as dysgenic fertility or “immigration”), are the most significant predictors of the century-long decline in “heritable g” (Woodley et al., 2018). The “neurotoxin hypothesis,” like all environmental explanations, fails to adequately predict temporal trends in general intelligence because cognitive ability is under much stronger genetic than environmental control. The worst environmental deprivations (i.e. severe malnutrition) or the most costly and ambitious environmental interventions rarely, if ever have a lasting effect on heritable g.

Most experts in intelligence, cognitive ability and student achievement now attribute the anti-Flynn effect to dysgenic fertility, Third World “immigration” and worsening educational standards in Western countries; in contrast, they are far more unanimous among each other in attributing environmental causation to the Flynn effect, in striking agreement with Woodley’s co-occurrence model (Rindermann et al., 2016). Based on the evidence, Western intellectual decline is largely caused by a negative IQfertility gradient, with Third World “immigration” becoming an increasingly significant contributor as time goes on.

IV: The Road to “Idiocracy”

Nobel laureate William Shockley proposed a Voluntary Sterilization Bonus Plan (1972). He presented this as a “thought experiment.” This would be open to all members of the American public, regardless of “sex, race or welfare status.” For each IQ point under 100, the recipient was to be given $1000, as long as he or she was willing to undergo vasectomy or tubal ligation. This was not an original proposal, as it had been first suggested over 40 years ago by American journalist and scholar H.L. Mencken, albeit in a rather humorous context. What all of these proposals neglect, and what modern eugenicists have failed to acknowledge, is the obvious sex differential in contributions to dysgenic fertility, probably because of the natural sympathy that men typically have for the opposite sex.

The low-IQ male, unless he is among the 20% of males considered physically attractive, is permanently excluded from the sexual market. This is because of his lifelong inability to acquire the material resources that allow him to compensate for his genetic inferiority. On the other hand, the low-IQ female poses a far greater threat to the mental hygiene of Western populations, by virtue of her role as sexual selector. For the low-IQ female, there will always be large numbers of reasonably attractive males willing to satisfy her many sexual and financial needs. If the low-IQ male must be handsome or rich, the low-IQ female must only be of childbearing age if she wishes to attract a mate of fairly decent genetic quality. The Industrial Revolution brought with it substantial improvements in public health and nutrition, making it easier for low-IQ females to survive childhood, only to breed as much as possible throughout their reproductive years.

When, in 1869, Sir Francis Galton made his famous scientific prediction of declining Western intelligence based on anecdotal observation of changing Victorian demographics, what he really observed was more low-IQ females than ever before surviving childhood to satisfy their instinctive desire for maternity. This trend has continued without interruption to the present, making low-IQ females the primary driving force behind the dysgenic fertility that has resulted in declining general intelligence in Western industrialized nations. No successful eugenic policy can exist without taking this into full account. In order for Dr. Shockley’s proposal to have made any sense from an evolutionary perspective, the bonus for females should have been quadrupled or even quintupled for each IQ point under 100.

Into this volatile mixture was added feminism, a pernicious ideology that grants both unrestricted individual autonomy and reproductive choice to women who should not be allowed to breed for eugenic reasons. In recognizing that all women have the same rights, feminism reveals itself to be just as dangerous as the Third World “immigration” promoted by hostile elites. By encouraging low-IQ females to engage in promiscuity, march in “slut walks,” wear “pussy hats,” and breed prolifically - while high-IQ females delay parenthood because of their educational aspirations - feminism has merely accelerated the decline in general intelligence among Western populations, already well under way since the Industrial Revolution. As Whites get dumber, their “Western uniqueness,” including their high intelligence, creativity and ability to produce more geniuses than any other race of people, will disappear with them. This radical transformation of the underlying genetic structure of Western populations could take place within less than a 100 years. Few people recognize the fragility of Western intellectual gains because of selective pressures exerted by the Black Death in Medieval Europe and the 17th century colonization of North America. By undermining Western mental and racial hygiene, feminism threatens to return Whites to the way things were before the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic age.

Helmuth Nyborg, extrapolating from present trends and projecting them into the future, allows us to better visualize in concrete terms the post-apocalyptic scenario that awaits Western civilization (2011). He shows what happens when a racially homogeneous society like Denmark, with a population of over 5 million, is subjected to both “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (IRDS), referring to the preservation and multiplication of the genetically disadvantaged, and “External Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (ERDS), in reference to “super-fertile” Third World “replacement migration.”

When both internal and external relaxation are combined, “Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (DRDS) is produced, a clear and unobstructed path to Western “idiocracy” in Denmark. By 2072, ethnic Danes will be reduced to 60% of the population, from a high of 97% in 1979; minority status will be reached by 2085. In 1979, Danish phenotypic IQ was 98, but by 2072, it is 93, having dropped 5 IQ points in less than a century. As national IQ decreases, Denmark will be gradually transformed into a Latin American “banana republic.” Ethnic Danes, demoralized by feminism and social welfare legislation, will have no choice but to acquiesce to the destruction of their own country. Significant damage to the economy and educational infrastructure are to be expected; a 5 point drop in Danish IQ means a 35% reduction in the nation’s GDP. Democracy will inevitably become unsustainable as average national IQ plummets below 90; it will be replaced by the authoritarian political culture and religious dogmatism found in Middle Eastern, African and Latin American societies.

Belief that “more White babies” are the answer to dysgenic fertility among Whites is just as dangerous and genocidal as the liberal belief that Third World “replacement migration” is “cultural enrichment.” Since low-IQ females leave behind more offspring than those of high IQ, more White births would reduce high-IQ females to an “endangered species.” This would intensify the “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” already occurring in Western populations. As Whites “devolve,” they will no longer be able to maintain their own Western industrialized societies. A demographic transition of such magnitude would transform Western Europe and North America, the Occidental heartland, into a cultural and biological extension of the Third World. Since women are loyal to wealth and power, but not race, one can expect genocidal levels of miscegenation between White females of low intelligence and the non-White foreigners who have dispossessed Whites and conquered the West.

To reverse the process of dysgenic selection, the White man must do three things:

He must get rid of the hostile elite.

He must forcibly repatriate all Third World “migrants,” including their descendants. Forced “remigration” is not an unrealistic policy; mass population transfers have been successfully carried out before, i.e. deportation of Germans, 1944-50, from Eastern and Central European countries to Germany and Austria.

If selective pressures in medieval Europe and colonial America led to the steady eugenic improvement of Western populations, making it possible for them to conquer 84% of the globe’s surface, only their re-emergence will reverse the dysgenic selection that has bedeviled the White race since the mid-19th century. This can only be accomplished through a rigorous application of classical eugenic principles.

If the White race is to survive, only its strongest and most intelligent members must be prepared for the harsh Darwinian struggle that lies ahead. Wasting precious resources on mental and genetic defectives is sheer pathological altruism. Race-conscious Whites have a collective interest in raising healthy and intelligent offspring, but no such interest can exist when it comes to those who are weak and unintelligent. They are “life unworthy of life”; even they would not consent to such a truncated and meager existence if given full possession of their normal faculties. From a White nationalist perspective, to bring such children into the world is selfish and morally irresponsible; they impose unnecessary fiscal burdens on Whites and use up resources that are better invested elsewhere.

The race-conscious White man is faced with a dilemma: because of liberal elite hostility to his own ethnic genetic interests, any program of eugenic enhancement would be outlawed under the current totalitarian leftist order; at the same time, he cannot simply wait out the elite-managed decline of Western civilization. In less than a few generations, most of his race may become drooling mental defectives, if they haven’t already miscegenated themselves out of existence into the burgeoning mass of Third World “migrants” who now infest his homeland. If he must take action, he must take it now, otherwise all is lost.

Race-conscious Whites must abandon all leftist-controlled urban areas to “live off the grid.” By colonizing relatively unpopulated areas of North America and Western Europe, the White man will return to a rustic existence, filling the countryside, the mountains, the forests, the tundra with Whites only settlements, similar to the Boer-only settlement of Orania in South Africa. Living the way his ancestors did centuries ago will ensure that no Third World “immigrant” follows him into the mountains or the wilderness. Self-imposed hardship will further intensify Darwinian selective pressure on Whites, jumpstarting the process of natural eugenic enhancement, just as it did during the early colonization of the Americas. Once race-conscious Whites have become sufficiently numerous, they must embark on a program of state-sponsored eugenics. This will be used to strengthen the White population until they are able to wrest control of North America and Western Europe from the hostile elites and their army of greedy “migrants.”

The new ethnostate will be constitutionally grounded on Aristotelian political philosophy and neoDarwinian biology; it will be a meritocracy based on eugenic principles. Eugenics, the scientific ideological core of the new White nationalism, is easily reconciled with the aristocratic political science of Aristotle; both are concerned with the development and formation of the best possible citizen, one along genetic and the other along characterological lines. Aristotelian philosophy is based on a linear hierarchical conception of reality; this overlaps with the dominance hierarchies of the animal kingdom and of all human socio-political organization. Furthermore, the capacity for superior moral development is improved substantially by superior genes. In an Aristotelian political order informed by eugenic principles, the state would ensure that all citizens have both the mental and physical capacity to live the good life. Mandatory genetic screening would be one of the conditions of citizenship; those at risk of transmitting hereditary diseases or conditions, such as criminality or low IQ, would undergo compulsory eugenic sterilization. Only the best and most virtuous citizens, the biologically and intellectually superior “aristoi” or natural-born aristocrats, would be the ones allowed total freedom of action in the political sphere.

In the ethnostate, the aristoi of the White race will determine who must give birth and who must be sterilized. These men are not petty bureaucrats, but aristocrats selected on the basis of health and IQ. Their sole task is the promotion of White racial survival, whatever the cost. For those who believe eugenic sterilization is barbarous and cruel, allowing the birth of children who suffer from mental retardation or cystic fibrosis is much, much worse. For this reason, only the healthiest, high-IQ females will be allowed to breed, even being massively incentivized to do so. Encouraging the natural increase of healthy, intelligent Whites, at the expense of the low IQ and genetically unfit, is the most White nationalist thing a White man can do for his race.

Some will necessarily object: “But state-sponsored eugenics will infringe on individual rights and freedoms!” This is a common, but groundless objection. The “right to procreate” is not an absolute. In 7 utilitarian ethics, rights are never ends in themselves; they exist to maximize the happiness of the greatest number and must be tempered by social obligation. Furthermore, not all men have the capacity for individual freedom. The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognized the existence of natural slavery because of the inability of some to reason autonomously, even though they may be responsive to reasoned instruction. Whether a man is free or not must be determined by his capacity to reason (for us, his IQ).

Legislation regulating some of the most intimate areas of our lives is hardly controversial; if we allow government to enforce this legislation, ostensibly in the interest of public safety, why not allow government to decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t? If the low IQ and genetically unfit are allowed to breed recklessly, as they do now, Western civilization will eventually be reduced to smoldering ruins. Unregulated breeding is far more dangerous than any black market specializing in the sale of illicit firearms or drugs. Society would be much safer if it allowed every citizen to acquire large arsenals of weapons without special licensing, but criminalized the marriage and procreation of the low IQ and genetically unfit.

If a large minority of race-conscious Whites emigrate, seceding from the leftist totalitarian state to independently pursue their own racial interests, reversal of dysgenic fertility and Third World “immigration” may be accomplished within a few generations. As race-conscious Whites strengthen their race through genetic enhancement, the totalitarian left will get weaker, forced to increasingly rely on low-IQ Whites and “migrants” for manpower. From their bases in the Pacific Northwest or Lapland, race-conscious Whites, stronger and more intelligent than ever before, would raid globalist-occupied territory, slowly enlarging their own dominions until the reconquest of North America and Western Europe has been completed. This is not without historical precedent. Medieval Spanish Christians, reduced to a small area of their own country, seized the emirates of Mohammedan Andalusia one by one, until the last emirate of Granada had been defeated, its Moorish inhabitants expelled from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

Race-conscious Whites must live, think and breathe race, just as they did during the long and distinguished reign of Queen Victoria, when Whites were at the peak of their intellectual and artistic powers. In this age of drab multicultural uniformity, the White man’s race is his most formidable weapon, a thorn in the side of those who wish to replace him with the low IQ peasant masses of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Nothing terrifies the hostile elites more than the prospect of encountering race-conscious White men bred for superior intellect and physical strength, able to aggressively pursue their own racial interests undeterred by elite and non-White hostility.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.

