Similar posts

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

He is most certainly meant to polygynous. We are descended from far more women than men, indicating that among our ancestors most men failed to reproduce, and a few men reproduced massively.

Civilization requires patriarchy and monogamy, but any argument for monogamy presupposes patriarchy, that women are owned by their fathers, who transfer ownership to husbands. If fertile age women are allowed to wander round fucking who they please, they all fuck Jeremy Meeks – and if Jeremy Meeks is too busy to fuck them, they fuck Jian Ghomeshi. If you emancipate women, Jeremy Meeks gets most of the pussy, and nice guys get used up burned out thirty year olds.

For monogamy to exist, it has to be forcefully and coercively imposed on women. Women have submit.

Monogamy should be understood as a system of rationing to deal with the shortages that result from price controlling pussy.

Monogamy is a part of a deal between fighting men, where each man who is willing to work and fight gets at least one women, men disinclined to work or fight get kicked out, and women are not consulted about the deal.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

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

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

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

...

Here is my theory explaining this observation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out. Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men. We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly. So we take power away from men and give it to women. “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men. The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better? Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies. We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs. A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person. I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet. I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people. To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

GeorgeJefferson12345 #fundie #sexist reddit.com

Incels who worship a god are cucks...why worship a deity that hates you

Just go and look in the mirror....god hates you (if their is a god)! You see Jeremy Meeks....your god loves him! That's his homeboy! Jeremy Meeks is on gods favorite persons list. There's even Biblical precedence for this, read Malachi 1:3 "Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”

And he hated Esau for no reason and loved Jacob for no reason. Incels are the modern day Esau's and Jeremy Meeks, Henry Cavill, Lebron James and every tall, good looking, hyper neurotypical Chad, Tyrone and Chang you see are the modern day Jacob's. Look around you...here you are, a 5'2 small framed brown ethnic with bug eyes and you're at school and you see the 6'1 Chad quarterback walking down the hallway with his arms around two Stacies....you look elsewhere and you see Tyrone grabbing some girls ass and she playfully tells him in a submissive tone "Stop...you play too much tee hee". But you, my short ethnic friend, had better keep your hands to yourself. If you grab a girls ass, your best case scenario is that you get suspended from school for a few days, your worst case scenario is that she gets Tyrone to come beat your ass.

Why would you worship a deity who makes you suffer for no reason while giving rewards to Chad and Tyrone also for no reason. It's because that deity, if he exists, loves Chad but hates you.

If you think God hates you, you know nothing about God at all. In EVERY religion THIS LIFE is meaningless, its a milestone, its a test, whats worth it is the afterlife. Some of us are shown pain in this life, God loves showing people suffering, if you dont know pain how would you know pleasure? You fool, IF God asked me if i want to be reborn as a blupilled, monkeyminded and degenerate Chad, i would refuse him. It doesn't matter that i've been trough what most people have never imagined, im still happy that He showed me what pain is and disciplined me. Stop making excuses about everything, thats why incels are not taken seriously. Grow up and emprace the pain

Massive cope. You sound like the mom who has a Down Syndrome son and says "I wouldn't change him even if I could" while looking at all the other moms with their normal children. It's human nature to cope when we are in situations that we can't change. The only other option would be outright despair. If I had a pill that could change her Down Syndrome son into a normal kid, you really think she wouldn't take it in a heartbeat?

Likewise, if I had a pill that could change you into a hyper NT, 6'1 gym maxxed Tyrone, you'd go kill someone in order to get it.

This is covered in the Bible book of Job. Job was a faithful man who lost his family, his livelihood, and his health because a satan waged a bet with Yahweh (God) that Job would lose his faith if Yahweh let Job's shit get fucked up. Yahweh agreed because causing/allowing immense suffering just to prove a point that nobody thinks or cares about is how he rolls. Long story short is that Job does lose his faith and the satan was right (just like how the serpent in Eden was right.)

Yahweh then explains to Job why he should get back in line: Yahweh (claims to have) created everything, he is way stronger than Job, and Job is a miserable piece of shit. Job submits to Yahweh once again, and as a reward gets a brand new family, so it's like nothing ever happened, because people are interchangeable. The end.

Except that in the end, Job got back more than he ever lost. That just doesn't happen in real life. Most incels are not going to be rewarded with lots of money and prime Stacies if only they just grit their teeth, wageslave and have faith in Jeebus. They'll just continue suffering until they're dead.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Newest target of Left is biggest one of all: your marriageThe professional association that bowed to pressure from homosexual activists during the 1970s is now advocating adultery among married couples.

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) suggests no one should ever consider the American Psychological Association a legitimate source again, citing the push for “consensual non-monogamy” from a group of lesbian and homosexual psychologists.

According to Higgins and IFI, an APA group known as Division 44, founded in the 1980s, formed a "task force advisory board" last year that examined consensual non-monogamy in the interest of “relationship diversity" and has now released its findings.

“Consensual non-monogamy” is professional euphemism for adultery and infidelity.

(full article here: https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/07/12/newest-target-of-left-is-biggest-one-of-all-your-marriage)

Lady Checkmate:
Again, their goal was always to mock and trivialize marriage. This is just a continuation of their original goal. But, God’s will will be done in spite of their mocking and hate.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, guess what.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

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.

Midwestcel #crackpot #racist incels.co

For those who know not what Chadrone is

Simple. Its a good looking guy who has one black parent and one white parent or one black parent and one half black/half white parent. Basically a cross between a Chad and Tyrone. Jeremy Meeks is the most famous Chadrone. His dad was black and his mom was mixed with black and white.

image

However, under the old one drop rule, they may still be considered Tyrone's. Under old American Jim Crow laws for example, Jeremy Meeks would have been considered black meaning he could only attend black schools, could only use the blacks only designated areas, would have been illegal for him to marry a white woman, etc. And when he fills out government forms he probably lists his race as African American.

But he's one of the more famous Chadrones. Muhammad Ali's grandson is a Chadrone. I mentioned him in this thread.


Foids lusting over Muhammad Ali's 17 y/o Chadrone grandson | Incels - Involuntary Celibate
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/muhammed-alis-grandson-biaggio-ali-walsh-is-a-top-college-recruit-and-a-model.1044564/ Yet, if a guy over 20 lusts after a 17 y/o Stacy, he's a pedophile who can't get a woman his own age and needs to be jailed for life. If he even implies that a 17 y/o...
incels.co

His mom is black and his father is a white man.

Mainländer #sexist #vogon incels.wiki

(Line breaks added by submitter; link includes a video of him performing the “song”)

Going outside sucks so much
I get to see
So many cute white young girls whom
I won't ever even kiss
Going outside sucks so much I saw a boy
Playing Pokémon with his dad
Something I have never enjoyed
Going outside sucks
I wish that I could be
Till the day I die
A full blown NEET hiki
Why aren't foids forced to pay incels
To be NEETs just like men do with the kids
Foids have outside of the wedlock
With Chads and thugs, scoundrels and bandits
I wish I was Jeremy Meeks
And got paid well only to exist
Even after his violent crimes
Looks are indeed everything in life
I go outside and see the
People working on
The streets under the hot sun all are
Men foids never fawn upon
I go outside and I see the Normies with gfs
All of them are fat, tattooed roasties
Either that or ancient hags
Going outside sucks
I wish that I could be
Till the day I die
A full blown NEET hiki
Why aren't foids forced to pay incels
To be NEETs just like men do with the kids
Foids have outside of the wedlock
With Chads and thugs, scoundrels and bandits
I wish I was Jeremy Meeks
And got paid well only to exist
Even after his violent crimes
Looks are indeed everything in life

W.W. Bridal Boutique #fundie epgn.com

The owner of a Pennsylvania bridal shop recently claimed that her faith precluded her from selling a dress to a same-sex couple.

Shannon Kennedy and Julie Ann Samanas said the incident happened July 8 at W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, about two-and-a-half hours north of Philadelphia. The West Pittston couple visited the shop in search of a dress for Samanas for the couple’s March 2018 wedding.

“We filled out the form that said ‘Bride’s name,’ ‘Budget’ and then where it said ‘Groom,’ we crossed it out and wrote ‘Bride’ and put Shannon’s name down,” Samanas explained.

The couple, who were accompanied by Samanas’ sister, handed one of the two women who was working the form and, after reviewing it, she inquired if the dress was for a same-sex wedding.

“She said, ‘I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re Christian and we don’t believe in that; our faith doesn’t let us believe in that,’” Kennedy recalled.

The women said they didn’t challenge the staff member and exited.
“I think we were kind of in shock,” Kennedy said. “We all looked at each other and went, ‘Oo-k’ and walked out. It was unexpected. Afterwards, you think of everything you should have said.”

W.W. Bridal Boutique did not respond to a request for comment.

The women posted about the incident on Facebook and tagged the store. In a July 11 post that has since been deleted, the store posted: ”The owners of W.W. Bridal Boutique reserve the rights afforded to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution to live out our lives according to our faith. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ We will continue to serve our customers based on the tenets of our faith.”

Kenney and Samanas said they believe the operators of the store’s Facebook page have blocked them both.

They said they have received a wealth of support on social media.

“I grew up about 20 minutes from there and I think about 90 percent of the people who commented were straight people I went to high school with, which is awesome,” Kennedy said. “We had about 300 shares of our post, and I think we only saw two negative things.”

W.W. Bridal was embroiled in a similar situation in 2014, after the store owners, identified then as Victoria Miller and Jeremy Stabler, allegedly declined to schedule an appointment for a lesbian couple. Kennedy and Samanas said they recalled hearing about that incident but didn’t realize it was the same shop.

Pennsylvania continues to lack a statewide LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination law; more than 40 municipalities have adopted their own nondiscrimination measures, though Bloomsburg is not among them. After the 2014 incident at W.W. Bridal, members of the Bloomsburg Town Council proposed asking the town solicitor to draft an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance, but after a community meeting that drew both support and opposition, voted 4-3 against moving forward with such a measure. The council did send a letter to the state legislature urging it to adopt statewide LGBT protections.

Bloomsburg Mayor Sandy Davis did not respond to PGN’s request for comment.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

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

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

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

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

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

/r/incels #sexist #dunning-kruger reddit.com

[Automated message, possibly triggered by using the word "personality"]

Women often euphemize personality for muscles and a masculine face. When gangbanger Jeremy Meeks was released from prison for robbing and beating another boy close to death, his girlfriend married and had children with him. Meeks improved his personality so much that he later cheated on his wife with a rich bimbo and didn't even feel bad about it.

Zyrros #fundie reddit.com

"life isn't fair, get over it" - this is precisely the BIGGEST problem that can't be looked over. Genetic disparity is INHUMAN (long explanation)

I just hate when normshits say this. "life isn't fair, get over it. work on loving yourself blahblahblah" how do you gain the motivation for anything when you know that there are objectively superior and objectively inferior genetics withing the same species?

Humans are NOT born equal. This should concern people way more than it does. Its WORSE than the differences between being born a king vs being born a peasant, because at least, trough revolution, peasants could dethrone the king.

Its enraging that with the SAME socioeconomic background, humans, and specially males, lead radically different lives according to their genetics. It's so FUCKING UNFAIR, that there is a unwritten genetic hierachy that matters even MORE than socioeconomic background. For example. Jeremy meeks, who came from EXTREMELY LOW socioeconomig background with crimes included, has a better life than most upper-middle class average genetics males.

Ill explain how the hierachy works: the more you can be surpsassed in looks (genetics) by other males, the worse your life will be.

-If you can be surpassed by 2 points (so you are around a 6.5, being 9 the highest), give up on love, comittment and loyalyu.

-if you can be surpassed by 4 points (you are a 4.5) give up on true desire from the opposite sex. You also get way less help and respect from people.

-If you can be surpassed by 5 points (3.5) just give up on any contact at all with opposite sex, and also give up greatly on your ability to form social circles and friends. You get no respect at all, will be probably be actively bullied instead of helped, and at this point even people whose work is to attend you (baristas, cashiers, shop sellers) will already give you a different, less helpful treatment.

-If you can be surpassed by 6 poiints just LDAR because nothing will go well for you in human interaction.

I don't get why what happens to me when seeing how different lives are because of the way you are born doesnt happen to more people, specially normies: My blood boils. Even when sharing the same family environment, shame school, same job, same salary, same everything, two males will lead radically different lives if one is an incel and one is a chad genetics wise. HOW IS THAT FAIR?, ITS A FUCKING INJUSTICE.

Blessed genetics people are allowe way more things than lesser people. A chad can play dungeons and dragons in front of everyone, collect trading cards, brag about his new 2X graphics card ultra gaming pc and tell everyone about the cosplay conventions he goes and he will actually get people interested in those topics. An incel will be mocked and bashed just for saying he watches some mainstream anime. Both the chad and incel coming from same family, same school, same "opportunities", one is treated like a second class citizen compared to the other.

Next time some normie criticizes monarchy or differences between upper and lower socioeconomic classes because "they live differently just because they were born higher or lower class", remind them on how genetics are the GREATEST thing that separates fellow human lifes quality at birth.

I can't fucking stand unfairness. Normies who tell people to get over this shit and "grow up" and suck it up should drop dead.