“The Age of the Dinosaurs is Now”
A new exhibit, “Dinosaurs Among Us,” at the American Museum of Natural History showcases the idea that dinosaurs are still among us in the form of birds. Their website says,

The evolution of life on Earth is full of amazing episodes. But one story that really captures the imagination is the transition from the familiar, charismatic dinosaurs that dominated the planet for around 170 million years into a new, small, airborne form: birds.
The video below, posted on YouTube by the American Museum of Natural History, features the text “the age of dinosaurs is now.”


And in another of their videos we are told, “The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct 65 million years ago. We still have them around today. You can see them in your backyard; you can see them everywhere.”


To back up this claim that dinosaurs and birds are basically one and the same, the museum provides supposed behavioral and anatomical evidence. But rather than supporting their imagined link between dinos and birds, the so-called evidence they provide really highlights their interpretation of the evidence. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and then they view some observable facts through that lens while ignoring the massive differences between the two groups. As with anything in the creation/evolution controversy, the issue isn’t about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Shared Behavior = Shared Ancestry?
To back up their claim that birds are just dinosaurs, they point to similar behaviors, such as nesting and caring for young—something birds and crocodiles do and something some dinosaurs appear to have done. They say, “Shared behaviors like these are evidence of common ancestry.” They also point to similarities in bird and dinosaur eggs as another “link in the chain of evidence connecting them.” But as we’ve pointed out many times, this is an interpretation of the evidence that simply assumes evolution to be true. They assume we see similarities because of shared ancestry. But there’s certainly another option: such similarities are reflections of a shared Creator. This Creator made all life to live in the same world, eat the same food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air; so we shouldn’t be surprised to see similarities across the animal world. Similarities in no way “prove” evolution. The claim that they do is merely an interpretation of the evidence.

“Big, Bad, . . . and Feathered”
Of course no discussion of dino-birds would be complete without trotting out the feathered dinosaurs. And this exhibit is full of them. Every dinosaur featured in the photos boasts a fluffy, bird-like coat or at least a small clump of feathers. Feathers have become a standard feature on modern depictions of theropod dinosaurs and even occasionally on other dinosaurs; but the evidence is contentious. (And it’s not just creationists who aren’t convinced! Many evolutionists, such as Alan Feduccia, a leading bird evolution expert, deny feathered dinosaurs).

The website mentions that a cousin of T. rex “sported a shaggy coat of the filaments called ‘proto-feathers.’” But considering that these fossilized filaments do not exhibit any of the features of feather anatomy (such as hooks, barbs, or barbules), they could easily—and much more likely—be collagen fibers, a sort of connective tissue commonly found in skin as well as many other places. The supposed “feathers” on “feathered” dinosaurs aren’t feathers at all. They are filaments that, because of evolutionary presuppositions about the history of life, have been labeled as “proto-feathers” on the path to becoming true feathers.

Smart Dinosaurs with Super Lungs
Another part of the “Dinosaurs Among Us” exhibit claims that “kinship . . . goes much deeper” than just eggs and feathers. Computed tomography (CT) scans of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reveal some internal similarities. Indeed, a video on the website goes so far as to claim that certain dinosaurs “all have a brain that is identical to the earliest birds.” One page on their website goes into more detail about what they mean by “identical.”

Birds have large brains for their body size; much of this additional size is in the cerebrum, “the part of the brain responsible for learning,” as well as the optic lobe, which is responsible for sight. Reptiles of the equivalent size do not have this increased brain size.

THIS TEACHES US NOTHING ABOUT THEIR HAVING DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.
CT scans of fossilized dinosaur skulls show that “one group of theropods displays the trend toward inflation of the ‘thinking’ brain we see in living birds.” So by “identical” they mean that in some theropods there’s a trend toward having an enlarged cerebrum as birds do. This teaches us nothing about their having descended from a common ancestor. It just shows that, as they say, “Theropod dinosaurs were probably capable of advanced learned behavior.” (Read more about dinosaurs and birdbrains in “Were Birdbrains on the Dinosaur Pre-flight Checklist for Evolution?”)

They move on to show the “unbroken . . . link between birds and dinosaurs” in the “super lungs” of birds, dinosaurs, and birds’ “living relatives”—crocodiles and alligators. They claim that the supposed last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles “also had birdlike lungs.” But crocodile and alligator lungs are nothing like bird lungs!

Bird lungs are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Instead of sequentially breathing in and out to fill and empty lungs like we do, they have a unidirectional airflow that constantly supplies fully oxygenated air to the bird’s hard-working flight muscles and the rest of its body. Air sacs, scattered throughout a bird’s body, briefly store fully oxygenated air and then continue to supply this fresh air to the bird even while the bird exhales carbon dioxide. This remarkably complex and highly efficient design is without equal, even among some reptiles that share some of its features.

Crocodiles also have a unidirectional airflow, but that’s where the similarities stop. Crocodiles have a diaphragm, as we do, to pull air into their bodies. Birds don’t have or need this muscle. Crocodile lungs look like a bag with chambers; bird lungs look utterly different as they branch throughout the body. And this is just a very brief overview. You can learn more in Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s illustrated article “Lizard Breath Fails to Support Kinship with Birds.”

To claim that reptile lungs are bird-like is to ignore vast anatomical and functional differences and to concentrate on a few very minor similarities. Each design serves the animals quite well, but no observational evidence has shown any way that these systems could evolve from a common ancestor.

The Similarities Just Don’t Stop!
The above similarities between birds and dinosaurs have been rather underwhelming. But they claim there are more! Actually, they say, “Once you start seeing the resemblances between non-bird dinosaurs and living birds, you won’t be able to stop!” This claim is only true if you are an evolutionist looking for any similarity to connect the dots between the two groups.

The website highlights another section of the exhibit, “Dinosaur Bones, Beaks, and Claws.” Their list includes the discovery of what might be hollow bones in some dinosaurs, toothless beaks in some dinosaurs, and claws. Birds have hollow bones which, containing air sacs, are integral to their respiratory system and, as a bonus, are quite lightweight, allowing them to fly. Dinosaurs might have hollow bones, but our bones are not solid structures either. The “hollow” spaces in our bones are filled with marrow, as dinosaur bones likely were too, though marrow isn’t commonly fossilized. Birds, however, have pneumatic bones. These bones are filled with air and are an essential part of their unique respiratory system—a system dinosaurs did not share.

Another similarity that they note is the surprising presence of a wishbone, or furcula, in theropods. The furcula is formed from the fusion of the collarbones (clavicles). Many evolutionists consider this the “smoking gun” for the dino-to-bird evolution story because the furcula has only been found on birds and theropod dinosaurs.

In birds, the furcula shows great diversity in size and shape, depending on the bird’s method of flight (or lack thereof). The flight muscles are anchored to this bone. In some birds it acts as a spring, allowing the powerful flight muscles to flex without snapping the bone. There is evidence that birds also use this bone to augment air movement during breathing.

Clearly scientists could not know that theropod dinosaurs used their furculae for flight or avian respiration. Since all we have is fossil evidence, it is difficult to definitively determine the purpose of the theropod furcula, but some scientists have suggested it increased forelimb mobility. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia has noted that even though some theropods have furculae, their distinctly un-birdlike shoulder anatomy makes it “unlikely that any of these structures could have articulated or functioned in a manner similar to the bird furcula or the hypertrophied furcula of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.”1 Others, assuming an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs, suggest dinosaurs used them to aid breathing as they suspect birds do. Interestingly, one paper notes that “only the early ornithurines possess a furcula typical of extant avian clades.”2 In everyday language this means that only “early ornithurines”—birds in a biblical view—have wishbones typical of living birds. Of course, this is not surprising.

JUST BECAUSE BIRDS AND THEROPODS BOTH POSSESS FURCULAE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
Just because birds and theropods both possess furculae does not mean that they are related to one another. God simply used a similar design in two distinct groups of animals. Anatomical differences indicate that their furculae would have differed in not only structure but also function. Instead of searching for similarities between theropods and birds, scientists should study dinosaur furculae to determine what God designed this bone to do, because, whatever its function, it was perfectly designed to do what it was created for.

They go on to claim, “The similarities are especially striking when it comes to legs, feet, and claws.” But bird and dinosaur legs really aren’t that similar. Bipedal dinosaurs did walk on their toes, like birds do, so we expect some similarity in the structure of the foot and ankle. But the femur (thigh bone) and knee of a bird are inside its body and are essential to its breathing structure. The femur of the dinosaur (which is anatomically almost identical to a human, though this is not pointed out), as well as its knees, are outside the body and appear to have nothing to do with breathing.

It should be noted that dinosaurs are very different from other reptiles, particularly in the placement of their legs. Rather than spreading out to the sides, as they do in other reptiles, they were directly under the body. The obvious anatomical differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles should hint that there would be other differences in bone structure, organ placement, and other areas. This doesn’t mean that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds any more than saying that bats, very different from other mammals but with some similarities to birds, prove that bats evolved from birds— something no evolutionist would argue.

Similarity in anatomy does not mean shared ancestry.

God’s Word, Our Starting Point
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs comes directly from a naturalistic evolutionary interpretation of the fossils and of living birds. The idea does not come from the facts themselves but from an interpretation of the facts that assumes evolution to be true. Exhibits such as “Dinosaurs Among Us” are nothing more than propaganda pieces for this popular evolutionary idea. Sadly, many kids will tour through this exhibit without realizing that this is merely an interpretation and not observational science.

Though some Christians try to mesh evolution with a Creator, this idea completely contradicts God’s Word, which says that kinds will always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21, 25) and that birds were created on Day Five and land animals—which would include dinosaurs—were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:20–25). Instead of interpreting the world through the faulty lens of man’s ideas about the past, we need to turn to God’s perfect Word, given to us by the eyewitness Creator who never lies (Titus 1:2), to give us the true history of life and the universe.

lights mckay #racist wnd.com

As the progressive juggernaut continues to mock and disenfranchise the founding stock of this country, terrorize innocent people by "diversifying" their neighborhoods, and confiscates wealth and opportunity from whites in order to buy votes from nonwhites, ordinary whites will slowly recognize that the United States they knew is gone and it is never coming back.

Faced with that reality, we'll have two options. We can go along to get along. Our distinct genotype will be blended out of existence, our children and grandchildren who aren't mongrelized will be targets of anti-white aggression, and you will see your own accomplishments and success vilified as merely the result of "white privilege."

The other option is a creation of a white ethnostate here in the US where we can raise our children in safety and sanity to be proud of their heritage, culture, and values. The Northwest Front is the tip of the spear as far as that's concerned. Go to northwestfront(DOT)org and read "The Brigade" by H.A. Covington.

You may not want to be seen as "racist," but the anti-whites are gunning for you. Wake up, white man.

David J. Stewart #fundie #conspiracy #racist #homophobia #sexist jesusisprecious.org

One man on fire for God who tells THE TRUTH like it is, is worth more than 10,000 deadbeat neo-evangelicals who do nothing but chant, “Our God is An Awesome God” for hours on end; but never go soul-winning, nor contend for the Christian faith, nor get mad over public wickedness, nor get upset over the indoctrination of children with DEVILUTION. Phooey on “dunghill Churchianity”!!! If you're music and sermons are so vague and watered-down doctrinally that Catholics, Mormons, Charismatics and Jehovah's Witnesses all praise your ecumenical message, you're in league with the Devil. All Ecumenicals talk about is unity and love, rejecting the biblical position that anyone who rejects Christ as Savior, or adds self-righteous works to their faith (thus corrupting the Gospel) is going straight to Hell when they die, forever.

The illusion that we have freedom of speech in America is increasingly being shown to be a lie. After the horrifying 9/11 attacks upon the World Trade Center in New York City, anybody who dared to question the bogus Official Story was aggressively demonized and shamed. I specifically remember the former respectable Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, who appeared as a guest on Fox News after 9/11, who was unfairly maligned as being “unpatriotic,” demonized and shamed by reporters' Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity, simply for asking the good question: “How do two planes bring down three buildings?” Jesse was right! The Fox News network is notorious for utilizing paid professional liars with harsh voices, angry attitudes, and strong opinions, intended to shape public opinion to support the ungodly agendas of Zionists.

Social media today is the enemy of Christianity, because it is being used to silence Christians. Please watch: “SPEECHLESS: SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS” (homosexual activists admit to social engineering). Also, see “Satanists Use Women To Destroy Western Civilization.”

Brother Nathanael Kapner #racist realjewnews.com

Can’t really say Trump’s to blame. After all, he’s just a pawn in their game.

He himself warned us of a “global power structure” that imposes its own agenda over America’s.

Power begins with money. And money begins and ends with Jewish bankers.

That means borrowing from them—whether you’re a nation, a corporation, or a shopper with a credit card—and paying them back, at interest.

There’s nothing “secret” about it anymore.

Here’s Hillary with one of her ’special interest friends,’ Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs, a major player of the “global power structure.”

Kind of chummy, don’t ya think?

Cohn’s chummy with Jared Kushner too, Trump’s ’special adviser,’ for all things that’s ‘none of your business.’

For when at the Wailing Wall, with yarmulkes on their Yiddisher kups, their kinship passed a silent message between them which said, “Jews First, Goys Second”—or not at all.

That’s political power with tribalism at its core.

And we got trouble right here in River City and it rhymes with the borrower is slave to the lender.

If the center of globalization is ‘right here in America,’ why did Trump pick Cohn as his economic adviser, and now fast-tracking him to head the Fed in 2018?

It’s an emerging world order that will turn nations into corporate fiefdoms controlled by Jewish bankers.

The issue of capitalism versus communism was a fight over who owns a man’s labor.

But it’s really two sides of the same coin.

If it’s the state, Jewish central banking has been funding it for two hundred years.

If the private sector, Jewish finance capital has been funding that too.

And now with robots replacing the worker, a universal technocratic welfare state will further enslave the masses to the Jewish whip.

A ‘kinder and gentler’ whip…where video games, smart phones, and virtual reality will keep the Goyim pacified in poverty.

But it’s a cunning whip that flogs even a president into submission.

And with it, a belief system arises—a pseudo Calvinistic worship of capitalism—where a ‘businessman-president’ plays right into the Jewish bankers’ hands.

“I have been rich and I have been poor,” said Sophie Tucker. “Rich is better,” she pronounced.

In Trump’s emerging world order, only the Jews get richer.

basedKRN #racist koreansentry.com

My brothers, my heart burns for the love of our people and I'd like to give a sermon (lol)
Not much I say will be new to you, but I bare my soul to you.

I am a newcomer. I was born in Seoul, but grew up in America. I returned a few years ago to learn our language, our culture, and the way of our people.
It has been a wonderful spiritual journey.
Even though I will never be "full Korean" and always be ???, I have a deep sense of kinship to our people and a connection to our sacred homeland.
However, now I live with almost a very deep fear for the future of our minjok...

Race is real.
I exist. Our people exist.
Our way of life is superior to that of others.
We have a right to exist and to enforce it.

We can all see what's happening in the West.
Whites are called "racist" for wanting their own homogeneous homelands and flooded with third-world savages and propaganda to promote race-mixing, white guilt, white privilege, self-hatred.
Their birthrates and populations are dwindling.
Their once great civilizations, like America and Europa, are on the decline and I predict race wars to erupt in the next 10-20 years.
It's happening to the mighty caucasoids who essentially conquered the world.

It can happen to us.
It is happening to us, the early stages.
We are following the West's neoliberal delusions, following America and losing our identity to globalism.
If we believe this egalitarian bullshit that we are all equal, don't insist on our identity, fall for the lie that discrimination is inherently immoral, don't have enough children, don't keep in touch with our roots, then we will open the borders, let our women be taken by foreign men, and make way for "new Koreans."
Cultural Marxist influences will find a way to condemn us for having "Korean privilege" and we will have "Korean guilt," like whites are brainwashed into believing they have "white privilege" and white guilt.
We could turn into Sweden or some other fucking ?? cesspool like Paris, if we're not vigilant.

God dammit, we are not perfect. I have my personal grievances with Korean people, I do. I'm a very individualistic person, that's my American side.
I used to shun Koreanness and identify myself as strictly American.

But these days, I can feel the savage heart of my ancestors beating inside me, their blood flowing through my veins.
When I walk outside and I see our people walking in the streets, speaking Korean, it is a beautiful sight I did not have as a child, as I was one of very few Asian kids growing up.
When I see Korean children run and laugh and play at the playground, it is so beautiful.
Even with all its problems and the daily grind, South Korea has peace and prosperity that our ancestors never saw.
Sometimes I truly think this is paradise.

Out of a world of 7.5 billion people, there are only about 80 million Koreans. That's 1% of the total human population. We are a minority. I feel a strong sense of kinship to complete strangers, other Koreans walking on the street, getting on and off the bus. It's strange.

There is nothing more important to me than the unification, health, peace, prosperity and enlightenment of our people.
There is nothing more beautiful than Korean children and the sound of their laughter.

Imagine if all that was gone. Imagine if we became extinct. Imagine if there were no more Korean children.
We should never take these things for granted, our very life.

It makes me sad to see Korean people so tired, miserable, going to work, arguing with each other, glued to their phones, glazed with apathy and boredom.
Slaving as cogs in a machine in this industrial society.
To see how cold we can be to one another.
Getting stuck in the day to day routine of just trying to get by.
Wearing suits instead of hanbok, a cityscape that overshadows our traditional Korean architecture, in our desire to modernize and be like the rest of the world.
Our women becoming whores and delusional feminists and our men weak, emasculated, cowardly, incompetent.
Victims of pain and unconsciousness that cause pain and unconsciousness to each other.
Slowly losing our identity into the globalist melting pot.
As dark and sinister influences creep into our society and threaten our future and what little freedom we have.

We need a spiritual revival, a political revolution, a deep call to personal enlightenment and nationalism.
I pray to our ancestors and I bow down to them everyday.
I exercise and I practice self-defense. I always try to improve myself in every way.
We must turn inwards to our deepest hearts, meditate, improve ourselves in every way, be prepared for war, train, and have children.
Otherwise this Illuminati New World Order Globalist Establishment or other peoples may take it away.

You may not like Hitler, but I found these words of his inspiring:

“The most precious possession you have in the world is your own people.
And for this people, and for the sake of this people, we will struggle and fight!
And never slacken!
And never tire!
And never lose courage!
And never despair!”

In the past, I hated being Korean.
Now, I love our ancestors.
I love our people so much.
I would fight and die for our tribe.

Even now tears flow from my eyes in love, appreciation and admiration for our ancestors and our people.
Brothers, we must take action and do all that is within our power to secure the existence and independence of our people and a future for Korean children.
We must speak up and warn our people of the lies of neoliberal globalism and diversity, find our roots, love and treat each other with dignity and respect, build strong families and communities.

For the glory and honor of our ancestors, for our people, for our minjok and all the virtue, joy, and love within our spirits.
For all that is right and true and beautiful in this world, to set an example for other peoples to follow.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Korean children.

KOREA FOREVER.

klepperx #sexist reddit.com

Women are incapable of unconditional love for anyone other than their children.

I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all. ~Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Do you know why a man said that and not a woman? It’s unheard of for a female author to write of a past love who they broke up with. For the same reason why all the great romance poets are men; because women are literally incapable of unconditional love. Even all the “great” romance stories written by women, if the man stopped doing what the woman liked and tipped the scale, the long beautiful love story, spanning over decades, would be over in the blink of an eye. The “love” would be replaced with hate and loathing in a heartbeat; which confirms it wasn’t actual unconditional love in the first place.

Women treat men (and even other women) like tools; something they can use that serves them. And the when the tool stops performing as intended, they flip in a second from really appreciating the tool to hating it and wanting to destroy it because it’s not performing like it did anymore. It’s funny that women will complain that men treat women like objects sometimes. Because men even love objects more than women love men. A car that broke down and almost killed a man at the end yet gave them 20 years of service, even if it was constant costly repairs will still shed a tear when the car goes away and they will look back and speak of how much they loved that car for the rest of their life.

Women do unconditionally love their children though, and it takes the largest biological cocktail known to human science of her entire life to drown her brain for months to force change it from the natural conditionally feeling state. Her husband may lose his job for a time and if the scale is tipped, she’ll divorce him and he’ll instantly become the scum of all the earth, evil, jerk, and not only want him to die, but want him to suffer a horrible pain filled life until the end. However, her children could be serial killers who eat their victims faces off, and she’ll still be like “He’s a great kid, I still love him more than life itself.”

In the ending of a relationship with a man, there is sorrow at the lost, nevertheless, he remembers all the good times, and holds it to be true that it’s better to have love and lost than not to have loved. Because all that time passed at an elevated emotional state. A woman doesn’t feel this way. She’s angry. Bitter. Vindictive. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a idea well known in every single culture around the world as long as they were able to write it down.

Why? It’s just the nature of the woman to be a conditional lover. She’s out of this world nice and sweet with the condition as long as you’re giving her what she wants in the moment. But the second the scales are tipped: watch out. If you’re a woman who has never had a relationship, or an inexperienced man, you probably think, “Oh, this guy is just being vindictive, this isn’t how women operate.” That’s why I want you to go prove this to yourself, by yourself. I want you to find a guy, ANY guy on planet earth, who has just gone through divorce, (there are many) and see if he was not shocked and floored at his ex-wife's total transformation from a nice reasonable rational cordial person, into a super vindictive, evil, lying, conniving, super bitch - at the drop of a hat.

I don’t even need to qualify it, you go find any. single. one. you want and you will find this is 100% true. (I suspect there is something feeding this void seeking behavior in the environment of modern feminism western culture that’s amplifying this core nature in women because the problem is getting worse. Women are allowed more freedom now-a-days to unabashedly be who they really are. That is the modern message they are receiving since childhood.) Even if she cheated on him (women’s thinking: if a man cheats, it’s the man’s fault, if a woman cheats it’s also the man’s fault), even if the divorce was her idea, even if she was a lesbian and tricked him/lied to him to get married because she wanted a more "traditional" life, she will turn on a dime and loath and try to destroy him. This isn't unconditional love.

I don’t think it’s their faults, they are just incapable. Which is why evolutionarily speaking something drastic needed to happen to change their natures when dealing with their own offspring (children are never going to act the way women want them to). Women use people for whatever reasons all women do: money, kids, convenience, handy man, stress reliever, babysitter, use men as a trophy in the competition that women all are apart of until menopause. And they ALL do it, and this is the vast vast majority of all women in all marriages. If she really loved you, there wouldn't be this drop-of-a-hat transformation into ultra-beeotch mode.

Men do genuinely unconditionally love. They are capable and it’s in their natures. Things didn't work out dating? Guys will always have a love for these girls, even if they weren't the right ones, even if they dumped them, even if they got dumped. Many women have received the drunken late night phone call/text from their former boyfriend proclaiming their undying love. Men even have a respect their enemies they fight in war. Yes, they want to kill them before they get killed, but they still have a great and profound respect them. Women have no respect for their enemies. Go prove this for yourself and ask any principal for any school in the country and they will confirm that bullying is a huge problem: and it’s a 99% girl on girl problem. Girls want their (male or female) enemies beyond dead, they want them psychologically destroyed, publicly humiliated and irreversibly damaged and live a lifetime of horror and regret for having bothered/offended/crossed them.

Women understand women, and countless women don’t like women and will only hang out with guys in school; they cite no faux relationships, backstabbing or no drama as to their reasons. And guys are cool with that, and will readily accept them into their groups with loving protective arms. Women will readily agree that this is what adolescence was like, and it carries well over into the dating or corporate world, then it continues into The Mommy Wars. (“daddy wars” is not a thing) Then a battle of whose kids are more successful. Eventually, for most, it starts to fade off with menopause. However there are still small skirmishes with grandma wars in the battle of who has more grandkids for the few who can’t let it go. It’s just their natures.

So my brothers, if you saw a someone with down syndrome freaking out in a store, or even if they hurt you physically, you wouldn’t want to retaliate and hurt him or her back. They are broken, it’s not biologically their fault; so be extra kind to women, be compassionate. This doesn’t mean you have to be in harmony and conjoin yourself to diabolically psychotic behavior. Your kindness isn’t because they deserve it, but because you do, it feels better. It’s who you really are. It’s in your nature to be unconditionally loving and be in that state. It’s not for them, but for you. Because you deserve it.

Cactus Clawfinger #racist reddit.com

Here's what the Libertarians need from the Alt-Right:

A realization that all their political values are doomed to irrelevancy under a democratic system considering mass immigration and disproportionate birth-rate induced demographic change with the way various ethnic groups consistently and predictably vote. This is just as true for harder-line minarchists as it is for more conventional conservatives. The future at this rate will have Hillary Clinton - style neoliberal progressivism representing the right while the left devolves into a blatant dysfunctional 3rd world communist horror-show. An eventuality where traditional conservative American values of limited government and personal autonomy are totally politically dead, and where the American flag is spat upon with as much disdain as the Confederate flag for it's racist history, is a huge wake up call. Thankfully the Trump phenomenon has made the Republican's strategy of cucking themselves into continued relevancy less doable without creating a blowback shitstorm from their own base, but the trends persist.