MRinvalidusername #sexist reddit.com

This caught me by surprise on IT lol it was funny till he starts talking to them

image

I read that thread and those fucks really are delusional. It's funny how they dismiss Jeremy meeks by saying he's just one guy, yeah one guy who got TONNES of female validation for his FACE and now has become a BILLIONAIRE despite being part of a GANG and beating someone up for DRUGS. And they're really telling us that this is nothing to look at, and that he's some exception??? He's not even the only one, there's tonnes of other good looking men with bad personalitys who have far more success.

And why can't these fucks just provide any form of evidence that displays different success rates associated with different personality traits??? Why are the studies always about how good looking ppl have more success? Fuuccckk

shingis231 #sexist reddit.com

Final proof to normies that personality has nothing to do with it

1- countless and countless tinder experiments on tinder and other dating sites proving that no matter how misogynistic your bio is women will still, not only fuck you, but also message you first http://imgur.com/uWq0x7c and the average joe doesn't get a single match in a month

2- women only rate a very small minority of men attractive while over 80% are somehow below average http://i.imgur.com/TNjsvOk.png

3- can you name me one celebrity who can't get a gf whenever they please? chris brown beats women and still dates 10s. dan brazillian is a famous "misogynist" and fucks a different 10/10 everyday. justin bieber, john mayor they can all steal your gf despite being notorious douchebags.

4- Look at your school or work place. the guys who have gfs and the guys who don't. you will notice that the attractive ones have gfs and the ugly ones don't. is it because all ugly people have ugly personalities? 5-women bailing out jeremy meeks and paying for his bail despite being a criminal. it must have been because he had an awesome personality while he was assaulting women and kids.

Conclusion: this is me talking to the normies browsing here. women know pesronality doesn't matter but they trick you! look at their actions not their words.

inb4 they start strowmanning and moving the goal posts instead of actually responding to this sound proof argument.

Enigmatic93 #sexist reddit.com

Incels have legitimate reasons to dislike women beyond "They won't fuck me"

It wouldn't be that bad if women simply ignored us and declined our advances but it goes a lot deeper than that.

They actively go out of their way to make us feel like shit by calling us creepy just for existing. I'm sure some of you remember the thread where security harassed a guy for sitting to close to a girl despite being a table apart. This stuff happens to ugly guys all the time through no fault of their own. They get the creepy label attached to them despite never actually doing anything creepy and minding their own business.

Women also have tendency to use guys as emotional tampons and ATMs. Incels don't have female freinds. At best they have women who use them when they need something.

Last, but not least, they often lie about how looks attracts them to a man or downplay how important looks are. They will often tell you that it is a guy's personality or confidence or sense of humor and other corny shit that attracts them to a guy, but as soon a guy like Jeremy Meeks shows up and wets panties across the globe despite being a criminal, all of that bullshit goes out the window.

EDIT: This is also not to mention the other microaggressions women act out against uglier men such as wearing revealing clothing but covering up whenever an incel looks at them, or moving seats on public transportation etc. I may expand on this in another thread.

Incel Wiki #fundie wiki.incels.info

Welcome to the incel Wiki! Members are encouraged to detail the forums of incels, incel memes, prominent incels, historical events, lingo etc.

Rules:

Do *not* post content violating US/international law, create a page about someone under 18, or post calls to violence or encouragement of suicide

Do *not* post content not available to the public, or sensitive personal information like street addresses, private social media photos, social security numbers, and the like.

Disclaimer: Most things contained in this wiki are meant to be satire. Do not take this forum seriously. It is not your personal politics wiki. If you would like an image or whatever removed, please make note of so on the relevant talk page or for sooner removal PM 'master' in this discord server: link and also leave a message in the server. Incel Wiki is against any form of threatening comments or content, or content violating US/international law. Admins/mods endeavor to monitor & appropriately deal with any such material but can not be online all the time & as such it is members responsibility to act in accordance with the law. As such Incel Wiki takes no responsibility for the actions of others in this Wiki.

INCEL

An, "incel", is someone who has been totally shit on by the world to the point where they are 'involuntarily celibate' for six months or more. Incels are known for being poor, being victims of abuse, living with their parents, having medical disabilities, and spending way too much time on the internet. Many, but not all incels forums, subscribe to the philosophy of the, "blackpill".

Many people make fun of incels for having a victim complex. However it is completely justified for incels to have a victim complex given they are usually ugly or bullied/ostracized to the point of having bad social skills. The same people who tell male incels that they are entitled and whiney, are usually the same people who feel entitled to non-sexual emotional labor of others through government and the same people who tell men they need to express their feelings more. Apparently men are supposed to express their feelings but their feelings are 'invalid' and therefore 'should not be expressed'.

image
Incels are the vanguard of tearing down gender roles

Advice from Normies

Since normies don't like to pair up people anymore, they tell incels it's near 100% incels own fault that they can't find a partner. So they offer self-help "advice". Incels are told by normies that looks don't matter, but normies always are curious about how ugly incels are and assume they don't take enough showers or get enough haircuts. They tell incels to be themselves, but to pick up hobbies they don't like. They tell incels that pick up artists are full of shit but that incels don't have enough 'game' to date rape drunk women at bars 'pick up women'. They tell incels that they are too nice but also that they are assholes. They tell incels that sexual intimacy is not that important, but they themselves buy and/or create movies and songs about how sexual intimacy is one of the most important things in the world and they get upset if they have a few week long dry spell.

They tell incels that sexual intimacy isn't a commodity in a game with a reward, but think of male virgins as "losers" and tell incels that they don't "deserve" intimacy due to their actions.

For an incel, asking advice about dating from a normie is like phoning up a lazy customer service operator for a corrupt company. The operator will say whatever they can to get the customer off the line as soon as soon as possible without care for consistency or accuracy, or witnessing meaningful results born from their 'advice'.

Normies, especially feminist normies will often insist that incels are the correct batch of people not to be partnered up. After all it would make women and society seem a lot more just if that were the case. They will insist that sexual freedom is a sorting mechanism for male feminists and good personalities like OJ Simpson and Jeremy Meeks, and that your local grocery store bagger deserves to be an incel because maybe he went on 4chan once or twice.

image
Normies, when not lying to incels about celibacy being easy, in reality consider going even 40 days without sexual intimacy as complete savagery

Minjaze #sexist reddit.com

I've noticed a lot of women claiming that they're "not like other girls" and that "not all women care about looks" when it's clearly bullshit.

If what they say is true, then none of us would be here right now. At least a single girl out there would be willing to get to know us at the very least. But no, girls reject us before we can even say a word.

If various girls rejected me AFTER they gave me a chance, then yeah, my personality is clearly shit. But girls don't even give me a chance in the first place because they think I'm an ugly fuck.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Meeks got female attention when all that was known about his personality is that he's a criminal.

Saddam #sexist #crackpot incels.co

Daily reminder: There is literally nothing more destroying to your looks than male pattern balding

Why the fuck hasn't this been cured yet? Seriously, can someone give me an actual, good reason?

It's fucking DISGUSTING. It's REPULSIVE, and it can EASILY turn a 8/10 into a fucking 5. I'm NOT EXAGGERATING. Please fuck off with your "good looking people look good with or without hair" LMFAO NO. Not even close. Don't post fucking Jeremy Meeks or Jason Statham as examples either, because these are LITERALLY RARER THAN 1 IN A MILLION.

Even fucking LACHOWSKI man. WTF happened? He was BEAUTIFUL. Now he's barely past NW2, and it's OVER for him. He's just above average, and this was once literally one of the best looking guys on earth.

What the fuck is wrong with the world? The entire purpose of the medical and scientific community should be making youth last long as possible. Nothing else. FUCK moon landings, FUCK treatments to help 80 year old should-be-corpses stay alive. Life is YOUTH.

There is literally, literally no reason at all to look forward to getting old. It's just one of the most absurd copes there is. "Yeah, I can't wait to getting close to death". LMFAO. What the fuck is wrong with these people. Fuck everything.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

Now that the world is rapidly turning against masculinity, it’s time we implement a DEFCOCK alert system to provide objective and standardized information on whether a certain environment is healthy or not for men. Here are the five levels of the DEFCOCK system:
DEFCOCK 5

Completely normal male-female relations in a patriarchal society that believes in a binary gender system of man and woman. Homosexuality is persecuted. Casual sex is difficult (if not impossible). There is no threat of wifing up a former cock carousel rider and then being divorce raped by her. Provider or tribal game is required to land a woman.

Current examples: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, most Muslim countries
Male safety level: Perfectly safe for men to marry and procreate
DEFCOCK 4

Mostly normal male-female relationships in a fractured patriarchal society that is beginning to accept alternative lifestyles and gender systems, though men are still valued for being masculine and women are valued for being feminine. Casual sex is common but self-limiting. Divorce rates may be high, but there is a low threat of divorce rape. A mixture of provider and clown game is needed.

Current examples: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Colombia
Male safety level: Currently safe from an institutional perspective but near-term changes are possible
DEFCOCK 3

Substantial degradation in traditional sex roles where men are beginning to focus on aesthetics, style, and fame seeking. Women have gained masculine traits and delay monogamy to launch a meaningless office career while experimenting with over 25 local and foreign penises to understand how their vaginas respond to various bad boy stimuli. Provider game is beginning to get phased out among women under 30. Some clown game is required in most relationships.

Current examples: Poland, Estonia, Brazil
Male safety level: Great care must be undertaken with female mate selection for marriage; new anti-male legislation is highly likely within 10-year time frame
DEFCOCK 2

Traditional sex roles are actively shamed in major institutions, particularly in the media, academia, and government. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are promoted as superior and major efforts are undertaken to destroy traditional marriage. Campaigns are launched to shame and criminalize consensual sex and masculine behavior such as flirting and bodybuilding. Divorce rape is common, with likelihood of imprisonment for missing alimony payments. Provider game is useless on beautiful women. Clown game is required for all men wanting to get laid.

Current examples: United States, Canada, England, Scandinavia
Male safety level: Unsafe to engage in marriage or reproduction; must screen carefully even for casual sexual encounters; slight danger for normal day-to-day masculine living
DEFCOCK 1

Complete absence of traditional sex roles. Institution of marriage reduced to farce. Severe threat of imprisonment for men displaying heterosexual or masculine behaviors. Roaming witch mobs actively surveil and monitor men who hint at having normal levels of testosterone. Women are elevated to goddess status while straight men appointed as their sexual servants through both legal action and media shaming.

Male safety level: Unsafe to live, fornicate, marry, or procreate; males must immediately vacate area for their own personal safety, both physical and mental

As much as many of you would like to apply DEFCOCK 1 levels to places like London, Washington DC, and Toronto, we are not quite there yet. The next five years will be critical to see if certain DEFCOCK 2 cities slide into DEFCOCK 1, which is absolutely unsuitable for male habitation. If I were to place bets, Toronto will be the first international city to enter DEFCOCK 1. This is likely to happen before 2023.

I left Washington DC, a DEFCOCK 2 location, for my current home in Poland, which recently entered DEFCOCK 3 overall, with a small possibility of entering DEFCOCK 2 in the next ten years. Each man has his own preferential DEFCOCK level that gives him the freedom to pursue sexual relations with women who still look and act like women. It’s obvious to me that DEFCOCK 3 and 4 provide a band of pleasure and happiness for the average man to live life on his own terms while pursuing a variety of relationship types.

It would be great if countries remained static when possessing a favorable DEFCOCK level, but as you’ve seen within your own lifetime, decline is inevitable, and I have not personally witnessed a country improving its DEFCOCK status. The best advice I can give men who don’t want to move every three years is to find a city that is either in DEFCOCK 4 or just recently slipped to DEFCOCK 3, because once a decline accelerates, it may happen too quickly for you to leave before you wake up and see a nuclear cloud in the shape of a vagina right outside your window.

shii410 #wingnut #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Jeremy Meeks unironically has a better personality than 99% of men

being kind, intelligent, patient, understanding, hard working or anything like that doesn't constitute a "good personality". a "good personality" means being dominant, aggressive, neurotypical, knowledgeable of pop culture and social trends, etc.

judging by society's standards, a violent criminal does unironically have a better personality than a shy autistic person. the former has all the important traits you need to succeed socially and be respected by your peers, the latter lacks most of the basic fundamentals. this is why bullies are more sexually successful and have wider social circles than their victims

if you saw a school bully shoving a kid in to the school lockers, you'd probably think "he's a jerk". but the average person would think "he's strong", "he's an alpha male", "he just made that guy his bitch". then they'd look at the victim and think "he's pathetic", "what a pussy", "he needs to act like a real man".

at the end of the day looks are the most important thing, but it's important to acknowledge that society's idea of a "respectable man" is a loud mouthed, aggressive asshole who never misses an opportunity to harass and abuse men that are beneath him in the social hierarchy

Various incels #sexist reddit.com

(Nerdcrusher4)
The fact that only misogynistic VIRGINS are made fun of proves how deeply ingrained the adoration for genetically superior males is in the human psyche

Misogynistic guys who get laid are loved and adored by ALL. There is NO ONE telling them they need to change, and NO ONE telling them they don't deserve to get laid. Everyone knows they deserve to get laid because of their superior genes.

The reason people tell niceguys and incels not to be misogynistic isn't because they have a deep hatred for misogyny. It is because you are not ALLOWED to be misogynistic as a genetically inferior male.

(theemperorhirohito)
Lookism is the ultimate rule of our society.