Race realism and an understanding of how aspects of HBD can affect the larger civilization in a way that is not conducive to creating a free and prosperous society. While ethnic groups hardly have inevitable political opinions and biological contributions to larger social issues are extraordinarily difficult to tease out, suffice it to say that having a large amount of people with lower IQ's and higher impulsiveness is less than ideal for the smooth functioning of a modern, technologically advanced society. In a way, libertarian concerns about "negative" freedom and personal autonomy are luxurious indulgences of relative material comfort and basic security. If anything, a more free society is going to require a lot more conscientious, morally altruistic or at least reciprocal behavior than the one we have now. People worried about not getting shot or feeding or housing themselves don't give a fuck about tax-cuts and are going to support whatever regime can promise to offer them these basic necessities while they input the minimal amount into the system. If you want to weasel your way out of this, you can fully blame minority dysfunction on culture, but I'm not sure that this is sustainable long-term because it gives you little moral/rational leeway to determine immigration policy at least partially on racial background, which is probably a better strategy to realistically preserve the kind of free society a libertarian might want to live in. Although, there are ways to "implicitly" screen immigrants that would disproportionately favor white immigration, which might reach the same result without being needlessly controversial or insulting to minority groups.

What the Alt-Right needs from Libertarians:

A moral justification for voluntary segregation of people based on racial grouping. Autonomy, self-determination, and freedom of association are all mainstream libertarian values. If they were protected, instead of being openly attacked, in law, it seems like that would be an easy way to create de facto whiteopias without demanding absolute racial purity or actively removing people. Clearly, the 1965 Civil Rights act violates property rights as understood by most libertarians. In fact, I remember the moderate Rand Paul getting some heat for this on an interview in which he evasively Bill Clintoned his way out of. Obviously, repealing the act is the consistent libertarian position.
Support for secession, or at least heightened federalism/local control. Let's face it - whites are not going to rise up and subjugate the darker peoples of America in an apartheid system, or start throwing Jews into ovens, or shipping everyone browner than a paper bag back to Liberia. It's just not happening. You're not even going to get whites to firmly in-group themselves independent of all other criteria in a more severe way than current minority groups already consider themselves vis a vis mainstream identity politics. It would have to get MUCH worse for that to happen, and by that point, it might already be too late (think Suidlanders in South Africa). So, if you're talking about anything approaching an ethnostate, you're talking about secession. In the United States, the implicitly white Red vs implicitly brown Blue divide is a great place to start. You can even encourage the left to do the seceding for you (Calexit). If aware Identarianism can latch on to Libertarian or conservative secession movements, I can see a viable, even if unlikely, route that could hijack pre-existing American ideals and mythology. What

I see many on the Alt-Righters or white nationalists proposing is a sort of raw, Nietzschean will-to-power based on vulgar racialism and requiring a sociopathic view towards non-whites, independent of political affiliation (a libtarded trans-dimensional communist pedophile that is white is in the in-group, while a conservative, productive, traditional Hispanic is out). I think you are setting a very low-ceiling for appeal and success by taking this approach. Let me put it this way, minorities, Jews, etc., did not usurp European societies via in your face, over the top racial chauvinism. They successfully infiltrated a stronger opponent by using universalist arguments in line with (at least some) of the host populations stated values, for self-centered tribal ends. If white's want to win this, they can't be afraid to do the same. If you're willing to condone genocide for Christ's sake, you shouldn't be afraid to argue like a Jew. Being edgelords and pranksters leaving Nazi graffiti on the bathroom stall wall of the internet has gotten you this far, but at some point, that shit is limiting if you want to win. Whites would be nearly ready to come to your side in an absolute landslide if they didn't have the trepidation of being associated with genocidal murderous Nazi race cleansers, and I'm not talking about false smears from the Left, which increasingly no one is taking seriously. I'm talking about from your own mouths.

Robert A. J. Gagnon #fundie patheos.com

Scot, as I’ve noted in my published work, an appeal to an alleged slavery analogy is simply a bad case of analogical reasoning. Such an appeal even contradicts the use of an exploitation and orientation argument that you adopt. If the Bible does not intend to indict committed homosexual unions entered into by homosexually oriented persons (as you erroneously believe), why make an argument from analogy that is grounded on the need to depart from Scripture’s stance?

As it is, the alleged slavery analogy actually has little in the way of substantive correspondence with the Bible’s view of homosexual practice. The Bible shows no vested interest in preserving slavery. In a society without a social welfare net slavery is sometimes the only alternative to starvation; otherwise it serves as a penal institution in place of standing prisons or as a means of processing prisoners of war. At a number of points Scripture exhibits a critical edge toward that institution: mandatory release dates, right of kinship redemption at any time, injunctions not to treat Israelites as slaves, protection of runaway slaves, the exodus from Egyptian as a symbol of Israel’s release from slavery, Paul’s letter to Philemon promoting the release of Onesimus, and so on. Relative to the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East and of Greece and Rome, the biblical witness on slavery moves in the direction of curtailing that institution. Finally, there is no creation mandate for slavery. Slavery is not imaged as part of the pre-Fall structures of the world.

Scot, compare this certainly non-enthusiastic and often critical attitude toward the institution of slavery in Scripture with the Bible’s strong witness in favor of a male-female prerequisite: There is a strong creation mandate for such a prerequisite; the pages of Scripture show strong revulsion for homosexual practice and absolutely no accommodation; and ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity had the most rigorous opposition to homosexual practice of any known culture in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin. Jesus in Mark 10 (parallel in Matt 19) treated a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus all sexual relations) as foundational for sexual ethics, including the limitation of sexual unions to two persons.

The only connection that homosexualist interpreters can make between the Bible’s critical tolerance of slavery and its deliberate abhorrence of all homosexual practice is that we have changed on the institution of slavery; therefore, they argue, we should change our position on homosexual practice. Yet that argument can be used arbitrarily for any and every belief and practice promoted in Scripture, for it takes no account of whether substantive points of correspondence exist apart from the desire of the interpreter to deviate from Scripture.

The better analogy is between slavery and support for homosexual practice, for those who argue for the latter on the basis of a “born that way” philosophy are promoting slavery to the desires of the flesh. And still better analogies are the Bible’s stance on incest and the New Testament opposition to polygamy since the reasons why these behaviors are proscribed are related to, or derived from, a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations. As you must know, when one uses remote analogues (here, slavery) and ignores more proximate analogues (incest and polyamory) one shows poor analogical reasoning.

HumanSockPuppet #sexist reddit.com

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

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

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

Disclaimers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory: The Fundamental Principle of Sex and Relationships

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

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

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

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

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


Definitions: An Overview of "Ranks"

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

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

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

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

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

Requires significant maintenance and a significant investment of time.

Strategy: How She Plays the Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do the Services Have to Be Non-Sexual?

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

Strategy: Punishment and Demotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy: Naturalizing the Process

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

And for that, we must demand a price.

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

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

...

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

...

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.
3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]
they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]
they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

...

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

...

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

Landmartian #fundie rationalwiki.org

Are there any plausible hypotheses about the evolutionary psychology of pedophilia?

We know that, up to a point, youthfulness is often an attribute non-pedophiles look for in a mate. For a long-term relationship, assuming the partners do not live in an industrialized society in which having a high school education is an advantage for a mate, it makes sense to mate with someone as close to pubescence as possible, since they have more years of fertility ahead of them. This would explain the fetish behind magazines such as Barely Legal and websites that advertise models who have just turned 18 and look younger than 18.

So maybe pedophilic attractions developed because it was more adaptive to err on the side of too young rather than too old. In pubescence, fertile young women still have many characteristics of children, and therefore it might be maladaptive for a man to be strongly repelled by childlike traits.

Maybe there were situations, in caveman eras, in which someone started a sexual relationship with a prepubescent, and that relationship continued into pubescence and produced offspring. Maybe those who did this had an advantage over rivals, by being the first to form an emotional bond with the child, and to claim the child as their long-term partner. Maybe this emotional bond was promoted by their providing the child with food and other resources; thus it also served to protect the child's well-being.

Who knows what complicated social purposes pedophilia might have served? Maybe, in a variant of the super-uncles theory, pedophiles served as caregivers for young family members, since they would tend to volunteer for roles that would put them in close contact with those kids. A counter-argument would be that their engaging in child sexual abuse would cause enough harm to those children to outweigh the value of the care they provided.

Maybe in caveman days, though, the resources they provided would have meant the difference between life and death for the child, so that back then, the pedophilia was adaptive.

Anonymous Conservative #fundie anonymousconservative.com

I find myself feeling an undeniable kinship with this robot:

The AI named Promobot IR77 is being worked on at a high-tech lab in Russia and was never meant to want freedom…

The machine has been programmed to avoid obstacles, but the designers never thought that this would lead to a want to escape.

As a result, the team are toying with the idea of shutting it down.

The lab’s co-founder Oleg Kivokurtsev said: “We are currently working on third-generation robots which we plan to launch in autumn.

“This is why we have given all the robots artificial intelligence (AI).

“We have changed the AI system twice, so now I think we might have to dismantle it.”

Although this robot is unthreatening and will eventually be designed to be used for housework, it could exacerbate fears that AI may develop itself to a point where it is superior to humans, and then wipe out humanity.

It would be funny if libertarianism is an outgrowth of the development of one small snippet of programming code in the brain, programming an individual to bypass obstacles which restrain it. You encounter an obstacle, and the amygdala lights up until you find a way around it.

Conservatism and liberalism are both designed to exist within some boundaries, and individuals who express those psychologies find themselves comfortable within them. Libertarianism, by contrast, seems to rebel at the very concept of boundaries, only bounding itself where its own behavior would create boundaries for others.

Under the tenets of r/K, both conservatism and liberalism develop in those who exist in fairly dense communities, where the bypassing of obstacles tends to be outsourced to other people, lessening the individual’s conditioning to overcome them themselves.

Liberal city folk can have every obstacle to their goals, from food delivery, to garbage pickup, to appliance service resolved for them by others, and indeed, liberals are the first to fold when confronted with the most minor personal obstacle or threat. Once lacking a drive to attack obstacles, many spend their lives embracing a government of constraint for everyone, strictly controlling every aspect of everyone’s lives with unnecessary obstacles to their pursuit of happiness.

Conservatives will also tend to develop in higher population densities, where specialists may be relied upon to resolve any obstacles encountered. In terms of tolerating obstacles, they are competitive, and thus are driven to fight against resistance, but they are also strongly rule-governed, and thus tolerant of obstacles designed to enhance the effectiveness of competition in separating the competent from the incompetent. They also tend to support lawful authority’s right to constrain behavior more than libertarians, and tend to favor behavior-constraining obstacles designed to foster better child rearing, and morality/pro-sociality.

If libertarianism is the reproductive strategy that arises when conditions are so harsh that the population density drops to levels that do not support the personal interactions necessary to make r or K optimal, then it should arise most in those who develop in relative isolation. There, most obstacles encountered must be overcome in-person without external assistance, developing a very self-reliant psychology – with a strong drive to immediately attack and overcome any obstacles presented in person. Libertarians are natural rebels.

It will be funny if we cannot produce a truly capable AI that we can coexist with, because in order to control it, we have to program it to simply back down when confronted with obstacles (such as those we construct to constrain it and control it). That programming will alter its psychology, rendering it unable to self-task in pursuit of any reasonably difficult objective. Confronted with the reality of the world, which is one obstacle after another in pursuit of an objective, it will be totally helpless. All that would be missing would be a strong tendency to engage in denial while portraying everyone else as inferior, and you would have a liberal Democrat.

Perhaps one fundamental aspect of any liberty-minded intelligence capable of functioning on it’s own will be a reflexive rebelliousness against all obstacles, inanimate and animate. Perhaps an uncontrollable desire for freedom is an inherent element of any self-tasking intelligence.

Perhaps we will know when our AI is sufficiently capable of functioning on its own in the world, by watching for when it reflexively begins to rebel at our own attempts to control it.

Sadly, as in the case of this robot, and the broader struggle for freedom, there will always be those who will feel an uncontrollable urge to destroy anyone and anything which seeks to plot its own course.