(ovrload)
Chad is seen as cute if he's weird. But if it's a normal average joe he would be seen as a total loser and creep.

ruck_stuck_fuck_muck)
Women: 'Creepy' = behaving in a way that makes a women uncomfortable; both attractive and unattractive men can be creepy based on their actions

Reality: 'Creepy' = ur ugly fagget

(MGTOW-Wizard)
How can people even blame you for the mysoginy at this point. These Normans will agree with our statements and contradict themselves time and time again without fail. Say they agree females are evil and then turn around and try to give advice when they haven't even got it figured OUT themselves.

Then they're like 'what can we even do about it just accept it'. WE HAVE THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE ANGER.

The blue pill... Not even once

(GeneticSewage)
You can do whatever you want in life, just be attractive. You can beat up a 16 year old like Jeremy Meeks, you can be a drug addict, you can be a misogynist who beats and cheats on girls, you can be a drunk driver, you can murder, you can talk about your fake anxiety and it won't matter. Just don't be ugly. The world is your oyster if you are attractive. This homeless guy became a model, because of looks, things just work out for you when you're attractive.http://www.etonline.com/news/178280_kendall_jenner_and_gigi_hadid_turned_this_homeless_man_into_a_male_model/

If an ugly guy instead of this 6ft4 chad said this, everyone would call this guy a creepy, misogynist, that deserves to suffer.https://www.instagram.com/p/BPJUpUWA6bd/

justforlulzandkeks)

This homeless guy became a model, because of looks

lmao

fuck this gay earth

(OrangeFez2311)
Most incels want a long-term relationship with one female.

Most normies and all Chads pump and dump as many women as quickly as possible because they view them as sex objects rather than people. Not only that, normie society rewards people with high "n counts" with endless amounts of social validation.

Who's really the misogynist here????

(nerdcrusher4)
Incels: Women's sexual attraction is complex and intelligent, as a genetically inferior male with heavily recessed maxilla a simple haircut and change of clothes is not going to fool women into thinking I am an ideal mate.

Normies: gym shower and haircut and you get a girl easy ;)

(OrangeFez2311)

lol just be confident bruh, just go to a bar, get some drinks and start dancing bruh, the women will flock to y'all bruh, y'all

(nerdcrusher4)
People respect white knight virgins about as much as they respect a dead animal on the road. Is there really point in going from no respect to that? There is no point in being a white knight if you are a virgin.

Judith Reisman #fundie drjudithreisman.com

[The quoted part is claimed to be from an anonymous Marine and is used in this article by Judith Reisman.]

PORNOGRAPHY IS HOMOEROTICISM IN PRACTICE

"I reported what Dr. Reisman showed me to my buddies. Pornography is "homo" sex - that is it's sex made by men to arouse men and boys. Pornography causes boys to have sex with themselves, psychopharmacologically conditioning them early to male sexual touch. Pornography claims our sisters, daughters, even our moms are non-human animals. Although human women, unlike dogs or monkeys, never go into "heat" ("estrus"), women and girls are posed by pornographers soliciting sex from everyone, everywhere, eye pupils dilated, intimate body parts and lips reddened, often bent over, rump up, to imitate primate females in "heat." Normal boys are unconsciously made anxious, angry, ashamed, fearful of these airbrushed, naked women "in rut/heat." Everywhere they wink, open their mouths, sigh, moan for penetration. Smiling paper and celluloid dolls promise everything and deliver nothing more than a man or a boy can do for himself - thanks to the men who provide the sex images."

[...]

In sum, empirical measurement finds a Pornographic/Homoerotic constituency training of a fit with a "mechanistic" worldview of fornication, abortion, anal/oral sodomy, bestiality, adult sexual abuse of children, etc. Judeo-Christianity condemns all such conduct as inhumane and infirm. Instead, the Judeo-Christian "life" oriented worldview trains its constituency to pre- marital chastity, monogamy, fidelity.

Those bachelors who do not adhere to a higher power of God or military devotion and service, are historically viewed as out of balance and potentially dangerous to the civil order. While Pornography/Homoeroticism differ in the single variable of a shape for penetration, both require a transient supply of fresh penetration objects. Both equate sodomy-based orgasms, masturbation, fantasy, etc., with "the marital act" of "eye-to-eye, lip-to-lip, body-to-body coitus." This intimacy, denied to same-sex coitus, yields conscious or unconscious envy and loss.

[...]

Pornography is a pedagogical tool, teaching boys and men as well as girls and women to view the female sex as sinister, unfaithful, and animalized. In doing so, the learner is unconsciously, neurologically reshaped by homoerotic values and practices.

Bruno Buscaroli #fundie #homophobia #sexist #racist #wingnut returnofkings.com

TODAY’S CONSERVATIVE HAS BECOME YESTERDAY’S LIBERAL

Bruno is a young man who used to dismiss red pillers as alarmists. Then he spent a semester in a college campus and became one himself. Now he educates himself through the internet and a library card.

With Donald Trump as president of the United States, it would seem as though traditional beliefs are making a comeback in the West. However, one only needs talk to the average ‘’conservative’’ for a while to realize they’re not as conservative as they think they are. Rather, they’ve accepted and integrated many leftist beliefs into their own worldview. They’ve become nothing more than yesterday’s liberals, and now defend ideas against which their predecessors used to fight. Let’s briefly look at a few examples:

Homosexuality
[Picture of Trump Holding the LGBTQ+ Rainbow Flag]
[caption: He’s cool with them]
The very idea of homosexuality used to be socially abhorrent during the early 20th century in the West. If you look at conservative politicians now, however, you’ll find they’re pretty okay with having gays around. We’ve reached a point where modern Western culture has become universally acceptant of homosexuals.

Donald Trump, for instance, ensured he’d do everything in his power to protect LGBTQ citizens from hateful ideologies (might have earned him more voters, but you get the point). Even allowing gays to get married is accepted among conservatives nowadays, and suggesting that it might be a bad idea gets you funny looks at best.

Women in the workplace
[Picture of Women in suits working at a computer]

Encouraging women to study and pursue long term careers damages the family structure by discouraging traditional gender roles. If women are busy working, they can’t focus on being good wives and mothers. Not only that, but it may even cause them to forgo marriage and kids completely.

Despite this, you’ll find almost no one on the mainstream right suggesting women should focus on the home. They believe that doing so would ‘’invite misogyny and sexism’’ or get them compared to ‘’crazy far righters’’. Denial of biological truths does society no favors. The longer the average citizen believes men and women to have the same roles in a family, the more damage will be done.

Sexual marketplace
[Picture of a Half-Naked Man kissing a Half-Naked Woman’s back]

Regulation of the sexual marketplace in the form of marriage and female chastity has long been central to the formation of healthy families in western societies. Without a strong and stable family unit, maintaining civilization becomes impossible. Since promiscuity is the opposite of chastity and monogamy, it naturally runs against family stability.

Characters like James Bond are looked up to as symbols of masculinity and role models for traditional men. While men should aspire to emulate his strong nature and character, emulating his love of casual sex is damaging to society in the long run. Sure, quick and easy sex can be real fun, but let’s not forget sexual liberation is inherently leftist and has done nothing but damage civilization.

Denying the importance of race
[Picture of an Anti-racist Protest]

Often seen as the most taboo of subjects, race gets ignored as much as possible by the mainstream right wing. Science tells us that human ethnic groups have genetic differences, ranging from physical strength to IQ levels. But to even speak about those differences in public is to invite an endless parade of comparisons to Hitler, so conservatives dodge the issue.

Instead, they often preach about civic nationalism, the idea of a nation being more based on its identity than it’s ethnicity. They say that as long as immigrants accept American values of Democracy and hard work, their ethnicity doesn’t matter. Sounds nice in theory, but a nation can’t survive once it’s demographic has been replaced.

You can’t win by defending alone
Conservatives nowadays don’t seem to know what it is they’re conserving. Their claims of standing for a traditional society feel empty when they also advocate for gender and marriage equality. As the culture war against leftists progressed, they slowly lost ground on almost every front. And as their image became demonized by the media, they conceded even further to try and appeal a bit more to the masses. After all, if the general public is okay with two men marrying, it’d make them the bad guys to say there’s something wrong with that.

Fear of being stigmatized makes them unable to push back, so they inevitably become weaker as time goes on. Even worse, the children of conservatives who were born into a watered down version of it don’t even realize it. A cycle forms then, in which the next generation is always more liberal than the next.

Mainstream Conservatives cannot reverse civilization’s decay, only delay it. Movements like Neo-Masculinity, the Alt Right and Alt Christianity lack the presence and member count of Conservatives, but are all better alternatives. Unlike the mainstream right, the dissident right isn’t afraid to push back against leftist narrative. One cannot win by defending alone. No matter how strong a castle’s walls, the stones that form it will crumble if it’s attackers aren’t stopped.

Conservatives are already thinking in the right direction, but haven’t fully taken the red pill. If the West is to survive, it’s imperative that we help these people fully wake up. They’re halfway there already, so hopefully they just need a few more nudges.

Ross Douthat #sexist nytimes.com

The Redistribution of Sex

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …

… which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

SchrodingersDick #sexist incels.co

The collapse of civilization is happening in your lifetime. Feminism caused it. There is no coming back from this. Long post.

Expanded upon another post of mine in another thread.. been meaning to post this for you all. I kinda suck at writing so it might be all over the place. There’s a TL;DR down below but I put a lot of effort into this so I’d appreciate if you took the time to read.

For the cucktears lurkers, before you shit on this, Take a step back and look at the world in the context of just another sexually dimorphic mammal species to understand the following.

Civilization is inherently a patriarchy. They are the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. In order for a civlization to exist, female sexual nature (hypergamous genetics-based mate selection) must be kept in check, for men to be treated equally and fairly, to allow for all members to have hope that if they contribute, they can be rewarded with guanrateed breeding right over a female of their choosing. In this sense, it is necessary for the success of a civilization that women be sexually oppressed.. this developed world is a man’s thing and will only ever cater to men. It is our creation for the benefit of all, but mostly genetically subpar, men. It’s all built at the expense of women’s vaginas. Any society in which women have free mate selection can not function. In tribal times, there was 1 sexually successful man for every 17 sexually successful women.. assuming a 100% female sexual success rate, that leaves 94% of men sexless. This is important. If it weren’t for this fact, we wouldn’t have a problem and this site wouldn’t exist. We need to replace genetic currency with something else in order to appease all men and make it possible for everyone to contribute and build something great.. Money was invented. Money must represent survival in order to be worth anything. It must replace the baseline definition of survival meaning a big strong male able to kill other males in a fight. Well we have a police force for that now so no need to worry. But most importantly, it must be able to be used as leverage to purchase pussy under the guise of survival. That’s the only way to keep the male population happy. Without it, women have to reason to mate with subpar men.. This system is inherently oppressive to women. Unfortunately for them, this system favors survival over reproductive success. Everyone survives and procreates but at the expense of females carrying and birthing inferior DNA. Survival is not enough for them. The idea of 1:1 male to female mate pairings guarantees that all the females not paired with a high SMV male with be with a low SMV male and produce genetically poor kids (which is why they are repulsed by low SMV men, which is why rape only exists with low SMV men, but you knew this already, no need to expand), something that disgusts them on a primitive level. It’s a system they need to get rid of.. hence the sexual liberation, fighting for rights, fighting for a right to work, etc. no matter how hard men try to keep a society strong and prosperous, women will actively try and tear it all down.

This snowball formed when women were given rights.. it started a snowball effect. Now there are several things that compounded with each other make for a nightmare scenario for the world.

1: women in the work place. Women earn their own money now. A Man’s resources cannot be used as leverage to purchase reproductive rights with a female. Thus his contributions to the tribe are meaningless as his reward holds no value.

2: genetic misrepresentation and contraception. Estrogen frauding Makeup, plastic surgeries, gym to build a high estrogen ass.. all these things are being used to falsely elevate women’s sexual dimorphism, perceived serum estrogen concentration, age, fertility, etc. notice how every foid does makeup the same way. Thin narrow nose bridge, shadows under the zygos to show zygo projection, rounded chin makeup, eyeliner to fraud thick eyelashes (health indicator).. women are walking around looking like top tier specimens the likes of which would make your caveman ancestors balls explode. Tbh they should bow down to partiarchy that they’re able to walk around like this alone and not immediately be gangraped when they step out of the house looking like they sweat pure estrogen and fertility. And lastly contraception.. things like birth control, condoms and abortion make casual sex and being a whore consequence-free. It’s the reason the cock carousel exists.

3: easy access to a global sexual market. The tribe is no longer a handful of guys and girls with the top guy doing all the fucking. Smartphones, Tinder, Instagram, cars, planes, buses, etc all help make the sexual marketplace a global thing.. in essence it’s an 8 billion member tribe, with easy access to all types of chad dick. Far more competition among males and a far lower sexual success rate among the male population.

4: destruction of religion. Religion isn’t really a thing anymore. It was once a powerful tool to convince women that 1:1 mate pairings are what’s to be expected, no sex before marriage, shit like that (had other reasons too. Keeps men’s testosterone at bay, thou shall not kill, steal, etc. keeps things civil) .. They had a reason to abide and ignore their primal instincts. It did a pretty good job.. now that’s gone, and there’s virtually no way of enforcing monogamy and chastity. Which funny enough, is also the only prerequisite for a woman to get married.. just be a virgin. They can’t even manage that yet a bunch of captain save a hoes are quick to wife em up, and these hoes will wear white on their wedding day symbolizing their purity.. jfl

Compound these 4 new phenomenon together, and you can quickly see that the sexual market is fucked, and a society with a SMP like this cannot sustain itself.. This is a world that belongs to women now. This world automatically excludes all men unfit for reproduction. In this case, it’s likely over 99% of men. What will these men do once they realize money doesn’t buy pussy? Once they realize that if there’s truly no hope for them, they can rely on government assistance, or work a menial bottom tier job just to make enough to survive. If these men even have the drive to go to work, they will have no drive to innovate, get promotions, invent something, become millionaires, etc. you’ll have a lot of complacent men with no motivation to contribute anything. Best hope automation can replace the entire workforce, and if not, then you got a work force made up of 99% women and just lmao if you think that’s gonna take us anywhere. Women have no incentive to make money other than to rid men of their only leverage and open up their prospective mating options. Same deal with them.. they’ll just aim to make the minimum amount to survive and genefraud enough to land 6’4” chad.

This results is a catalysmic shift of the world as we know it.. there will be a total collapse once the number of men who drop out of society reaches critical mass. But until then, you will see a shitload of people dependent on government assistance, the rich being taxed out the ass, who now have even less incentive to keep perusing high paying careers, more people coping with drugs/alcohol, a spike in suicides and mass shootings, high SMV men forming harems, etc.. basically 2018 x10.

For this to happen, It’s not even necessary for the masses to swallow the blackpill.. it’s only necessary for them to realize money doesn’t mean anything anymore. That’s all it takes. Put simply, one’s contributions to society are no longer worth the effort. It’s basically slave labor at that point.

So there you have it. All the causes are there and cannot be reversed.. things have already been set in motion. just wait till the effects of them become painfully obvious. This cannot be fixed since nobody is gonna accept that women’s vaginas are the reason for this. Maybe next time around men don’t fuck up and start the civilization off strong with commoditized pussy. This will all go down in documented history so a mistake like this likely won’t repeat itself. That’s the good news.

This should be lifefuel for you all. You are witnessing the collapse of the most successful civilization on earth in YOUR lifetime. Pretty cool. So ditch your ER plans, untie your ropes, and Sit back and watch the world burn.

TL;DR; a couple rights here and there and a few apps destroyed the world. Patriarchy, religion, and commoditization and sexual oppression of women are paramount to the existence and survival of any civilization. We lack all 4. It’s over. Bunker up and stockpile food and ammo. We’re going back to the jungle.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 2 of the previous Jim quote]

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all her days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power an status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Entropy is always increasing. A fully disordered society is illustrated by wild animals and primitive peoples such as the Tasmanian aboriginals, where all other creatures except for close kin are enemies, obstacles or sources of raw materials – Hobbes state of war. So if you look back in history, you can always see entropic processes, bringing us back towards that condition.

So, how come ordered societies exist, how come surviving and prosperous societies are generally at least somewhat orderly?

You cannot make something clean without making something else dirty, but you can make any amount of stuff dirty without making anything clean. Order for the ingroup always comes at the expense of someone else: Thus, for example, chastity and monogamy requires men hitting badly behaved women with a stick. (Dalrock banned me for pointing this out.) Thus, for example, in Africa we saw societies that herded cattle and planted crops had to enslave, or kill and eat, vagrants that were apt to hunt other people’s cattle and gather from other people’s gardens. The shift from hunting and gathering to herding and gardening involved extended cooperation – and a fair bit of brutality to hunters and gatherers.

As birds are born to fly, humans are born to cooperate. That is our key capability. Our telos is various forms of cooperation, as the heart’s telos is to circulate blood. The whites of our eyes are white, so that other people can see what we are looking at. We are vulnerable to choking, because our throat is optimized towards making a wider variety of distinct sounds than other animals. We have a more muscles in our face than other animals, so that we can unfalsifiably communicate our emotional state, just as every feature of a bird’s anatomy is optimized for low weight and high metabolic output. This cooperation manifested as tribes cooperating to kill other tribes and capture their women. Order consists of extended cooperation. Because entropy naturally tends to increase, because there are a near infinity of ways for society to be disordered, but only a small number of ways for it to be ordered, maintaining order requires a fair bit of ruthlessness towards disorderly people and towards outgroups whose cooperation is unlikely. Gays undermine male solidarity. David’s mighty men could cohere because David could love Jonathan. David could love Jonathan because gays were put to death. Peoples who have gay parades do not win wars.

The ten commandments consist of four commandments concerning man’s relationship to God, five commandments that had the effect of ensuring that congregation of the Lord operated on a cooperate cooperate basis, and the final commandment, the tenth commandment, prohibited coming up with clever rationales for undermining, subverting, and re-interpreting those five.

The four commandments that facilitate cooperation are:
Exodus 20:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The rule on honoring thy parents and committing adultery secured ownership of family, thus cooperation within the family. The rules against killing, stealing, and false witness enabled economic cooperation on the basis of property rights and the market economy.

And the final commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

prohibits people from concocting ingenious theories as to why someone else’s property or wife is rightfully their own – forbids the entire ideology and program of Social Justice.

Compliance to the four commandments concerning God made fellow members of the congregation readily identifiable, and by complying with these four commandments, for which compliance was as visible as possible, one gave other members of the congregation reason to believe one would comply with the other five commandments, for which compliance was less visible, and thus reason to believe that cooperation with people who complied with the first four would be reciprocated and rewarded by cooperation, resulting in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Social Justice Warriors have turned the tenth commandment on its head, making envy and covetousness a sacrament. This explains their chronic failure to cooperate, explains why rallies to save the earth leave a snail trail of trash behind them. Social Justice declares that what people have is “privilege” and should be taken away from them. Which creates a society in which people have no reason to have wealth or family.

A religion is a synthetic tribe. If the priesthood has power and status, and also has open entry into the priesthood, one gets holiness spirals – as for example priestly celibacy. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium, giving every man his due, makes all good members of the religion equal in holiness though unequal in property and power, thus a holiness spiral is going to redefine holiness away from forms that promote cooperation. The tribal religion has to reward exceptional and unusual holiness with honor, but not power and wealth. Send saints to live in a hermitage with spartan living conditions on a remote island as far from the capital as possible, where they can demonstrate superior holiness without subverting and undermining social order. On the one hand, to encourage good behavior, the society must honor supererogatory holiness. On the other hand preaching superogatory holiness always threatens to redefine holiness in ways that undermine order, making holiness a force of disorder instead of order.

...

Starbucks hates its customers, and LucasFilm hates its customers, which subverts cooperation on the basis of exchange. While practicing supererogation should be honored, preaching it needs to be forcefully suppressed. People who preach supererogation should not be martyred, which might increase their status, but rather treated like a stray dog that chases chickens – punished in ways that lower their status.

...

If the Sovereign is forced to punish someone who preaches supererogatory holiness in a way that might potentially increase their status (and Charles the second was forced to burn one conspicuously and irritatingly holy nonconformist woman at the stake) the Sovereign should lock the body in a mortuary for three days, and on the third day ironically check the body to see if they have risen from the dead. But it is as dangerous to martyr those who preach supererogatory holiness, as it is to tolerate them. The Sovereign must always strike at primarily at their status, as Russia dealt with Pussy Riot and European University.

While entropy always increases, it is always possible to locally reduce entropy, usually at the expense of someone else less effective and successful at extended cooperation (as, for example, women, pussy riot, gays, or hunter gatherer outgroups).

The highest and best example of this is western civilization, which is anglo civilization, which is the restoration of Charles the Second. The restoration gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire, which represent the highest level of extended cooperation ever achieved.

The restoration cured the disorderly tendencies of the protestant holiness spiral by putting priests under bishops, and bishops under the King. Which was the imposition of order, at the expense of “non conformists” – whose very name implies their disorderly tendencies. “Non conformists” were priests, professors, judges, and suchlike who were disinclined to accept this hierarchy, on the grounds that the King at the top was conspicuously lacking in holiness. We need to do something similar with our university system, as well as radically reducing its size and the amount of time it sucks out of people’s lives – we need to do Charles the Second’s Bishops, and Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries.

Universities have always had as their primary job inculcating people in the official religion, and giving people cultural and scientific knowledge has always been merely their secondary job. Lately, their secondary job has largely been abandoned. It used to be that giving people job skills was entirely irrelevant, since this was done by enforceable apprenticeship.

We shall restore the enforceable apprenticeship system and divest universities of the task of giving people job skills, in the process divesting them of the power to accredit people to jobs. We shall give considerably higher, but still secondary, priority to the task of giving people cultural and scientific knowledge, and change the official religion to make it saner, by erasing all doctrines that are potentially falsifiable by the realities of this world. Members of the elite will still be required to adhere to the official religion, as they are now, but the task of checking adherence will not be outsourced to the universities. Instead, people in state jobs and quasi statal jobs will be required to recite a catechism and take an oath.

Contrary to the myth about the plymouth rock puritans, that early puritans supposedly filled the North American continent, where we have genealogies, puritans are descended from those who left restoration England to establish their own dissident theocracy, not from the pre english civil war wave of migrants fleeing Charles the first, but from the post civil war wave of “noncomformist” migrants fleeing the restoration, fleeing Charles the Second and subsequent Kings. The first wave, the pre civil war wave, left very few direct descendants.

Restoration England was successful at elite eugenic reproduction, because women were kept under control, and cured the disorderly propensities of the protestant reformation by keeping “non conformists” under control, thereby enabling the extended cooperation that made science and industry possible. Immediately after the restoration, we see Ayn Rand’s heroic archetype appear, the scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that technology widely available. Often these were people who before the restoration had competed for superior holiness, (analogous to Musk’s subsidized and money burning tesla, solar panels, and solar batteries), but after the restoration competed for creating technology to produce value (analogous to Musk’s reusable booster rocket.) This form of order was made possible at the expense of “non conformists”, such as the excessively holy woman that Charles the Second burned at the stake.

In order for society to have cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, the science, industry, and technology that we see promoted by the corporate form, in order to promote cooperation with cooperators, the sovereign must promote defection on defectors. One such defector being a holy woman conspicuously holier than Charles the Second. Charles the second successfully redirected status competition from unproductive channels into productive channels, as for example members of the Royal Society gaining status by discovering truth and speaking truth, while previously puritans had gained power and status by having a Christianity that was purer than the other man’s Christianity. You will notice that Putin dealt with Pussy Riot’s weaponized supererogatory holiness preaching in a way that deliberately maximized disorder – maximized outgroup disorder in order to sustain ingroup order. That is the way to do it.

The restoration created a society that had the greatest cooperate/cooperate equilibrium ever, where people were able to engage in positive sum cooperation, which was made possible by severely negative sum uncooperation – you cannot get more negative sum than burning an excessively holy woman at the stake. If Charles the Second had not burned a holy woman at the stake for excessive, conspicuous, and obnoxiously superior holiness, he would have had the William Wilberforce problem.

Humans are inherently tribal. We have ethnicities and religions, all of which are in substantial part the same phenomenon. A millet is a smaller tribe (religion) within the empire that the empire recognizes and grants some limited self rule and autonomy.

Two tribes cannot co-exist in overlapping territory, except they create little zones for themselves, for example the black table in school cafe. One tribe will always rule, and another will always be ruled. Segregation and Jim Crow was an effort to give blacks autonomy and self rule, make them into a millet, conditional on the black rulers assimilating to white middle class values and behavior. Integration proved to be black dominion. When the blacks were allowed to the front of the bus, they inevitably wound up forcing white people off the buses.

This tribalism is the problem with libertarianism – if you allow liberty, people will use it to synthesize smaller ingroups within the larger group in order to dominate the detribalized majority. William Wilberforce and his “elect” destroyed what the restoration had accomplished, undermining the small scale cooperation between men and women to have children, and the cooperation between elites and individual members of the elite to maintain an empire that kept large scale economic cooperation over the oceans. His successors transliterated the religion of the elect from the next world to this world, creating modern progressivism. Since the transliterated tenets, such as equality, are transparently false to this world, this required them to reject truth telling and truth speaking, resulting in peer review and the replication crisis that has destroyed science.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Instead, need to send Social Justice Warriors away from the universities off to a hermitage in a remote island and honor their superior holiness from a safe distance. If someone wants to demonstrate superior holiness, it should be costly for himself, rather profitable for himself, and costly for everyone around him. Superior holiness and performing superogatory acts has to be made unprofitable.

Josh Hammer #fundie #homophobia dailywire.com

HAMMER: Remember Those Who Told Us Gay Marriage Would Not Lead To Polyamory? They Were Wrong.

“Slippery slope theory is a form of logical fallacy.” – Knaves and fools
The concerted social push is now unequivocally on to normalize non-monogamous, polyamorous relationships.

Just yesterday, CBS News ran a rather disturbing story entitled, “Not Just ‘One Big Orgy’: Fighting The Stigma Of Consensual Non-Monogamy.”

The article, we are informed, is timed to coincide with CBS News’ premiering this weekend an original glowing documentary entitled, “Speaking Frankly: Non-Monogamy.” The article not-so-subtly attempts to guilt-trip the reader to care more about the purported woes of polyamorous couples people: “It is illegal in all 50 states to be married to more than one person — which is known as polygamy, not polyamory,” the reader is told. “Polyamorous people who try different kinds of arrangements — such as a married couple with steady outside partners — run into their own legal problems.”