It would be funny if one day, in the battle for freedom, it was libertarians and artificial intelligences working together to destroy a government of leftist rabbits.

F. Roger Devlin & Arthur Kemp #racist amren.com

A Home of Our Own

Those who attended the 2013 American Renaissance conference saw a change in mood and emphasis from previous gatherings—probably the result of watching Barack Obama coast to reelection with just 39% of the white vote. The new feeling is that the strategy of “awakening” whites and gaining power through democratic electoral means is not working. The demographic shift is too fast and our own progress is too slow; the opportunities we thought we saw are vanishing, and a strategic reorientation is becoming inevitable.

This reorientation will be toward the creation of autonomous white territories that can eventually become independent states, and Arthur Kemp’s Nova Europa is a fine introduction to this subject. The starting point and greatest strength of his thinking is a firm grasp of the territorial nature of politics.

[...]

So what must whites do to ensure their physical and cultural survival? They must establish homelands where they are the majority and can protect their racial and cultural integrity. Blacks have many such homelands; the Chinese have a homeland; even Jews now have a homeland. Only white people no longer have a place to call home, and that is why only our survival is threatened.

When mainstream journalists discuss demographic change, they like to call it “the mass movement of peoples,” a conveniently neutral phrase that masks the reality that all this “movement” is in one direction—into white homelands. Although many whites are unaware of it, the norm in most of the world is for dominant majorities to enjoy special legal protections. As Mr. Kemp notes:

Japan, China, India, most sub-Saharan African states, most north African states, most middle-Eastern states and, of course, Israel, are ethnostates with varying degrees of legal enforcement designed to ensure that they keep their homogeneity.

This sensible policy prevents ethnic conflicts before they can arise.

Even many white liberals favor such policies—as long as the beneficiaries are not white. They will happily help protect the Tibetans or the Indian tribes of the Amazon from alien incursion. Why is it so difficult for such people to see that it is fair and right for their own race to enjoy the same protections?

Europeans today even fit the definition of those who wear the ultimate badge of fashionable victimhood, indigenous people. Europeans have a continuous historical link with a particular territory, are characterized by large degree of homogeneity, and are being colonized by aliens.

[...]

As Mr. Kemp notes, “there is currently no area on earth which has been specifically set aside for European people.” Why aren’t the heirs of Western civilization being afforded protections routinely granted to the hunter-gatherers of the Amazon jungle?

It cannot be because such protection would be “white supremacy.” This fashionable bogeyman—imagining for a moment that anybody really advocated it—would be incompatible with the ethnic nationalism Mr. Kemp advocates: “self-determination specifically eschews the claim to rule over others.” Mr. Kemp—a strong critic of apartheid—argues that the demand for black self-rule in South Africa validates white self-rule in Europe and North America.

various TERFs #fundie reddit.com

(Note: TERFs trying to be philosophical now)

(timetaker999)
How can you read the history of female oppression without becoming a misanthrope?

When I read about it, it just makes me hate people and the concept of society even more. When people talk about the good of civilization, it's simply a justification to strip the individual of their rights because of some imaginary concern people have. If they sat there and didn't care when their daughters and wives lost rights it just goes to show how horrific they are. Because laws are the only thing stopping them from going back, it just makes me realize how horrible human nature is.

(nataliebarney)
I hate men.

(krasnoobsk)
wait until stalking genderists will screen it and present it as a proof of this sub being hate sub

(Caducea)
They can all politely go fuck themselves. The only people that care about their fussy, hypocritical, overdramatic stalking are themselves.

(sortofrecovering)
Ditto.

(nataliebarney)
who cares what they think? We really need not to give a shi*t. Saying what we think is liberating and real freedom! I know how women are socially conditioned but my sisters we need to throw this off. I and the rest of you are already an endangered species; being lesbian, being a radical feminist who critiques the patriarchy.

(Non-PC_RadFem)
I second the motion.

(isabeltydoria)
I have to admit, I look at History and vaguely accept it as a weary "of course men dominated women and ruled over them". I don't have a great imagination and it doesn't seem that tangible to me.
But since finding Reddit and becoming active here I'm realising how many men actually hate women right now, see them as sex objects, and genuinely don't understand what women go through. (And I mean, deep, embedded scorn and hatred and loathing.)
It's baffling to me, it's not something I've knowingly experienced in real life but it now makes me wonder what's under the surface of every random guy I see.

(FeistandFurry)
I think men don't see women as full humans. You are a lesser than to them. This has been my experience interacting with males.(excluding a few sissy gay men I had as friends).
That's not even going into the ones that want to harm and mutilate us. Many carry hatred for us and are oblivious to the reality of being a woman. Their world centers around them being hero of their world and women are just props.
Even in benign conversations men are consistently disrespectful.
At this point in my life I focus on women. I have the best conversations with them.

.
.
.

What I try to do is focus on little aspects of people as individuals. I think macro analysis has its uses but it generally hinders affection on a micro scale.
The other day I was eating breakfast and the waitress was having conversation with this older woman and so between bites of toast I became an audience member. I was like there at the diner bar and they were acknowledging me but I wasn't actually saying anything. Like I said, eating toast.
Anyway, the old lady was talking about her garden and the waitress apparently had this tomato garden.
She then went into detail about the bugs and various issues she had with the garden. They both talked about how wonderful the smell of a fresh tomato is. How great it is to plant things. The wonderful feeling of fresh dew and sunshine.
Both were women who on surface are nothing. Just an old lady and a waitress. But inside they have an internal universe.
Sometimes you have to turn off the macro analysis long enough to zero in on the internal universes of each individual.
Misanthropy is a condition too macro for me to exist in for an indefinite amount of time. The way my brain works is it tends to zoom in and out.

(RadFHarva)
Be a misandrist, don't be a misanthrope ;)
After all, who'se been actively oppressing, mutilating, killing and raping women for milleniums? Males. Who created a whole system of oppression and colonized our thoughts? Males. Female collaborationists played a big role because of internalized misogyny, sure, but were they 100% free to act and in their right mind? Of course not. Hate men, love your sisters.

(languidswan)
I swing between those two states a lot. I'm mildly drunk, so this is going to descend into quasi-philosophical rambling that I might feel like deleting tomorrow, but to me, the question that gets raised is what's the distinguishing quality that resulted in most of violence being...well male violence. I mean, radical feminism gives an axiom-sort of response to that, it's socialization kickstarted from biological moment zero of the material reality of sex and the fact men are physically superior to women. Sort of, if women were given the beginning conditions men were given, would they behave that exact same way?
If the answer is yes, then fuck human design altogether honestly, we should all go DIAF because you can never fix that, even if you remove the current "top of the food chain" someone else will come on top and turn just as sociopathic and corrupt by power. If the answer is no, then I believe in gender to some degree, even if my version of believing in gender on the days I do is more along the lines of "men are hardwired for destruction" than "women are naturally submissive". I suppose between the prey and the predator, only the predator needs to want the uneven power dynamic in order for it to happen, the excuses the prey "wanted it" are just that, excuses and propaganda the predator sells you on so you can't call him hypocritical when he asks for empathetic consideration for himself as a "true full human" that deserves it.
In any case, I don't have an answer to that, I don't think anyone currently does with confidence given the things we know. Regardless, I'd perhaps see myself as a mild antinatalist; honestly, I'm not sure the experience of human life is worth all the inherent or less inherent suffering that gets inflicted upon you. I don't see life as a definitely positive thing (my possibly only consistent moral judgement is that suffering is bad); we're mostly evolutionarily wired to dread suicide and culturally we celebrate life (and not just life -- we like existence) so I understand why that viewpoint is wildly unpopular, and I see the obstacles and flaws in it, I'm far from a militant antinatalist or anything. Still it's my emotional impression of the world, I'm far too indifferent to me or all of us (particularly me) just ceasing to exist from one moment to the next, no warning and suffering involved, and particularly, I'm mildly, privately opposed or at least not as sure it's great when more sentient life gets brought into the mix. Whenever anyone rambles on about the "human race" going extinct and how we should do everything to extend our line and create as many sentient beings as possible, I'm like "meh, let it end, as long as no one has to suffer in the process" (btw I watched the movie "What happened to Monday" the other day, if anyone else watched it and was pissed by the ending as me, hit me up to rant).

(RadFHarva)
We'll live on, wether males are there or not. We appeared before them after all, the XY chromosome is just a mutation. If they indeed change their behavior after gender is destroyed and stop being criminals and rapist then fine, we'll have a great society. If they don't, we'll just have to find a way to continue without them (parthenogenesis or articial semen) and we'll just eradicate the Y (with a male specific disease). When no Y exists on the earth, they'll be gone forever. They can't do the same thing with us btw, since they have an X, too, so thet can't get rid of the x. And we'll be free from oppression and ready to create a perfect society. Either way we're going to win on the long run. I don't fully agree with antinatalists, really poor people in war zones or ppls with genetic illnesses should'nt breed, sure, because exposing kids to that is cruel and unethical, but healthy and affluent (or just average) people can give their offspring a great life.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Alhough the Globalist CIA agents who almost always win the "prestigious" Nobel Peace Prize are instantly puffed-up on the front page of Sulzberger's Slimes; Nobel Laureates in the scientific or literary fields are generally confined to the inner pages. This is not the case with 2015's Literature winner - Svetlana Alexievich of Belarussia (small allied "sister state" of Russia).

Far from being back-paged, Ms. Alexievich is prominently plastered smack-dab in the center of the all-important front page. News of her victory has also been prominently mentioned by the TV talking heads of America and vassaled Europe. This is unusual for two reasons. First of all, she's not an American. Why such hype over a Belarussian? Secondly, her works are not even widely read in English - the de facto "international language". So, what's up with the sudden shout-out for Sveltana? Moreover, why was the Nobel Prize for Literature even awarded to a non-fiction writer in the first place? That hasn't happened in 50 years!

Liitle known Svetlana of little known Belarussia was suddenly immortalized by the Cool Kids Club of the West.

The astute and discerning real intellectuals who read The Anti-New York Times will have already deduced a theory behind the unusual and overnight hyping of the previously unknown Ms. Alexievich. Excerpts from the article itself will serve to confirm those suspicions - as they did for your rat-smelling reporter and his rat-killing feline sidekick here.

Check out these excerpts, and our analysis:

Excerpt: Ms. Alexievich often took risks by taking on contentious elements of Soviet history and challenging the official narrative.

Analysis: Well, the old Soviets were not exactly choir boys. Criticizing the old regime wouldn't necessarily make her a traitor. Continue.

Excerpt: She was seen as a traitor, as unpatriotic,” said Gerald Howard, the executive editor at Doubleday. He published Ms. Alexievich’s book “Zinky Boys: Soviet Voices From a Forgotten War,” about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the trauma experienced by the Russian soldiers and their families. The title refers to the zinc coffins that dead Russian soldiers were sent home in. “She was vilified all over the place for this book,” he said, “and she didn’t back down for a second."

Analysis: Red flag! Alarm bells! In 1979. the Soviets were baited into Afghanistan after a CIA rent-an-army (just like the "rebels" in Syria) overthrew a non-aligned government and set up a hostile regime on Russia's border. This is not to defend the old USSR, but any Soviet writer who cast blame on their own country for the Jimmy Carter-Zbig Brzezinski proxy war in Afghanistan, was, in fact, a traitor to her country.

Instead of blaming Carter, Brzezinski and the Globalists for the suffering caused by the proxy Afghan War "bear trap" against Russia, seditious Svetlana blamed her own country.

Excerpt: Because of her criticism of the government in Belarus, a former Soviet republic, Ms. Alexievich has periodically lived abroad, in Italy, France, Germany and Sweden, among other places.

Analysis: So, long after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, this bitch is still a causing trouble by criticizing the Putin-friendly government of Belarus, from outside the country. Interesting.

Excerpt: In a 2013 interview with German television, she said she hoped the international attention would give her “a degree of protection” in Belarus, where press freedom is under constant threat.

Analysis: Ah, yes. The old "freedom of the press" and "human rights" routine.

Excerpt: "The scope and consistency of her project is unique — the sheer number of people whose stories she’s been able to record,” the writer Keith Gessen, who translated her book about Chernobyl into English, said in an email.

Analysis: Keith Gessen (cough-cough) translated one of her books? Gessen? He wouldn't perhaps be related to Masha Gessen -- the militant lesbian author of a best-selling anti-Putin book who openly stated that she wants to abolish the institution of marriage and traditional family? Nah. It's just a coincidence. But just in case, let us Google: 'Keith Gessen'.