The timing of the CBS News and concomitant documentary overlaps rather naturally with the lascivious new sex scandal involving Congresswoman Katie Hill, Democrat of California. As The Daily Wire has reported, Hill is now under congressional investigation over allegations she engaged in a “throuple” sexual relationship with her estranged husband and an erstwhile female campaign staffer, in addition to a separate affair with a congressional staffer. But it is also worth nothing that as far back as 2012, “Polyamory: Married & Dating” became a relatively popular reality TV series. Vice, furthermore, wrote a laudatory piece in 2017 on polyamory entitled, “Polyamorists Are Secretive, Stigmatized, And Highly Satisfied.”

Well.

I am only 30 years old, and even I am old enough to remember how leftists and social libertarians alike repeatedly assured us social conservatives that the popular legalization — and, subsequently, imposed constitutionalization via risible black-robed fiat — of same-sex nuptials would lead to neither a normalization of non-monogamous relationships nor a push for polygamous “marriage” itself. Never mind that social conservatives, led by the veritable “What Is Marriage?”-authoring triumvirate of Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, quite persuasively pointed out that the only reason human civilization ever came around to the number “two” as rightfully constituting a marriage is because it takes precisely two individuals — one biological male and one biological female — to create human offspring. Never mind that social conservatives quite persuasively pointed out that once you remove biologically based sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage, the removal of that underlying number “two” would also logically follow. Never mind that social conservatives, led by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, persuasively argued that slippery slope social theory is not a “logical fallacy” — it is demonstrably borne out by real, tangible civilizational results over the span of at least the past half-century.

We are now here. The push for de-stigmatized polyamory — and, to be sure, the push quite soon for legalized polygamous “marriage” — is already unfolding right before our eyes. Purportedly “objective” CBS News, after all, is now publishing non-opinion section journalistic content that tries to shame monogamous readers into sympathizing with the legal “plight” of the polyamorous.

Those who reliably informed social conservatives that the de-coupling of sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage would not lead to such an obvious eventual social trend ought to now be held accountable for their merely shoddy prognoses, if they are to be given the benefit of the doubt — or their intellectual disingenuousness, if they are not to be given the benefit of the doubt. That would include Andrew Sullivan as far back as 1996 and any number of prominent pundits in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision year of 2015 — including Jonathan Rauch, William Saletan, and Cathy Young. Each and every one of these pundits and social theorists ought to be challenged and asked why he or she did not possess the logic- and common sense-based prescience to foresee what was so obvious to some of us.

In the interim, those of us who still proudly self-identify as social conservatives ought to dig in our heels. We have a new pernicious civilizational trend to fight, and it is happening right now.

Missy Fluegge #conspiracy vactruth.com

Many parents believe their child’s health care provider will offer sound, trustworthy advice about what their child needs to stay healthy. There are many doctors and nurse practitioners who do this well.

However, some health care professionals promote vaccination not because vaccines are safe and effective, but because of other reasons that are not in the best interests of your child.

Read on to discover eight reasons why your child’s doctor will tell you to vaccinate your child.

1. Doctors are taught in medical school that vaccines are safe and necessary.
A previous VacTruth article, Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know, is an excellent resource for parents who believe their child’s doctor knows best because they attended eight or more years of medical school. Sadly, this training doesn’t give doctors the answers parents hope they will have. Medical school programs often lack adequate education about vaccines, and the information that is provided is often funded by pharmaceutical companies. [1]

Dr. Suzanne Humphries stated:

“We learn that vaccines need to be given on schedule. We are indoctrinated with the mantra that ‘vaccines are safe and effective’—neither of which is true. Doctors today are given extensive training on how to talk to ‘hesitant’ parents—how to frighten them by vastly inflating the risks during natural infection … on the necessity of twisting parents’ arms to conform, or fire them from their practices. Doctors are trained that NOTHING bad should be said about any vaccine, period.”

Dr. Bob Sears, who is known for addressing parents’ concerns about vaccines, also shared his thoughts about the lack of training in medical school:

“Doctors learn a lot about diseases in medical school, but we learn very little about vaccines … We don’t review the research ourselves. We never learn what goes into making vaccines or how their safety is studied. So, when patients want a little more information about shots, all we can really say as doctors is that the diseases are bad and the shots are good.”

Additionally, many medical schools receive excessive amounts of funding from pharmaceutical companies. An informal survey conducted by National Public Radio (NPR) showed that up to 16 percent of medical schools’ annual budgets were funded by pharmaceutical companies. [2]

When asked about the consequences of university employees criticizing popular drugs, one university researcher told NPR, “So they could potentially lose their job, lose their employment. Or if they don’t, their life can be made quite miserable in terms of receiving adequate research space, not receiving administrative support or something like that.”

A more exact study from the American Student Medical Association evaluated 150 medical schools to determine how much money and gifts they received from pharmaceutical companies. The results of their research, conducted because medical students were worried that their instructors were influenced by pharmaceutical funding, were published on Time magazine’s website and in The New York Times. [3]

Harvard Medical School earned a failing grade, due to the $11.5 million it received in one year from pharmaceutical companies, combined with the fact that 1600 of its teachers, nearly 20 percent of its faculty, confessed ties to pharmaceutical companies. Some of those connections were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

One government agency, the National Academy of Sciences, cited pages of concerns in their report about the way medical schools and continuing education are currently funded with donations and grants from pharmaceutical companies. They offered dozens of recommendations to improve the content of medical training, so that it is unbiased and free from pharmacuetical influence. [4]

Until those recommendations are voluntarily adopted or mandated, neither of which are likely to happen, parents must find other sources of information to make decisions about their children’s health, sources that are not funded by vaccine makers.

2. Doctors are subject to fee quotas.
In recent years, corporate hospitals have purchased private practices, allowing them to create a monopoly in health care. Many physicians who are employed by a hospital system must meet certain quotas for the number of patients seen and number of procedures prescribed to receive bonuses. As a result, numerous hospitals have been the subject of government investigations.

A disconcerting article in The New York Times explained how doctors are rewarded with recognition and financial bonuses for meeting targets established by their employer hospitals to boost profits and insurance payments, including admitting more patients to the hospital, limiting number of days per stay at the hospital, and seeing an increased number of patients per hour.

A number of doctors have expressed concerns and dissatisfaction, in the form of lawsuits as well as anonymous complaints, against these practices, some of which are even outlined in their contracts.

In addition, according to Dr. Janet Levatin, a medical doctor with 25 years of experience, physicians who have their own private practice may lose privileges to refer their patients to a hospital if they do not vaccinate their patients. [5]

3. Doctors feel pressured to use expiring vaccines already in the office.
Vaccines are expensive and some of them have a short shelf life before they expire and should not be used. With the exception of vaccines provided through the government program Vaccines for Children, doctors in private practice must pay for the cost of the vaccines they use in their practice.

One doctor shared her concerns about the high costs of vaccines in a recent New York Times article:

“’The security company can call me any time of the day or night so I can go save my vaccines,’ said Dr. Irvin, a pediatrician. Those in the refrigerator recently cost $70,000, she said — ‘more than I paid for four years of medical school.’

Vaccination prices have gone from single digits to sometimes triple digits in the last two decades … some doctors have stopped offering immunizations because they say they cannot afford to buy these potentially lifesaving preventive treatments that insurers often reimburse poorly, sometimes even at a loss.” [6]

Why would doctors willingly let these vaccines remain in their inventory past their expiration date, when they could recoup at least a fraction of their costs by administering them to patients?

4. Doctors are courted by pharmaceutical companies.
Many parents know that drug companies have previously given physicians trips to luxury resorts, money, and promotional items, in the hopes of increasing prescription rates for their drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies were increasingly criticized for these tactics, causing them to scale back their underhanded efforts. However, research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that even a single meal costing less than $20 given to doctors by drug-pushers increased the rates at which they prescribed popular drugs. The more meals physicians received, the more their prescription rates increased. [7, 8]

Furthermore, doctors who received more than $5,000 from companies were more likely to prescribe their pharmaceuticals. [9]

A website named Dollars for Docs allows users to search its database by name to see if their doctor was given money from pharmaceutical companies. At this time, figures are available for the period from August 2013 to December 2014, and payments dating back to 2009 are available in the site’s archives. The site does not include research payments or shareholder interests, and payments to nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants are not included. Some doctors received millions of dollars in payments, and the staggering totals are also listed by state. [10]

5. Doctors think vaccine-induced injuries are part of normal child development.
Asthma, allergies, attention deficit disorder, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, sensory issues, seizures, and symptoms of autism are often regarded as normal health challenges faced by families today. Doctors commonly see these afflictions in their practice. Sadly, these issues are nowadays regarded as normal, rather than connected to the numerous vaccines children receive by the age of two. [11]

These diagnoses are not a normal part of childhood. In the past twenty years, asthma rates have doubled, accounting for one third of all childhood emergency room visits. In a five year period, one study showed that the number of children under five years of age who were diagnosed with diabetes had increased 63%.

Currently, at least one in 68 children in the United States have been diagnosed with autism, and one in six children have a developmental disability. [12]

Multiple credible studies have shown that, compared to their vaccinated peers, unvaccinated children have lower rates of sinusitis, warts, skin problems, middle ear infections, diabetes, epilepsy, dyslexia, speech delays, anxiety, depression, bedwetting, gluten sensitivity, and more. For more information, see our article, Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers. [13]

6. Doctors who question vaccines are publicly humiliated or scorned.
At the top of this list is Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the physician who noted a connection between his patients who suffered gastrointestinal issues and had recently been vaccinated with the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. His license was revoked and his work continues to be criticized by the masses.

However, ridicule and criticism on a much smaller scale continue to be a real concern for doctors who question vaccination.

According to Dr. Levatin, “Doctors-in-training who challenge the system or dare to think independently are often punished with more work or publically humiliated in front of their peers.”

7. Doctors are protected from being sued when vaccine injuries or vaccine death occurs.
Almost thirty years ago, federal lawmakers in the US passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to “reduce liability and respond to public health concerns.” This program granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies, as well as doctors in most circumstances, preventing parents from suing vaccine makers for injuries or death sustained by their children from vaccinations. It was also supposed to encourage safer vaccines and vaccine programs. [14]

Since its inception, this program has awarded over $2.5 billion to individuals and families who have suffered vaccine injury and death. These awards are funded by taxes on vaccines. Ironically, families are only compensated a maximum amount of $250,000 if their child has died from a vaccine, if, of course, those parents win a claim with the program.

In addition, doctors are also protected from lawsuits if a child in their practice dies or is injured following vaccination. Parents may not sue their child’s doctor for more than $1000, unless they have first filed a claim with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which is a very tedious process, with two out of three cases denied a chance in court. [15, 16]

8. Doctors receive bonuses for vaccinating children.
This disturbing fact is easily verified by a number of sources. Dr. Sears explained that some doctors do not want families who do not vaccinate in their practice, not because of health concerns for their patients, but because accepting patients who do not vaccinate disqualifies these doctors from receiving thousands of dollars in bonuses from insurance companies. [17]

Blue Cross Blue Shield offers a $400 bonus per vaccinated patient to providers who fully vaccinate least 63 percent of the children in their practice by age two. This amount could reach thousands of dollars in bonuses for the average doctor. [18]

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health demonstrated that bonus payments to doctors “sharply and rapidly” increased immunization rates by over 25 percent. The abstract also disturbingly noted that “physicians’ knowledge of contraindications was low.” [19]

Even the government offers physicians the chance to profit immensely from high vaccination rates. A CDC incentive program known as AFIX encourages doctors to increase their vaccination rates, offering financial incentives, scholarships, public recognition, and opportunities to receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. [20]

These bonuses may be especially enticing for pediatricians and doctors in private practice, who often lose money on vaccinating children, as reported by the journal Pediatrics. This study, conducted collaboratively with the CDC, revealed that ten percent of private practitioners have seriously considering discontinuing vaccination in their practice because of concerns about costs, in addition to ten percent of study participants who have already discontinued offering vaccinations. [21]

In a recent survey, 84% of physicians said their incomes were constant or decreasing, which could certainly encourage them to turn to incentives to boost their earning power and pay medical school debts. Nearly half of doctors admitted they would see fewer patients in the next three years, or leave their medical practice completely. About thirty to forty percent of physicians would not choose their medical career if they could choose again. [22]

Conclusion
Many parents are unaware that doctors’ reasons for recommending dozens of vaccinations may not be tied to the health of children, but to other reasons, such as financial incentives, paid meals, lack of unbiased information about vaccines, and negative peer pressure. Moms and dads trust their health care providers to help them make the best choices about their little ones’ health, but physicians are unable to do so when their job security and financial bonuses are tied to the the widespread use of vaccines.

Informed parents must take the threat of vaccine injury seriously and do their own research well in advance of their child’s doctor visit. For unbiased and scientific information about vaccines, we encourage your to download our free resources.

Personalityinkwell #sexist #psycho incels.co

[Based] The point of enforced monogamy isn't to make "romantic couples", it's to destroy the value of female validation.

In today's sexual market, men are competing with each other for female validation, a LIMITED RESOURCE. Some men will get lots of it and live happy, some men will not get it and live shitty lives. The point of enforced monogamy is so that when you get a wife, you DON'T CARE if she likes you, she's your property, and can't exert any control over your mind like women can do to their boyfriends today. People on this forum argue "even if I get a wife assigned to me, she won't like me, so what's the point". See, the problem with this thinking is that you are looking at it through the lens of modern society, where a woman gets to choose her partner, so female validation is seen as valuable. In a society that enforces monogamy, you would no longer value such female validation, it would be completely worthless. Therefore, you would be able to be married and never worry "does she like me", it wouldn't make a difference to you.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Captain Obvious draws the obvious parallel between masculinizing women and a culture’s operative sexual market.