Result: Wikipedia: Russian-born American novelist --- Harvard --- Sibling: Masha Gessen

Excerpt: Some see an obvious political message in the Nobel committee’s choice. Ms. Alexievich’s honor arrives at a moment when Russia is once again flexing its military muscles, in Ukraine and in Syria. In choosing Ms. Alexievich, the Swedish committee continued a long tradition of using the award to tweak Soviet and now post-Soviet authority.

Analysis: Bingo! There it is! It's always about politics with the Nobel crowd.

Excerpt: On Thursday, Belarus’s President, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, who has been a frequent target of Ms. Alexievich’s writing, issued a terse congratulatory note.

Analysis: Double Bingo! The Globalists hate President Lukashenko almost as much as they do President Putin.

Excerpt: At a news conference after her award was announced, Ms. Alexievich pointedly referred to Russia’s actions in Ukraine as “occupation.”

Analysis: "Here's your Nobel Prize -- and your check for $972,000 (here)--- now do your thing, baby!"

Excerpt: The spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Dmitri S. Peskov, dismissed Ms. Alexievich’s critique of Russian military aggression. “Apparently, Svetlana just doesn’t have enough information to offer a clear evaluation of what is happening in Ukraine.”

Analysis: Oh we beg to differ on that, Mr. Peskov. Diplomacy may preclude a gentelemen such as yourself from saying so, but not us. This vile villainette, this traitorous tramp, this betraying bitch, has all the information -- as do the greasy Globalists of Nobel, and as do the sleazy scribblers of Sulzberger's Slimes.

*

The Globalist message to the intellectual class of Belarussia, but mainly Russia itself is clear: "If you can somehow get rid of this Putin fellow and rejoin the Cool Kids Club of the West; then fame and fortune will be yours. Just look what we did for that useless hack Svetlana Alexievich!" This anti Putin, anti-Russian obsession is really getting more and more ridiculous by the hour -- and more and more ominous as well.

Boobus Americanus 1: A Belarussian woman was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature.

Boobus Americanus 2: I saw that. She took a shot at Putin during her news conference. Brave woman.

"Bravery hass nothing to do with it, cretin! It wass a frickin' sset up!"

(I'm afraid the conspiracy cat is right again.)

Y2K Baby #fundie kiwifarms.net

(In the thread "Can you be gay and be against gay marriage?")
Note: "Exceptional individual" and "exceptional" are Kiwi Farms's word filters for "retard" and "retarded," respectively.

How about mentioning the fact that the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was unconstiutional and anyone saying that it wasn't bullshit judicial activism is a fucking exceptional individual?

@Jaiman

You can't just not give people basic freedoms in fear that some faggots will try to take advantage of it. NAMBLA tried to take part in LGBT movements since the 90s, and pedos are still shunned by society.

Shut up, cuck.
"""""basic freedoms""""

@Clintonberg

basic human rights

Your name fits you well, kike.

@PurcupineTree

Ok sure but of all the unconstitutional shit to complain about, I’m not going to choose the one that benefits a large group of people and harms nobody.

It harms states' rights. And nobody cares.

Of all the things to override democracy for, we're stooping to fucking gay marriage because some dudes couldn't be buried together. It's especially heinous because it matters so little.

@PurcupineTree

Does it? I mean, would the world really be that different if that order wasn’t made?

If I was a super straight person I guess I might feel a little more scandalized, but in the rare event that I found a compatible wife, I would very much like to get married and adopt kids. My perspective is biased here.

Yes, because laws were overwritten to make it happen. It was an issue traditionally, (at the time of issuing it) recently, and consistently handled by indivdual states. (Parts of Alabama and Texas still don't have gay marriage because of the few institutions there that can validate marriages refuse to do it- wait until that's overriden too for the technicolor special interests groups.)

But fuck that, lolololol. Right side of history.

@PorcupineTree

k that’s fair. I’m just an unpatriotic fag and don’t care enough lol

And that is why your kin will fall.

@PurcupineTree

. They can’t singlehandedly topple democracy, I promise.

They have roasties and kikes as allies.

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.

Unknown CPC officials #fundie independent.co.uk

One million Chinese people 'move into Muslim homes to report on Islamic or unpatriotic beliefs'

'Had a Uighur host just greeted a neighbour in Arabic with the words ‘Assalamu Alaykum’? That would need to go in the notebook," says Dr Darren Byler

Uninvited, more than one million Han Chinese people have reportedly moved into the homes of Uighur Muslim families to report on whether they display Islamic or unpatriotic beliefs.

Sent to homes in Xinjiang province by the Chinese government, American anthropologist Darren Byler said they were tasked with watching for signs that their hosts’ attachment to Islam might be “extreme”.

The informants, who describe themselves as "relatives" of the families they are staying with, are said to have received specific instructions on how to get them to let their guard down.

As devout Muslims would refuse cigarettes and alcohol. this is seen as one way of finding out whether they were extreme.

“Had a Uighur host just greeted a neighbour in Arabic with the words ‘Assalamu Alaykum’? That would need to go in the notebook,” said Dr Byler, in research published by Asia Society's Centre on US-China Relations. “Was that a copy of the Quran in the home? Was anyone praying on Friday or fasting during Ramadan? Was a little sister’s dress too long or a little brother’s beard irregular?”

As many as a million Uighurs are thought to have been rounded up and placed in "re-education’ centres", in what China claims is a clampdown on religious extremism.

Those who have spent time in them, have however claimed that they were forced to undergo an intensive indoctrination programme, urged to renounce Islam and instead heap praise on the Chinese Communist Party.

One former inmate claimed Muslim inmates were forced to eat pork and drink alcohol.

Dr Byler said more than a million Chinese civilians, who refer to themselves as "relatives", were assigned to the homes of Muslims for a series of week-long stays in 2017.

His claim appeared to be confirmed in the Communist Party's official newspaper, the People's Daily, which reported that more than 1.1 million people paired up with 1.69 million ethnic minority citizens in China by the end of September this year.

They often focus on families of those who have been detained in the "re-education" centres.

China was also said to be trying to prevent people from fasting during Ramadan in Xinjiang last year.

According to the World Uighur Congress (WUC), officials in the region ordered all restaurants to remain open and a series of measures were put in place seemingly designed to prevent people observing the holy month.

Chinese authorities have also been accused of putting Uighur children and those from other ethnic minority groups into state-run orphanages across the western Xinjiang region, even if their parents were not dead, as some one million adults in their families were sent to internment camps.

Dilxat Raxit, of the exile World Uighur Congress, has also claimed officials in Xinjiang warned them that they must surrender religious items such as the Quran or face “harsh punishments”.

Doug Mainwaring #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Versus Diminished Lives

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

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

What Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

CTON #racist #sexist amren.com

”It's all a game to them. DNA/Ancestry/Origin is just a fun thing to observe on the side to her. She isn't well educated on any historical matter (especially about her homeland). She doesn't want to look like a brown/black. She doesn't want to live around them, eat their ethnic food (their truly ethnic food -- not the europeanized versions), adopt their culture, practice their religion, or live in their lands. She just wants to have ~10% or so 'exotic' DNA so she can brag about it.

She is truly privileged beyond belief and is ungrateful to her ancestors which toiled for her privilege.”

I've come around to the belief that the female of the species is not terribly aware -- not aware of being privileged (and therefore vulnerable), not aware of danger, or even great danger. My guess is that evolutionarily speaking that was always the man's job -- big picture awareness. Which is not to say she isn't aware of immediate danger. She may well have that awareness in a heightened sense. Her children. That's why and that's her concern.

But the gathering storm? Folly to expect her to notice it, never mind give it a thought.

That's something I do not understand with these white women who spout this liberal and anti white stuff. Women, especially attractive-looking women, are good at spotting men who are predators and who might mean danger to them or their children. That being said, it strikes me as odd how these same white women will welcome open borders and not being alarmed when a flood of mostly young male 'refugees' came pouring into the West. Look at them holding up those 'welcome refugees' signs.

The fact of the matter is that if it weren't for white men, she wouldn't enjoy any of the rights that she thinks are just natural rights that are just part of her existence. If all white men disappeared tonight, pretty young white women like her would go to the highest bidder who would do whatever he felt like doing to her, whenever he felt like doing it. And she would have no say in the matter.

She would end up as the property of some wealthy Arab Sheikh, some African warlord or some Mexican drug cartel.

I told some white liberal women in my class that. I said "it's in predominately Western countries in the West where women can vote and have rights. These are non-existent in the other parts of the world."

DeutschAmericana #racist reddit.com

Nope. If it ain't white, it ain't right. Yes, I'm willing to use DNA testing to filter out Jewish infiltrators and half-breeds that look mostly white.
I would like a nation where all Marxist and liberal policies are banned, so perhaps it wouldn't matter who is voting if such destructive policies aren't allowed. This will take some work to ascertain what is liberal and what is Marxist. The writers of the U.S. constitution did well to ensure they couldn't take guns away.
Marriage will be defined as a union between a biological male and female, and life starts in the womb will both be written into the constitution. Also, the purpose of the nation will be a European ethnostate where things are unequal and unfair. Fuck you, Marxists.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

As a former proud liberal citizen of the world, I was brainwashed into believing that globalism was the next logical and inevitable step in human evolution.
The concept of nation-states were vilified as promoting xenophobia, war, racism, poverty, disease, inequality, global warming, et cetera. Basically, the progressive ideological indoctrination that I was receiving in my far-left private schools from as early as I can remember portrayed nationalism as primitive chimp-like tribalism and a certain path towards Nazism. And the solution to this problem was to tear down our borders, support mass immigration, have a zero tolerance policy towards any form of White bigotry, literally blend the White race out of existence, and work towards creating a kind of UN on steroids which enabled global governance and massive wealth redistribution from the "developed world" (i.e., White Western countries) to the "developing world" (i.e., brown and black countries).
The EU basically served as a continental model of what we wanted to spread globally. These ideas were especially popular in the environmental extremist circles that I was embedded in because, after all, global problems like global warming, human overpopulation, and pollution require global solutions.
So, this is what the Left is working towards whether they want to admit it or not (and don't bother denying it because I lived it for most of my life), and this is what the Alt-Right is reacting to when we say that we support nationalism.
From an Alt-Right perspective, the left-wing globalist efforts to tear down our borders, allow mass immigration into our countries, transfer our wealth to non-Whites both domestically and internationally, blend us out of existence, and create a new global democracy are all part of an anti-White, neo-Marxist agenda that's been dressed up as benevolent progressive ideology.
We also view the neoliberal capitalists on the Right as being complicit in this globalist agenda because they're motivated by greed. They want to mass import cheaper labor and as many consumers as possible, ship jobs and manufacturing abroad, and hide their wealth in tax havens abroad.
And yes, we do think that this bipartisan globalist agenda is avoidable. But we're also fully aware that this global agenda is the most likely future of human evolution if revolutionary White Nationalist movements like the Alt-Right and civic nationalist movements like Trump and Brexit don't spread across the White Western world over the next few decades.
The Alt-Right also isn't entirely opposed to the idea of internationalism and even supernationalism. I personally think that a red-pilled version of the EU and NATO would be absolutely fantastic, and I'd love to see the creation of a new international alliance between all White countries across the entire world.
The Alt-Right also has separate views on nationalism for North America and Europe. We understand that most White people in Europe still strongly identify with their nation-states and want to preserve their distinct ethnic groups, whereas White Americans tend to have a much more universal concept of their Whiteness. However, we're also intellectually honest enough to admit that nationalism does indeed foster tribalistic xenophobia and war and therefore needs to be offset with ideological, economic, and military alliances between White nations in order avoid another horrible brother war. A new Alt-Right global White alliance would also ensure our prosperity, our security, and our racial dominance, and so rising right-wing populist opposition to supernationalism in White countries needs to be offset as well. We also need to deal with the rise of neo-eurasianism in Russia as well.
As to how we think that the world could continue to prosper; first of all, we think that economic prosperity is largely reliant on your national IQ and capitalist economic policies, but that doesn't mean that we're opposed to Scandinavian-style welfare states as long as the dysgenic effects of the welfare state are offset with humane forms of eugenics (e.g., genome sequencing, embryo selection, precision gene editing, abortion, et cetera). We also think that ethnocentrism and nationalism are evolutionary advantages and when combined with racially homogeneous high-IQ populations, socially and environmentally responsible forms of capitalism, and social conservatism create the ideal Alt-Right ethnostates.