R-Selection necessarily MASCULINIZES women, because under R-Selection, women have to FIGHT their way into an Alpha’s harem.

You could pretty much state it as a foundational premise of Evopsych that you have “Femininity if and only if K-Selection” [i.e. monogamy].

r-selection is the term to describe a sexual market dominated by polygyny, high fertility, lower paternal certainty (and thus lower paternal investment), and usually the sexual or marital disenfranchisement of beta males. Africa is a prime example.

K-selection is the opposite: a term to describe a sexual market dominated by monogamy, lower fertility, higher paternal certainty (and thus higher paternal investment), and usually the sexual or marital enfranchisement of beta males. Northern Europe is a prime example.

C.O. is right that masculinized women — in appearance and personality — are a feature of r-selected societies, because women fight for a few alpha men, toil for their bread, and generally put less effort into behaving or looking womanly because their men are pump and dumpers who won’t stick around for the duration and are just looking for an ass to hump.

In contrast, the men of K-selected societies are romantically inclined to long term monogamy, and seek women with very feminine attributes. If a man is in it for the long haul, he’ll want a woman who herself brings a lot to the bargaining table, and her number one asset is her loveliness and femininity.

[You just stated that it's the other system where women have to work, and you're very eager to talk about how poorly women age ("The Wall"), what the fuck are they bringing to the bargaining table in your K-selection?]

If a nation’s women are masculinizing, that is a portent of civilizational collapse, because r-selected societies are backward, violent societies filled with bitter beta males and bastard children. The masculinizing women are biologically responding and adapting to a change in sexual market norms and functioning, that requires of women a willingness to compete more forcefully with other women for the honor to be part of an alpha’s de jure or de facto, concomitant or serial, concubinage. As a culture’s women become more or less masculine, that culture is likewise becoming more or less r-selected.

Slut walks?

Pussyhats?

Studies in Patriarchal White Male Privilege?

Bitter spinsters typing Feedbuzz agitprop encouraging younger women to follow their EatPrayCarousel lifestyle?

Preteen glam mags offering tips to younger and younger women how to sexually satisfy themselves and their boyfriends using a variety of sex toy implements?

[There's a lot you could say about that last one, but Cosmo being masculinizing is a new one.]

These and more are the cultural hallmarks of masculinizing women. The West is becoming Africa (minus the cannibalism, but give it time).

Eugenicist #fundie sluthate.com

No virtue/ principle/ nobleness compensates for being ugly.

People can come up with any justification/ way people can look at the world to calm themselves. Or, if your parents or family decide on a way for you to make peace with life for losing, or for you to have a sense of honor/ not whining/ not feeling entitled... you're just hurting yourself.
Because none of that matters. No principle/ code of conduct gives you a full life experience. Only somatic/ materialistic/ popularity luxuries do.
All else is pointless if you don't get that.
Living by any ideology that puts you at the expense of that makes you an auto-bitch from an evolutionary/ instinctual/ society's perception perspective.
Don't be virtuous. Be powerful.
Parents/ Teachers shouldn't groom their offspring to be humble unless they're so hopelessly dense or naive. Dont' train them to feel humble, or meek. That's for the lowerborns. Groom them for power and dominance. Anyone who argues just wants to see you fail.

Bro. Randy #fundie net-4-christ.org

Holding hands leads to an arm around the shoulder. An arm around the shoulder leads to an arm around the waist. An arm around the waist leads to kissing, which leads to petting, and so on. Among other lies, popular teaching today tells a teen to know when to stop, but the problem is that sexuality is a process that was never intended to stop. Trying to stop the sexual process only creates a greater desire to complete the process. This desire cannot be legitimately fulfilled outside of marriage and therefore leads to a temptation to sin, if not the sin itself. God’s plan is that the relationship be built on a solid foundation of trust and devotion that is demonstrated through the union of marriage.

But at what point has a sexual sin occurred? That really is the question, right? Since Jesus said in Matthew 5:28, “…whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart…” we must conclude that the sexual sin occurs when the illegitimate desire for physical contact occurs. Clearly Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:28 applies to someone just looking at another person. If a sexual sin can occur just from looking at someone, it can also occur as a result of any physical contact. In fact, physical contact is a clear trigger for sexual desire. This is why Paul was inspired to write in 1 Corinthians 7:1 “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” However, just as physical contact is a trigger for sexual desire, it is also a means of fulfillment as well as an indication that the illegitimate desire is present. Paul further explains saying that every woman should have her own husband to avoid fornication. Have you ever wondered why, at a wedding, the preacher tells the groom, “You may now kiss your bride”? Paul has set the standard for us. There should be no physical contact between a dating couple before they are married.

During one summer, there were four teens in our youth group: two girls and two guys. Let’s call them Dan, Mark, Anne and Sue. Of course, these are not their real names. Both of the guys claimed to be called to preach, and demonstrated a keen ability to preach. Dan found out about a birthday gift that Sue was planning to give him – a kiss. Later that night, he asked for his birthday present and she gave it to him. A few minutes later, Anne and Dan sat in the back seat of a car watching Sue and Mark in a passionate embrace. Now several years later, three of the four have had illegitimate children, two of the four have already been married and divorced, three of the four have been heavily involved in drugs and alcohol. And one still struggles to this day with her walk with God. Was all of this the result of the one kiss? No, not completely, but the one kiss was a match dropped in a sea of gasoline that was the unrestrained emotions of four teenagers.

caamib #sexist reddit.com

This is the brief story of my second gf and her silly, irrational actions. Bear in mind, she is likely my best female friend today.

1.I meet her on a dating site. She just broke up with her boyfriend. I'm still a virgin at the time and she's very uninterested in meeting, wasting our time in fruitless bs talks about nothing.
2.I lose my virginity with some slut and tell this to her. She
a) immediately goes back to her ex AND b)immediately wants a meeting with me
3.We meet and she wants me, not her bf
4.She breaks up with her bf and says she wants to be with me
5.She meets me the second time after this. But now I'm no longer interesting to her. Now she blocks me on Fb.
6.She wants to get back to her "bf", he doesn't want her back.
7.Three months pass. She contacts me again, asking me to solve some fucking problem of hers. I decline and block her on Facebook. She then sends me an SMS, offering sex.
8.She tries to torture me by making up excuses to "give up" on sex and then offering it again ( she later, when we were already in a relationship, admitted these were all fake "changes of mind").
9.I finally snap and post her pic on my blog. She then finally agrees to really have sex with me - under the condition that I no longer contact her.
10.We have sex and I no longer contact her. But she contacts me. (EDIT - some of the insaner manginas online used to claim she did so because she was afraid I'd "blackmail" her again. However, that's just insanity by manginas, since when we stopped contacting I had no more pics of her. When she contacted me again I was BACK ON HER FRIEND LIST AND COULD SEE ALL HER PICS AGAIN). So we start a relationship.
11.Our relationship is a joke and she is a crazy woman.
12.We finally, after about a month and a half, see it's not working and break it off.
13.She briefly goes back to her previous "bf" who fucks her once but then dumps him as well.
14.After some months of me doing other stuff we get back in contact and are friends now. She's a lesbian now. She destroys her relationship with some woman.
Still, in summer of 2014 she start dating one of my best friends but dumps him after a week or two, before they even had sex, because she now finally decided to be a full lesbian.
15.In early 2015 she has such a fight with her schizophrenic mother that she has to come to my place, which I don't want to allow her without fucking me. She does and is angry about it for some time, making a fuss over nothing, but eventually we go on being friends like nothing happened. After all, by that time connections are too strong and we share even some financial interests, along with co-operation in various areas. We depend on each other too much in any case. This helps mend any conflicts but the fact is also that we're by now used to each other and share some common traits - it's not like hate each other but have to tolerate each other. I like her as a person and we share a history.

Lessons:

modern Western women are completely insane. It's a waste of time to try and find logic in the actions. What they do is often as random as throwing a dice. So don't expect anything, especially anything good.

actual full lesbians don't exist

women in general base their appreciation of a man on how successful he is in attracting other women - how this is achieved and his objective qualities are irrelevant. You can be a smelly rapist with an IQ of 70, she will like you more than a virgin with an IQ of 170.

consent is a nonsensical concept in modern society. It's a word that is used to protect female chastity and husband's property, not ignoring the whims of some slut. Modern Western women will hate you if you think about consent. You need to show you have a spine and fuck them regardless of their stupid whims, or they won't respect you.

Relationships in the modern Western world are a joke. Your "gf's" or "wife's" pussy is everybody else's as well as "yours" - and laws are made that way too. There is basically nothing a husband or a boyfriend can do about a cheating wife and pathetic cucks will always protect these sluts. So have no qualms about fucking other men's wives or girlfriends in the West - if you won't somebody else will. Besides, the guy they claim to be with is doing the same to other men's "gf's" and "wives". Expect absolutely no fidelity of any "gf" you will have in a feminist culture - it's like expecting a cat to not eat that steak when you leave the cat with it in a room to go grocery shopping. Fidelity is achieved in a sane patriarchal culture by marrying women off as virgins, making being a slut an undesirable trait and not allowing any feminist laws. In the Western culture your "gf's" or "wives" pussy is E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y'S and she is not fit to be a caring wife and a mother. You will be raising some retard's children, not your own.

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.

Michael Gleason #fundie patheos.com

Here is my problem with this whole issue theologically. Biblical Marriage is picture of of how Christ loves the Church. Christ is monogamous to the Church and so the Biblical view of Marriage is Monogamy. In Christ loving the Church he is always faithful, he has eyes only for his Bride (the Church). There is one Church, One Bride. In the same way the Church is called to be wholly faithful to the one who redeems us. There are many passages in the old and new that talk about being unfaithfulness to God. God throughout the Bible condemns Israel for being unfaithful. So if Biblical Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church the idea that Polyamory does not stand up to Biblical Scrutiny. If you plan to respond with the typical what about Abraham, David, Solomon...etc. You need to understand that the people in the Bible are flawed individuals that do no live up to the the Perfection of Christ. The ideal marriage in Scripture is 1 Man 1 Woman for life.

SoyBugDestroyer, kuubii #racist #fundie reddit.com

Nah, Jesus was Aryan. Healing people and giving them food for free? Talking about loving everybody and forgiving your enemies? He even called the Jews “children of the Devil” (John 8:44) and they murdered him for it.

Black Jesus would have been raised by a single mother who was on government assistance from the Roman Empire. When Black Jesus got older, he’d gather his 12 “bruthaz” in the “squad” around and share wisdom such as “the meek can suck a dick and only those with the biggest booty hoes will inherit the earth. All the romans is raycis af this whole system designed to keep a Hebrew Israelite down. We gots to fight back and kill some Romans, ya’ll niggas feel me?” Mary Magdalene would then say “damn you cute” and twerk for everyone as his squad all raised their fists and chanted “ooga booga”, “facts”, and “Das rite!!” He’d have called anybody who disagreed with him racist and probably would have tried to jump Caiaphas outside the temple for “talkin shit.” Can you imagine a black man quietly standing still as another man insults him and accuses him of all kinds of crimes in a court of law? 😏 If you think Jesus was a kang you’re out of your mind lol.

(((people))) are posting this on AHS but you're right

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/jesus-was-not-a-jew/

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Every relationships I got into turned very badly, and when the gal is seriously crying, I try to give a damn but I can't. Sometimes this coldness makes me laugh in my head (because it still surprises me), and the girl can see a little smile on my face while she's in tears, which makes things worse.

And I read this too : "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction, at 31%." Which not surprise me, but when we're objective it's kinda shocking.

Seeing all this destroyed people around me just because of me is getting weird. Am I an asshole, or is it IxTPs people in general ? In both case I know I won't change so it kinda sucks in a way.

And how can women knowing MBTI can look after ISTP or INTP (men), there's nothing likable in us . This is a suicide.


[Just because women are biologically built to have children doesn't mean that we're built to stay home with those children.]

Women are weaker and therefore, less adequate for outside work. Even if most jobs today do not require physical strength, women are more emotional, more sensitive, more unstable (periods), less competitive and therefore less adequate for the workplace.

Men are physically stronger, women weaker. It's science. And denying that men have always searched for weaker, fragile, feminine etc... women, and women for stronger, muscular, tall, dominant men is bullshit.

[The fact that you think of women solely in the context of your sexual attraction to them is an example of sexism.]

I'm telling my way (and most men's) to behave with women is linked to our heterosexuality. Yes we prefer women be weaker than us, more fragile, nicer, sweeter etc... More feminine.


[I know a lot of men who believe they'd like to be stay at home dads and if that's what works for families then it's really not your concern. Babies are still being born, someone is staying home with them, doesn't matter if they have "milky boobs" or not]

First, most men would probably not want that. Second, you just screw with Nature. All women body functions, psychology etc... are made for motherhood. The existence of women is linked to motherhood actually. You wouldn't have your periods every freaking month otherwise.

[HOWEVER, "serial monogamy" (one mate AT A TIME) is absolutely something we're capable of. Essentially, the thing we should be asking for is not monogamy, but "exclusivity".

Exclusivity is the term and condition in a closed relationship social contract.]

Serial monogamy is BS and a social construction. It's the crap women tell us to make us believe "romantic monogamic love" exists (and is the norm). When I date somepne, my love for women don't go away and my dong too. Forbidding men to be themselves can make us go sneaky, hide stuffs and cheat.