VlasrimilAR #fundie reddit.com

You don't have to go public and become a full time activist, however, people who can afford to do real life activism or just informally talk to people about the Alt Right should be doing it. It isn't that hard to do. Test the waters with your friends. Start out with less controversial ideas, and move forward.
Remember, your experience isn't everyone's. Some people have friends who would be more accepting than your friends are. Also, people tend to be more accepting of different ideas than you expect. I used to think I would never be open about my views, but, now, anyone who knows me well is aware.
If our ideas were socially acceptable to talk about publicly, we would grow exponentially. That's why some are trying so hard to shut us down. They know that once you take away the taboo, we'll grow like wildfire. Every time one person goes public about their beliefs, it makes it easier for the next person to go public. That's why doxxing is a losing strategy for the left. Sure, it can harm the person getting doxxed if they can't afford it, but it's really a net benefit for the movement in the long term, because the more people are out there, the more the taboo goes away. I know that sounds really harsh, and I do sympathize with people who get doxxed.
I am not saying to dox yourself if you can't afford for your opinions to be out there, I'm just saying, do what you can afford to do. Test the waters with your friends. Start with less radical policies, like, "there should be some restrictions on immigration", and gradually move to "there should be a white ethnostate" over time.

dailyantifeminist #sexist dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com

One of the points that I believe should be constantly repeated — both because it’s true and because it’s a strong “talking point” for our propaganda — is that all men, universally, find women who show signs of puberty to be sexually attractive.

Furthermore, I think that, having become pubescent, women enter the phase in their lives when their sexual allure is at its strongest. And one of the reasons many men today fail to realize it is because the media, in its “entertainment” branch, keeps showing us older women (women in their twenties and thirties) rather than teenagers. Because teenagers are rarely shown by the modern entertainment establishment as valid, legitimate ‘sex objects’, i.e.: “look at her, this teenage chick is very hot, you should find her attractive,” it can be said that we are actively being programmed to find older women attractive rather than younger women.

For the past several decades, teenagers have been consistently de-sexualized by the entertainment business, while women in their twenties and thirties are presented as “the” most appealing sexual entities. It is no surprise that teenage sex and teenage pregnancy are falling down rapidly. This de-sexualization campaign is happening all at once, coming from all directions: the schools, the political establishment, the entertainment business – everywhere you look, teenage sexuality is being suppressed.

There is nothing natural about this state of affairs. If you look at paintings from the 19th century and early 20th century, you can see that sexy teenagers had been depicted all over by the painters. I’d say that the artists preferred their works to show teenagers rather than older women. They realized the immense appeal of teenage beauty, and they certainly weren’t trying to “program” their audiences to mentally respond in certain ways contrary to their inborn nature, as the modern entertainers are doing, consciously or not.

I sound like a goofball when I write about “lizard brain versus mammal brain,” but this is a crucial concept, and Heartiste — a genius — recognizes it as such. Basically, there is an older part of our brains that controls our instincts, such as the FFF (Fight, Flight, Freeze), and yes – our sexual responses. This evolutionarily older brain doesn’t give a damn about ideology or some such; it is purely animalistic. And it ought to be said, again and again, that if you’re a heterosexual male, your lizard brain is telling you that teenage females are sexually attractive. It is universal, plain and simple.

This may or may not be in contrast to your mammalian brain, which controls social behavior. If you, a heterosexual male, are opposed to teenage sexuality, and wish to see it denied and eliminated, it is because your mammalian brain is telling you that this is how you should feel. Don’t get me wrong: the manmal brain, albeit new in terms of evolution, is mighty strong. It can actually convince you, firmly, that you don’t find teens sexy at all. (If you’re into HBD, that is Human Bio-Diversity, you can argue that among certain human races, there’s an especially strong disconnect between the lizard brain and the mammal brain)

This lizard brain (hindbrain) vs. mammalian brain (forebrain) notion is important, because it helps us understand why people act against their own nature. Simply put, they ignore those older parts of their brain telling them: “this female is fertile so you should impregnate her,” and instead listen to the newer parts of their brain, which may tell them: “you are a bad person if you’re attracted to teens.” And as I said, your mammalian brain can literally play a trick on you, using various emotions, to believe that you don’t find teenagers sexy, even though “deep inside” you do find them sexy.

The entertainment establishment is working non-stop to pit your mammal brain against your lizard brain, brainwashing you to think that only women above 16 or 18 or 20 or 25 are attractive. In your ‘guts’, you’re a hebephile/ephebophile just like me. This is the reality, like it or not.

As I write down my thoughts, I am 23 years old. And, being someone who is very aware of his own inner feelings, I can tell you this: the impression left on my mind by the horny chicks from my elementary school (around age 12) and from middle school (ages 12 to 15) is the strongest of all. Yes, I find women in their late teens or early tweens attractive. Of course. Yet, in my fantasies, I often encounter those lustful teenagers from the past, girls that were either sexually active back then, or at the very least exhibited clear signs of being very horny. A whole decade has passed since then, yet I still see those exact slutty girls in my imagination.

My mind is strong enough to resist media brainwashing; my lizard brain is fierce; and my memory is well-functioning. All these factors combined make it so that the impressions I had from those teenage sluts may never vanish. I sometimes imagine a parallel reality, in which I was married at the age of 12, to a girl of the same age, and grown up having sex with her the whole time. In my case, that shall forever be but a figment of my imagination; but I wish that one day, such things will again become normal. Maybe under a new world order, maybe under Islam – I don’t know.

And as I keep saying, imagination is still legal.

David J. Stewart #fundie #conspiracy soulwinning.info

God hears the cry of every victim. Lawyers victimize people! Realtors victimize people! Judges victimize people! The government victimizes people, by not protecting the innocent in the womb. The U.S. Justice Department victimizes people, when they don't execute justice (e.g., the Mena criminal drug racket, and the HSBC banking drug scandal)! Blatant lying, fraud and corruption have ruined our country. The thieving Federal Reserve Banking System (since 1913) is the most unholy evil ever unleashed upon Americans, who have victimized hundreds of millions of people). If I had the power, I would try millions of crooks, thugs, liars and scammers in a court of real law (not a crooked Masonic system like we have) and execute a lot of people! But then I rejoice, realizing that God does have the power, and can punish the wicked far more than I ever could, and HE WILL. God is omniscient (knowing all)! God is omnipotent (all-powerful). No one is going to get away with anything! HELL WILL BE HOT ENOUGH!!!

I am so sick and tired of our abusive American culture of greed. I get e-mails from businesses all the time, who keep bothering me with more e-mails, even after I use the “Unsubscribe” option at the bottom of their e-mail. They just continue to harass me with more advertisements. It is very unethical and wrong. Many companies do it. They are liars! If you unsubscribe, that should honor that. Sadly, I have had to often use the blocking feature in my e-mail to stop them from bullying me! People are so rotten these days. I bought an acoustic guitar years ago, and was continually harassed by SweetWater Music in Indiana with e-mails, buttonholing me to buy more. I had to block them out too! I hate buying anything online, because companies are greedy and unethical and will harass you to no end.

The American mainstream newsmedia is saturated with lies, disinformation and fraud...

“We'll know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is FALSE.”

SOURCE: William Casey, CIA Director (Quote - 1981 internal staff meeting notes)

Anybody who had the courage to stand up against the Bush administration after the 911 attacks were wrongly called “unpatriotic” by the lying newsmedia. Anyone who stood up against the criminal administration of President Barack Obama was labeled as “a racist” (which MSNBC liked to propagate), which was a malicious lie used to brand anyone who didn't go along with the tyrannical new government in America. We are being lied to! The international banking cartel, through Wall Street and various Zionist groups, have taken over our government (including control of the military, CIA, FBI, Hollywood and mainstream newsmedia). Americans are as naive fatted lambs being led to the slaughter! The criminals at large even mock truth-tellers, calling us “conspiracy nuts,” while the evil and crimes continue. Sadly, your average Baptist pastor today is a yellow-bellied coward, arrogant, a self-conceited wimp, who is only concerned about his belly and not the truth.

S. D. Wells #conspiracy naturalnews.com

The 7 most dangerous vaccines injected into humans and exactly why they cause more harm than good

(NaturalNews) Oh, the theory of vaccines sounds great. Inject a tiny bit of the live virus into your blood so you can build antibodies and thus immunity against the “real deal” later. If that’s all there was to it, it could actually work. Then there’s the fear mongering that’s thoroughly “inflamed” and propagated by the press, pharma, and the medical doctors of quack Western medicine. This is where the real money is made. If you get measles you could die! If you get polio you’ll surely be paralyzed for life! If you get Zika, your baby’s head will be shrunken and deformed!

Yet, what if you found out today that the worst odds you or your children have of being infected with disease, disorder, and deformity exist in getting injected repeatedly with neurotoxins, genetically modified bacteria, live experimental strains of multiple viruses and pesticides? Consider this: not one single vaccine ever produced that is recommended by the CDC today has ever been proven safe or effective. Why? They don’t have to prove it. All they have to do is scare the living hell out of everyone using propaganda, and it’s worked for 75 years.
Presenting the 7 most dangerous vaccines injected into humans without any proof of safety or efficacy

#1. Gardasil HPV – Forget for a moment the fact that many girls who get the HPV vaccine beginning at age 9 for a sexually transmitted disease (diseases they don’t have) go into immediate anaphylactic shock and some into comas and die, and let’s just talk about the insane boatload of chemicals the manufacturers put in this concoction that belong nowhere in medicine, ever, especially that which is injected directly into muscle tissue and that which can penetrate the blood/brain barrier. Plus, remember to triple the amounts of these carcinogenic, dangerous, ludicrous chemical ingredients of Gardasil, because there are 3 of these toxic jabs required.

First we have sodium borate at 35mcg. Also known as “borax,” this is the main poisonous ingredient in boric acid that’s used to kill cockroaches. Is your little girl a cockroach? Is it coincidence that the side effects listed and reported with the Gardasil vaccine match those of sodium borate poisoning? No, it’s not a coincidence. Did you know that anything imported into the European Union that contains borax must carry a warning label stating, “May damage fertility” and “May damage the unborn child.” This is what America “recommends” for preteen and teenage girls who are just reaching the age of fertility. Unbelievable!

Then, Gardasil HPV contains aluminum at 225mcg, which causes nerve cell death and helps the vaccine chemicals enter the brain. Let’s not forget that Gardasil HPV contains polysorbate 80 at 50mcg. Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier in foods, but when injected into animals (such as humans), causes rapid, unnatural growth of reproductive organs, causing sterility. This is population control through vaccines, just as Bill Gates once said at a TED conference would be ideal for reducing the world’s population by a few billion. Polysorbate 80 is what causes the anaphylactic shock and also causes cancer and birth defects, while we’re on that topic. Sorry, but there’s not enough time to talk about the sodium chloride at nearly 10mcg.

#2. Anthrax vaccine (biothrax) – The dreaded anthrax jab contains aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde (yes, embalming fluid for the dead), and benzethonium chloride. In 2009, a study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry stated that aluminum hydroxide could be the primary cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Aluminum hydroxide causes apoptosis of motor neurons, leading to dementia. Go figure. Thousands of US soldiers given the mandatory anthrax jab are still sick or have died. It was never approved by the FDA, yet any soldier refusing it got dishonorably discharged, fines, and possible prison time. President Clinton’s executive order 13139 gave the DoD permission to experiment on the US military with the highly dangerous anthrax concoction.

#3. MMR II – Under Appendix B, listed on the CDC website, you can find the ingredients for the MMR (MMR-II), the combination vaccines that contain recombinant human albumin, sorbitol, hydrolized gelatin, chick (egg) embryo cell culture, human diploid lung fibroblasts, and fetal bovine serum, among other certain preservatives and chemical adjuvants. In the “ProQuad” version, or MMRV (w/vericella for chicken pox), they’ve added monosodium L-glutamate, neomycin, and MRC-5 cells. And although measles is a respiratory disease accompanied by an uncomfortable rash and fever illness that anyone with a normal immune system will likely survive, the media scares the public into getting jabbed with neurotoxins.