Maybe. And because of this, women shouldn't impose "monogamous love" on men. Men and women don't have the same perspective on sex, one is active (and physical), the other passive (and almost emotional).
Sex has nothing to do with love/emotional bonding for most of us (men).

And because women want us to "love" them before we fuck, most of us (unfortunately) lie to get laid.

[Why not install chastity belts on women from the nursery homes until marriage (with a MAN only of course)?]

Women should be "correct" and "modest" about sex. I like women preserving for marriage, like Christians and Muslims. It's more correct and clean.

Men are not meant to be monogamous. Let the man live. We separate love/affection and sex quite easily. It doesnt mean we don't like you, just that other sexy/lovely women are very easy to love for us.

Personally,a beautiful woman sincerly smiling and being kind with me is enough for me to "fall in love". Even a silent/mysterious sexy woman is enough.

I already date women for a nice pair of ass, tits, beautiful eyes or hair, it's about little things sometimes.

Love is very physical for men. Love is more emotional for women. "Physical love" is more easy to have because you don't need a lot of bonding to have it. Men can look "promiscuous" because of that.

A lot of men think like me I guess.

For my sexual life, I don't think I could stay with one woman all my life, it's crazy. It's almost depressing. I would probably cheat on her or watch porn for a change. That's why men prefer submissive women, they won't leave you if you make "some" accidents sometimes. After pregnancies, women generally get fat, stretch marks and all, this is just disgusting. I don't know where the monogamy myth come from, at least for men.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.com

"Sexual Utopia in Power" (The Occidental Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 2) is possibly the best article I have ever read. My blogging against feminism is almost redundant after F. Roger Devlin has put it so well. This is what I have been thinking ever since growing up in the hateful climate of feminism -- and hate breeds hate, resulting in the angry man I am today. These are my views exactly on everything from sexual harassment to divorce. The Occidental Quarterly is clearly a great, paleoconservative journal. It is heartening to see some sanity in this age of feminist terror. I am especially thankful for Devlin's recognition of "the forgotten men" -- the losers -- "of the sexual revolution" (p. 29). I am one of them and it is indeed time for us to speak up. Perhaps we really ought to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior, as Devlin suggests, to increase our chances with women. It is perplexing and dispiriting that this has not already happened. Where is someone like Catiline when we need him? Or perhaps Spartacus would be a better analogy. We have to do something. Individually, we can improve our lot somewhat by working on our game, studying the material of David DeAngelo, Neil Strauss and the other pickup gurus, but that can only change the order of the hierarchy while the fundamental scarcity of women remains. We can't all be alpha males, by definition. It does not seem to me that the gurus realize this, as evinced by this line from The Game: "By socializing guys like Sasha, Mystery and I were making the world a better place" (p. 87). No, Style, you are not making the world a better place. If Sasha gets lucky, it means some other man will be frustrated instead, and that is just as dangerous. I doubt that there exists a large reservoir of untapped female promiscuity ready to materialize once we all become pickup artists. Perhaps a few spinsters could be converted, but all of us improving will mostly just raise the bar and there will be about the same number of losers as before. To improve the overall situation of men, we have to assault feminism at its core. We must destroy the independence of women which permits them to be so choosy. Of course this means ending welfare and affirmative action, but serial monogamy, which is just as bad as polygamy and has led to a record number of childless men, must also somehow be discouraged by making divorce more difficult. Women will still be hypergamous and men will seek promiscuity, but a kind of sexual egalitarianism will have been brought back when no woman can afford to price herself out of the market. Another strategy is to improve the sex ratio, as Angry Harry is advocating, and that appeals to me even more than restoring monogamy. And why stop at 15%? Let us breed women like cattle! Meanwile, we do still have the option of foreign brides, and that is probably what I will resort to as soon as I can afford it.

Neil Clark #conspiracy rt.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

C. Daniel Motley #fundie thegospelcoalition.org

Chuck and his wife made their announcement on Facebook. They were opening up their marriage to other relationships.

I had only known Chuck through a few mutual acquaintances, but he and his wife seemed like a normal, monogamous couple. The comments section erupted in praise and cheers for their “courage and bravery” to commit to others outside the marriage covenant. While a few people attempted to question the wisdom of pursuing additional partners, they were drowned out by a chorus of defenders quick to shut down such “bigoted” and “judgmental” concerns.

What made the announcement so shocking wasn’t the decision to embrace polyamory. Like many others, I’ve been expecting that ever since the Supreme Court paved the way for polygamy in the Obergefell ruling on same-sex marriage. What did surprise me were Chuck’s arguments for polyamory from Scripture and Christian theology. Apologies for sexual relations outside of marriage based on consent have been around for decades. But justifications of polyamorous relationships based on Trinitarian language and Jesus’s charity ethic are a recent and dangerous development—a threat to a proper understanding of Christian sexual ethics.

From Consent to ‘Christian’ Polyamory

Franklin Veaux, creator of the popular polyamory lifestyle site More Than Two, defines a polyamorous relationship as “a romantic relationship where the people in the relationship agree that it’s okay for everyone to be open to or have other romantic partners.” Psychologists and social scientists differentiate between types of polyamorous relationships, including swinging (spouses who seek other partners for casual sex), polygamy (the marriage of multiple spouses), and polyfidelity (the commitment between partners to not form relationships with those outside the group), among other poly-type practices. Ultimately, non-Christian polyamorous individuals believe consent alone is the centerpiece holding the relationship(s) together—anything beyond this is up to the individuals involved.

“Christian” polyamory builds on this foundation of consent, but seeks to normalize the relationship by appealing to misreadings of the scriptural witness and creative interpretations of Christian theology. Jennifer Martin, describing her own journey to discovering Christian polyamory, says that as a young, traditional Christian she “[got] married young, felt trapped by the conservative bounds of purity culture, and wanted to explore the sexuality that we never really got a chance to have.” For her, this meant taking a boyfriend alongside her husband of nine years, a man with whom she shares two children.

Chuck’s Facebook post was shocking, but it serves as a warning to Christians living in the wake of the sexual revolution: almost nothing is out-of-bounds.

Although Martin uses the language of consent to justify polyamorous relationships, she hesitates to stop there. She wants to ground her polyamory in a revised vision of the Christian life: “Even though I subscribe to a postmodernist view of Scripture,” she says, “I still found it hard to believe I wasn’t ‘dirty.’ And it’s been difficult to find spiritual leaders who both accept my feelings as natural and respect my deep faith.”

Twisting Scripture

Writers and teachers such as Jeff Hood are all too willing to provide just such justification for Christians wishing to pursue these types of relationships. Hood, a progressive pastor in Dallas and former SBC minister, claims that “love is the thrust of Scripture.” He sees the polygamist relationships pursued by the biblical patriarchs (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as problematic, but the arrival of Jesus signals an era of love and tolerance that supersedes the Old Testament. When confronted with Paul’s teaching on marriage, Hood dismisses him entirely: “I find Paul’s patriarchal words to be derogatory, demeaning, and dismissive.”

Martin and Hood make similar appeals in their attempt to justify polyamory as a valid form of romantic love for Christians: (1) Both mention the Old Testament’s portrayal of polygamist relationships to signal God’s openness to other options besides monogamy, while critiquing the Old Testament's patriarchal bent; (2) both use Jesus’s perceived silence as proof of his approval of non-monogamous, non-heterosexual romantic relationships; and (3) both critique Paul’s views on sexuality, dismissing him as a illegitimate representative of the views of Jesus.

On Chuck’s widely shared post unveiling he and his wife’s adoption of polyamory, he takes secular progressives to task for their slow acceptance of Christian polyamorous couples: “The Christian church has come a long way on matters related to human sexuality. . . . However, the same can’t yet be said for another relational orientation: polyamory.” Chuck claims “thousands of faithful Christians” practice polyamory. While he doesn’t offer statistics to support this claim, he’s right to note that even progressives are slow to accept polyamory as a valid sexual framework for marriages.

Erin Wathen, a pastor in the progressive United Church of Christ, is one of those unconvinced that polyamory is a constructive path forward for Christians. Although she affirms her belief in the goodness of same-sex marriage, she nevertheless says: “I am convinced that there’s something to the one and one, that marriage is best kept as a covenant of two. I am still convinced that fidelity means loving the one you’re with—body, mind, and spirit.” Ironically, she laments that she sounds like one of those “old-fashioned traditionalists.”

Next Era of the Sexual Revolution

The increasing acceptance of polyamory by progressives and (soon-to-be former) evangelicals is symptomatic of the church’s witness to God’s normative pattern for sexuality after Obergefell. Pressured (or freed) to come to terms quickly with their accusers in the wider culture, these teachers have taken license with the biblical text to open a path for LGBTQ and polyamorous persons into the church without the confession and repentance of sin required by Scripture. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of reference to the uniform witness of Christians throughout history that—until a few years ago—denied any sexual relationship outside heterosexual marriage has God’s blessing, on the grounds that such relationships are counter to his revealed pattern for marriage.

Chuck’s Facebook post was shocking, but it serves as a warning to Christians living in the wake of the sexual revolution: almost nothing is out-of-bounds. Polyamory is but the next movement to find an accepting audience among professing Christians already willing to justify any consensual sexual relationship with revisionist readings of Christian history and theology. Many Christians have been warning those of us who hold to monogamous heterosexual marriage as sexuality’s only valid expression that this day was coming.

Are you prepared to answer “Christian” polyamorists’ claims?

Imperium Sidhicum #racist forum.nationstates.net

This Trudeau guy seems to have the right idea, given how it's single young men who usually become a problem. Considering how the majority of the migrants are single young men, barring them from entering Europe and deporting the ones already here would also solve the uncontrolled immigration problem to a large degree and restrict immigration to fathers with families, women and children, who are more likely to be in legitimate need for asylum and less likely to cause trouble.

---

Interestingly, there seems to be a co-relation between an excessive population of young men and civil wars, political instability and general violence and lawlesness. Considering how these places also tend to have a sexually-repressive religion, cultural norms that forbid sex outside marriage, condemn prostitution and other forms of sexual release, have high unemployment and low education levels, require men to pay a large bride-price in order to get married (which many cannot afford for the aforementioned reasons of unemployment and poor literacy), and there's a general shortage of females of marriable age anyway, no wonder there's a plentitude of sexually-frustrated horny young men with raging hormones looking for ways to vent their frustration.

Unsurprisingly, many of them who come to Europe with it's population of spineless emasculated men who are too accustomed to rely on authorities for justice and too pussy-whipped and beaten down to defend their women find Europeans and especially their womenfolk easy prey for their destructive urges, which is further aggravated by the inaction of authorities.

biblicalgenderroles #sexist #fundie biblicalgenderroles.com

According to the Bible, everything about a woman, both psychologically and physiologically, was created for man. That means a woman’s psychological desire for sex, her breasts, her nipples, her vagina, her clitoris, all her erogenous zones and her ability to experience sexual pleasure from all these areas was created for man. Does that mean we are saying God only created woman for man’s sexual pleasure or that he only created sex for sexual pleasure? Of course not. But it was a primary reason and now we will explain why.

Why would God create make sex so extremely pleasurable and make man’s desire for it so strong? The reason is so that man could image God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people. In what is widely considered a prophecy of Christ and his Church Psalms 45:11 states “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”. And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

When we remember that man’s primary purpose is to image God and we see that God as a husband to his bride desires her beauty and desires to take pleasure in her we now understand why God designed man designed man to receive sexual pleasure from the beauty and body of a woman. This is why we can rightly say that seeking out sexual relations with a woman is part of God’s mission for man.

Let Us Reason #fundie letusreason.org

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?

In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother.

It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23).

The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.

This was to be a permanent union between man and woman that they might be helpful to one another (Genesis 2:18). Marriage represents a relationship of both spiritual and physical unity.

Hebrews 13:3-4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)

Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it.

1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9).

The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.

There are some stipulations in the law that are connected to this subject. Matt. 22:24: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. “And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ”

Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.

The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.

Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.

The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

How many wives did Adam have in Gen.2:24? One, God did not take two wives out from his side. Monogamy has always been God's standard for the human race. From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship -one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). It cannot be interpreted he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery. God certainly could have made two or more wives for Adam, this would have endorse the idea of polygamy, but he made only one.

The Bible clearly and decidedly states that God does not condone or allow the practice of polygamy over and over again.

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

DR. FRANKENFOOD WANTS TO DESTROY ORGANIC FOOD If Dr. Frankenfood was in charge, he would create biological warfare crops that would destroy organic foods, destroy the competition. Just as the evil genius would have hoped, the USDA has allowed genetically altered foods into the conventional market which threaten organic farmers. Scientists of virtually every persuasion realize that Bt soy, corn and potatoes predictably will create Bt resistant insects. Organic farmers use Bt as their main line of defense against insects. Bt resistant insects could wipe out organic crops and organic farming. Destroying the competition just makes good business sense, reasons Dr. Frankenfood.

CONSIDER STOCKING UP ON SAFE FOODS Frank Ford, in his book, "The Coming Food Crisis," says that events are pointing to a food crisis of unbelievable proportions. With genetic engineering of the food supply, only a relatively small part of the total food supply can be known to be safe. Since 95% of the food supply contains conventional corn or soy, the rules of supply and demand show that there could possibly be a shortage of safe food over the next several years. You may consider taking advice from Frank Ford's book. He advises stocking up on organic or safe conventional dry foods that are low in oil content--wheat, beans, lentils, grains, dried fruits. If possible, stock enough for yourself, your family, and if possible your friends to live comfortably for two or three years. Create local food co-ops so you can pool resources and make large bulk orders, saving everyone money.