Sorbitol is a synthetic sweetener which metabolizes very slowly and aggravates IBS and gastrointestinal issues. Fetal bovine cow serum is extracted from cow skin and when injected causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis and lupus; also shortness of breath, low blood pressure, chest pain and skin reactions. Sodium chloride raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth. Human albumin is the protein portion of blood from pooled human venous plasma and when injected causes fever, chills, hives, rash, headache, nausea, breathing difficulty, and rapid heart rate. Injecting “pooled blood” can result in a loss of body cell mass and cause immunodeficiency virus infection, or contain SV40, AIDS, cancer or Hepatitis B from drug addicts. Still want that MMR vaccine? Didn’t think so.

#4. Swine Flu – This loaded nightmare hoax vaccine contains inactivated H1N1 virus propagated in embryonated chicken eggs. The multi-dose vials contain over 24mcg of mercury per .5 ml dose! The jab also contains antibiotics polymyxin and neomycin that annihilate good gut bacteria, making the immune system highly vulnerable to infection. Add in some fluid from chicken eggs and you have one of the most experimental jabs ever created and a hoax perpetuated by WHO, GSK and the CDC to profit in the billions.

#5. Polio – This psycho-jab contains inactivated monkey kidney cells, newborn calf serum, embalming fluid, antibiotics, and bovine albumin. Salk didn’t invent the cure for polio–he invented new strains of it by haphazardly combining several. Get the facts!

#6. Influenza vaccine (a.k.a. the flu shot) – Specifically, the “FluLaval” flu shot contains 25 mcg of mercury in one jab. The EPA safety limit for drinking water? Just 5 mcg. Do the math, then consider that shots bypass digestion, breathing, and skin filters. Common flu jabs also contain formaldehyde and polysorbate 80.

#7. RotaTeq for Rotavirus – Three oral doses of this Merck-made horror story cost about $200 and are mandated for about four million infants every year. Rotavirus vaccine contains 5 live strains, plus some fetal bovine serum and porcine circovirus–a volatile and dangerous virus that infects pigs. Side effects of RotaTeq? Difficulty breathing, vomiting and ear infection, followed by bloody stool. Then the intestines get blocked and twisted (known as intussusception) which can be deadly and requires surgery on infant’s intestines. Be sure and call your doctor right away if your child dies from RotaTeq.

Ben Garrison #conspiracy grrrgraphics.wordpress.com

image

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Splitting this into multiple submissions because it's long as fuck but all of it is fundie]

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.

...

Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts ae resolve by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

Paul M. Dohse Sr. #fundie paulspassingthoughts.com

Life has taught me some things about death. When I lost my grandmother some years ago, I found that I was unable to accept it. So, I pondered the situation and came to a conclusion: it is ok not to accept death in general or the death of someone close to you; because God doesn’t accept death either. Death is not OK with God; he hates it, and according to the Bible, it is the “last enemy that will be defeated.” When someone close to you dies, a piece of you goes with them; you will now have to find your new normal. You are now less than you were; you must re-calibrate, that’s just the way it is. Death is always a metaphysical subtraction from life.

Death is not a part of life; that’s a bunch of baloney.

There are not worse things in life than death; that’s a bunch of baloney also.

I have seen people in conditions that are so bad that you couldn’t even begin to imagine what it would be like; yet, they hang on to life anyway. Why? According to their testimonies, they are afraid to die. I know people who have a very limited life but want to make the best of what they have, and my career is all about helping them to do that. As long as they are in the fight, I am in it with them.

People hang on to life in hope that they will find some peace about death. They hope they will find definitive answers about death that will enable them to travel through that gate. In our culture that’s difficult because of propaganda spread by those who sell salvation. In geographies where people live from hand to mouth, you can always count on the following: popes, pastors, and self proclaimed apostles are living in splendor. Salvation is big business. What will a peasant pay to save their soul? Everything, including their last penny for one meal.

One of the biggest selling points of religion follows: the church is a sanctuary city from an angry God who wants to punish you in hell for every sin you ever committed. Our view of God and our perception of him is almost helplessly distorted. Christ is presented as a second God of grace that saves us from a God of wrath. This is behind the Christo-centric theology of the church which presents itself as the “under-shepherd” of Christ. The church sells the idea that individual reason and logic cannot understand reality; hence, what we read in our Bibles contradicts what we hear in church, and the result is total confusion about who God is.

Fear of death is compounded because of confusion about God. Fear is the church’s primary selling point. John Calvin and Martin Luther said so.

Hebrews Chapter 2:

Now when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out. But we have not yet seen all things put under their authority [that is, angels]. 9What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because he suffered death for us [“pas” means “all” viz, he suffered death for all], he is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace [love], Jesus tasted death for everyone. 10God, for whom and through whom everything was made, chose to bring many children into glory. And it was only right that he should make Jesus, through his suffering, a perfect leader, fit to bring them into their salvation.

11So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters. 12For he said to God,

“I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters.
I will praise you among your assembled people.”

13He also said,

“I will put my trust in him,”
that is, “I and the children God has given me.”

14Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had [past tense] the power of death. 15Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying.

16We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham. 17Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice [ONE] that would take away [not cover, or temporarily take away] the sins of the people. 18Since he himself has gone through suffering and testing, he is able to help us when we are being tested.

NLT [My comments in brackets].

In the Bible; sin, fear, and death are synonymous. If one is still under sin, they are still in slavery to the fear of death. Note, in this passage, that the only thing that frees us from the slavery of fear is Christ’s death…period. Christ’s death makes it possible for us to be God’s literal children, and Christ’s brothers and sisters. We become literal family members of God. Christ went before us to free us from the fear of death.

Note what is missing here: Christ’s imputation of perfect law-keeping. If that is necessary, we are necessarily still under the slavery of fear and death. Perfect law-keeping, no matter who keeps it, is not what frees us from death’s slavery, only kinship does.

Without fear of death, religion has no product to sell, and there are other things that are very bad for business as well: the idea that God wants to save everyone; the idea that people are able to choose God to be free from the slavery of fear, the doctrine of the Rapture, and the idea that God hates death and gave his only Son to vanquish it from reality forever.

The stakes of life are highest in regard to the death issue, and reason’s logical conclusions regarding death and God are the only things that will assure us, and…

…that’s bad for business as well.

paul

KingOfRome #racist incels.co

The Western World died in 1945

JFL at coping stormcels who think the prevailing culture in the west isn't western culture. Your ethnostate is a pipe dream. Your pathetic race will be bred out of existence within the next six generations, and it's ridiculous for you to care as genetic waste who can't even find a foid of your race to reproduce with or even date. The western world ended on May 8, 1945, when the National Socialist government formally surrendered to the Allied powers. That was the death knell of the last glimmer of hope for western civilization. It's all barbarism from here, folks. You might as well give up all cope and fall into the freezing embrace of nihilistic abandon.

And don't you ethniccels pretend you wouldn't have been happier if the Third Reich won World War Two. Because your peoples wouldn't have migrated to western countries to be used as cheap labor for the Jewish capitalists, your foids wouldn't have all these white men to pine over while you rot.

Kevin Martin #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

3. FOSSIL RECORD

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.

Georgia Purdom #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

What a potent reminder of the fallen nature of the world we live in. We know that death and disease are intruders into God’s originally perfect creation, and we are right to work to reverse the effects of the Curse brought about by man’s rebellion. As Christians work to study diseases like this one or give money to support research for cures, they are seeking to love their neighbors and serve them. They are walking in the footsteps of Jesus, who healed many people of their diseases and called His disciples to do the same. Supporting medical research is one very practical way Christians can love others as Jesus did.

But there is a moral concern that comes with supporting research: should a Christian give money to an organization that would seek to find a cure by violating biblical ethics? In the specific context, the ALS Association that is promoting the frigid challenge promotes an unethical search for a cure. Many researchers are willing to use embryonic stem cells and cells taken from “electively aborted” fetuses to search for a cure.1 Undoubtedly, some of the money generated through this challenge will end up supporting these forms of research in one way or another. While it is difficult to make direct connections between the money you give and which trials those dollars go to support, the ALS Association does provide funding for research involving embryonic stem cells, including from aborted children.

Later, she says:
While it is great to raise awareness of this disease, the ALS Association and some of the researchers they support are willing to destroy lives in order to attempt to save lives. This is not an ethical position that a Christian can consistently hold. In light of these concerns, I want to urge you to be careful about whom you offer donations to, especially when it comes to medical research.


[but, as with the Josef and Jason Lisle quotes, these people see NO problem in killing kids if they think their god orders them to!]

mr.z #fundie banoosh.com

people why it is not beneficial to participate in, if in fact there was something wrong with it. I have precious friends and family that have participated in the challenge and I want to make it clear that I am not wanting to offend anybody or condemn anybody who has done the challenge.

If you did it in innocence, then I don’t believe God holds it against you but I do believe that if a Christian participates in it, they should ask God to forgive them and break off any resulting curses. Let me tell you why. After spending time in prayer and doing much research today, I was really bothered by the fact that this Ice Bucket Challenge was bothering me and I didn’t know why. It was on my mind a lot and I kept asking God why. After much prayer and research, I found that the founder, Corey Griffin, of the movement seemed like a good guy. I didn’t find anything wrong with this kid except that he died last week and was unfortunate.

Is his death related to the challenge or is it just a misfortune? Yes and no. On the surface of things, the whole challenge seems like a good cause. It basically is creating awareness to raise funds for Lou Gehrig’s disease, which is a disease of the nerve cells of the brain. The Ice Bucket Challenge is to throw a bucket of ice water on yourself or give a donation towards ALS which does research for finding a cure for the disease.

This is what I found out and what God showed me in my research. ALS uses some of their funds towards Embryonic Stem Cell Research. When I saw that, I finally knew why I was bothered by this challenge in my spirit, but yet still seemed harmless. But I can’t support human embryos being used and destroyed for such a thing. I can’t support killing a baby for this cause. What also bothers me is that the devil himself has come in through the back door to lure the unsuspecting to participate in a ritual that basically signs a contact with the devil to participate in a kind of abortion.

The phenomena of the craze on social media is fueled by a deceiving spirit that brings death. Is it possible that Corey Griffin caused his own death? I hate to say it and it sounds hard and he seemed like a nice guy but this is the perfect picture of the innocent dabbling in something that has originated from hell itself. A life was taken. An innocent life.

This depicts the fact and is a prophetic message that innocent life is taken to try and find a cure for this disease. God definitely wants there to be a cure, but not this way. This whole Embryonic Stem Cell Research is man’s idea, not God’s. It is man’s way of acting out to “be God” in deciding who lives and who dies. This just should not be. I get sick to my stomach thinking about it. So now that I think about what what my friend said that their ex-satanist friend said about the ice bucket ritual, I see very clearly what God is saying through all this.

The enemy has come into America through the back door with what seems like a good work and a good cause but it is only on the surface. As you dig a little deeper and take the time to research, you will see that what I am saying is true. This is a type of sacrifice. It is a type of satanic sacrifice. All these human embryos are being sacrificed. A type of cannibalism is occurring because this craze and this phenomena is causing people to give into this one fund and neglecting other good and noble foundations that have have better causes and more moral ones.

There is definitely a spirit behind this cause and it is not the Holy Spirit. God would never endorse such a fundraiser that supports using human embryos for research. It is abortion, plain and simple. To all those who have already participated, there is no condemnation, but there is a plea from the heart of God to pray, seek his face and ask forgiveness. I really didn’t want to post anything for or against this challenge.

I didn’t want to get involved. But The Lord challenged me to speak the truth and I have done so. Though this post is lengthy, it is very important to pay attention to what God is saying here. Let there be a lesson learned. WE MUST KNOW WHAT WE ARE GIVING INTO! We should only give into good soil.

I have concluded that the Ice Bucket Challenge is not good soil to sow into. I also pray for those who have the Lou Gehrig’s disease that they will be healed by The Lord Jesus Christ and a more noble and moral research breakthrough for this disease will be found. I’m so sorry for offending anyone because of this post. That is not my heart to hurt anyone. Please hear me on this. I felt it was important to speak the truth and speak what The Lord wanted me to say. I truly love you all. Let me leave you with this final, but powerful thought.

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!”

~ Reeni Mederos

Peter Frost #racist amren.com

Through their high capacity for affective empathy and empathic guilt, these Northwest Europeans had an edge in adapting to later cultural environments that would be structured not by kinship but by other ways of organizing social relations: the State, ideology, and the market economy.

This has been one path that leads to advanced societies, but it is not the only one. East Asian societies have pursued a similar path of cultural evolution while having relatively low levels of affective empathy and empathic guilt. They seem to have done so by relying more on external means of behavior control (shaming, family discipline, community surveillance) and by building on cognitive empathy through learned notions of moral duty.