Ewoolutionary Psychopathy Award

You fail everything forever.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Doubtless you have heard of the recent Idaho gang rape.

This was Islamic Rape Jihad, not just Muslim rapists, because the girl was five, because the boys put it on video, because the boys expected the support of their community, and because the boys received the support of their community.
You
Feminist response to this rape shows what feminists really want. Everyone reacting to this in an indignant manner is a male who is in favor of patriarchy to a greater or lesser extent, and many of them want to completely reverse female emancipation.

In the ancestral environment, and indeed today’s environment, if a woman was property the way a cow is property, she was likely to have substantially greater reproductive success than a free woman. If a man was property the way a cow is property, likely to have zero reproductive success.

In the ancestral environment, as today, male slaves don’t reproduce. Female slaves generally outreproduce free women. Thus the optimal strategy for a woman is to provoke until provocation results in enslavement.

The evolutionary optimal strategy for a female, in the ancestral environment, and in our present day environment, is to act in ways that gets the west conquered by Islamic State. If free, likely to have 1.5 children, and similarly her grandchildren, rapidly resulting in the total disappearance of her genes. If her menfolk are conquered and she is sold naked in chains on the auction block by Islamic state, likely to have six or seven children.

Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow. The optimal reproductive strategy for her owner is to treat her considerably better than he treats his cows, but the less he has power to do bad things to her, the more it is in his interests to do bad things to her. For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list, and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list, to spin as many plates as possible, without investing in any of them. For a slave, because the slave cannot defect, because the slave is guaranteed to play cooperate, cooperate is also a good move for the male owner of a female slave, because he has a biological interest in the welfare of her children. He is free to impose cooperate/defect on her, but that is not actually all that much in his biological interest, which biological interest manifests in the tendency of men to love and care for women that they regularly have sex with, provided that they believe those women are not having sex with other men.

Feminist demands for emancipation ever escalate, no matter how extraordinary the privilege women are granted, because they are pushing for someone strong enough to master them. In the ancestral environment, free women were unsuccessful at reproducing, because prisoner’s dilemma. That she can defect on a man guarantees defect/defect, guarantees that he will try to defect before she does – giving her no care, protection, or support, keeping as many plates spinning as he can, so they look for someone powerful enough to stop them from defecting. Slave women will generally outreproduce free women, because he who owns a woman absolutely has incentive to invest in her and her children. Similarly, cows are numerous, their wild ancestors are generally extinct. If animal liberationists liberate chickens and cows, there are not going to be very many chickens or cows. If the People’s Popular Committee for Food Abundance tells the farmer he does not own his land and his crops, there is going to be crop failure.

And feminists, in supporting Rape Jihad, are unconsciously pursuing their optimal evolutionary reproductive strategy, which is to be sold by Islamic state naked in chains on the auction block. We are descended from free men and unfree women. Peoples, nations religions, cultures and groups with strong, proud, free, and independent women died out. They always die out.

Female emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Feminists support Rape Jihad because they are unconsciously looking for men who will pass their shit test.

Hassan Nurullah #conspiracy renewamerica.com

Liberalism in the modern spiritual sense is not just a matter of left, right, Democrat, Republican anymore. It is really more of a secular thing these days. If you accept the things of the world without protest without regard to the tenets of God you are liberal.

President Bush was as liberal as President Obama when it comes to the agenda of the antichrists in the world. Any President who stands by while the American people's rights are being compromised is complicit in the globalist philosophy. The gun confiscations that took place in the aftermath of Katrina received no public rebuke from the Republicans in office. We probably wouldn't even know about them if not for the NRA.

America's guns are a major stumbling block for the globalist agenda. Katrina was a dry run for applying the Hegelian dialectic to achieve the goal of disarming America so we will go softly into the globalist plan for the world.

President Obama is certainly keen to line America up with the United Nation's goals regarding arms. It seems you would have to be blind or willingly ignorant to ignore the push towards a world government as described in the Holy Bible.

For those of us inclined to prepare for the worst so we can protect our families, good for you. Keep your powder dry, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. But far more important than your ability to deal with the adversity you see coming, to repel the gun grabbers on the night they start stacking troop trucks on your block, is your spiritual position in Christ when the things He foretold come to pass.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

Bill P #sexist unz.com

[This is a follow-up quote to this quote after an exchange: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=111273]

[When your wife yells at you so you join ISIS]

Oh, OK. Middle-aged lady angrily denounces guys who aren’t so keen on defending contemporary Western society as degenerate, sackless eunuchs.

Well, maybe you don’t see it, but I think you just proved my (and Houllebecq’s) point.

Let’s see, hmm… Devoted brides in this life and houris in the next on one hand, soul-killing submission to entitled scolds on the other. What advantage could Islam possibly have with fighting-age men?

weev #sexist dailystormer.name

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over WHITE SHARIA has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the WHITE SHARIA meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself.

William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

" The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture."

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of ‘coverture’“, and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it ‘gives the “custody” of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.‘”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man, allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.

Bride Price

" The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage."

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgement of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
Domestic Discipline and “Marital Rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’s lives. The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear.

Wikipedia:

" The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world. These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape. … The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes."

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was 8 years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect like My Posting Career’s PLEASUREMAN fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data.

...

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline. What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
Men Counter-Signaling WHITE SHARIA

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but WHITE SHARIA is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased. This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parent’s lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence. Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the WHITE SHARIA meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization. All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing WHITE SHARIA because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.
A final word to offended “traditional” female readers:

Despite all your assertions of being a good traditionalist, you fight against the implementation of traditional gender roles wherever they begin to be discussed. You’re not a traditional woman and you don’t want a traditional relationship. You just like the sound of the word traditional and the outfits you see women wearing in Victorian era photographs. You speak traditionalism with your Pinterest and Instagram posts, but your actions scream of your lascivious natures. You agitate only for the “rights” of modernity: to deny your fertility, to destroy families, to rot at and injure the lives of good men who have acted with honor and decency in all their dealings to you.

You’re a whore.

That would normally be a forgivable thing. I’ve found the company of many prostitutes quite amicable, and whatever gods may be know it is impossible to meet a woman that isn’t one in this era. However, that you would sully the good name of European tradition, that you would would run around using it as a cloak for your harlotry makes you the an entirely contemptible whore. Your blasphemy against the history of Europe is to a level unforgivable through words alone, and you need to have your face bashed in by the fists of good men before a great horned shrine. On the far precipice of life, as a palsied chill ascends fast to put cold grasp upon those streams that pulse beside your throat you may beg the apologies of your ancestors.

‘What am I that should so be saved from death?
‘What am I that another death come not
‘To choke my utterance sacrilegious here?’

Be honest about what you are. Don’t sit here and pretend you’re a nice traditional girl when you fight against any implementation of traditional values. Say aloud what you are, on the streets, to your families, on social media: “I’m a despicable whore.” Do it before it is too late, because I swear to whatever gods may be that when the purge comes if you have been using traditionalism as a cloak for your revolting degeneracy your name is going on a list and we will be coming to make you pay for it. You will feel the punch to your throat first, but the hours afterwards at the hands of a WHITE SHARIA gang will make that seem as just a brief and gentle touch against your skin. Your ribs will be broken. Your face will be broken. Some of you will not live to tell about it. This I promise: a much needed correction is coming for you soon, you disgusting skanks.

Tom Martin #conspiracy manboobz.com

The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

The Times is very keen to perpetuate this “child exploitation” narrative – it’s usually Pakistani men who are the pimps and punters (Jons) of these sometimes under-age white girls – and this gives the far right wing EDL the chance to jump on the bandwagon and stir up similar stories about brown men praying on white girls (when it’s more often the other way round, the whores).

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

It was more than a year ago that I first wrote that women’s liberation is more properly called women’s prostitution. At the time, I was saying it with evidence culled from personal experience and from traditionalist intuition, but I am now both pleased and horrified to say that I can buttress the statement with some apt historical facts, too.

...

Suppose I hadn’t just showed my hand by telling you the following characteristics were all associated with 19th century frontier prostitutes, and try to think of what the following list would conjure in your mind:

Owns property.
Likes free health care.
Marries later in life.
Divorces frequently.
Travels extensively, often alone.
Avid and inventive social dancer.
Fixture in “saloons” (read: bars and night clubs).
Brazen and public.
Wears lipstick.
Overtly sexual makeup, clothing, and hairstyle.

Not so different from the average empowered feminist woman of today, no?

Granted, some things are notably different. The average liberated woman is usually not a fan of owning and using guns, but that’s because they’re even bigger fans of living in lily-white urban enclaves surrounded by effeminate men — not raucous cowboys. They’re also usually not successful gamblers or land owners, but they’ve more than made that up by being drug users and earning male salaries.

Aside from those two things, the average post-feminism woman of today has adopted every hallmark of the 19th century frontier prostitute. Decline alarmism is worth tempering, but it’s difficult to claim that a social shift like this is actually a good thing. I can hardly think of a way to more unambiguously demonstrate that social standards and cohesion have collapsed in the last two centuries, and especially in the last 50 years since the sexual revolution of 1969.

Of course, I am not the first one to make the argument that feminism turns decent women into prostitutes. I am not even the first one to notice this particular pattern at Social Matter. 19th century Americans had good reasons to look down on the behaviors and attitudes of prostitutes and I am certain they articulated them extremely well, extremely loudly, and decisively proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their arguments were superior to the defenders and supporters of powerful prostitutes and feminists. I am also sure that they lost anyway and that we are living in the aftermath.

The traditional view in the 19th century was that women should not own property, should be married early, should never divorce, should be modest, should remain near male relatives, should not hang out in or near bars or saloons, etc. This view was not born from arbitrary misogyny; it was born from a desire to keep ordinary women unassociated with prostitutes and the 19th century equivalents of strippers and camgirls.

That lipstick and the rest of the markers of prostitutes had such a bad reputation was not because of the arbitrary whims of The Patriarchy™, but because they facilitated prostitution. Women who owned property and used guns had more power than a lot of men, and therefore found it more difficult to find an appropriately dominant husband. Women who “painted” themselves with makeup and wore sexual clothing and hairstyles attracted all kinds of men, but didn’t make it easier to get married to any single one.

Women who got married later were at risk of never getting married at all, and in any case would limit their reproductive potential and therefore their mates — who wants to marry an aged woman, especially an aged prostitute, if they can marry a young, normal woman and have twice as many kids? Traveling alone and hanging around watering holes just tempts the loins and everyone knows it, and so on. All these basically anti-social and destructive behaviors used to be the domain of open prostitutes, but are now the domain of the high status “liberated” woman.

...

So in addition to pioneering nightlife, late marriage, divorce, traveling, dancing, makeup, sexual dress, and the planks of feminism, 19th century American prostitutes also pioneered abortion and birth control. The quoted author above mentions that abortion had even spread to “respectable women,” but it’s clear what the vector of transmission was.

Respectable women didn’t start aborting their kids and then unfairly discriminating against sex workers who did the same. Sex workers aborted their kids because of their promiscuous and unhealthy sexual habits, and then melded into the general population as they got older, perpetuating and spreading the habit as well as cheapening the reputation of actual respectable women, since nobody wanted to admit that prostitution was tacitly tolerated and that ex-prostitutes (or not even ex-, possibly) were allowed back into respectable society after plying a degenerate trade.

The other main difference is that in 1866 abortion, birth control, overt sexuality, “partying” as we think of it today, and the like were considered unambiguously bad, and were tolerated as an unfortunate fact of human nature at best and violently suppressed at worst. Today, between the decades of sophistic pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the allied assault on traditional culture by the Cathedral, the raft of bad behaviors associated in 1866 with unrepentant syphilitic whores have become enshrined as fundamental human rights in law and furthermore celebrated as expressions of piety towards the ostensibly humanistic religion of social progressivism.

That is not just a condemnation of the very concept of human rights, but of the entire formal and informal apparatus of government of the United States, as well as the ideals of progressivism.

Anyone who listens to Ryan Landry’s Weimerica Weekly podcast might even be convinced that contemporary empowered women are worse than 19th century prostitutes. Between the hellish trends of young female teachers having sex with their students and the media gearing up to normalize literal prostitution, they’ve got a good argument going. Tinder, Seeking Arrangement, and the rest of the click-swipe-bang(-pay) crowd have already put us a good part of the way there.

The only question is if in another 25 years people will still remember at all that prostitution used to be considered a bad thing. For the sake of the good and decent women left out there, I sure hope so.

Steve Moxon #fundie stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk

Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson's sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any 'age of consent'. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to 'slut' status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was 'damaging' to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage -- and clearly there was damage to her -- was from the peer group she'd been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal 'age of consent' has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the 'age of consent' 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Feminism

image

Over a hundred years ago a bunch of rich women were upset that they could not move up in official positions of power in work or politics. So they got men to give them the vote and affirmative action for political office. Through legislation women made it even easier for themselves than men to climb traditionally male dominance hierarchies! Only problem is that they aren't sexually attracted to men who are lower in dominance hierarchies of status and money than they are. So as women gained dominance in traditional male hierarchies, they complained a bunch about there being 'no good men'[1] aka the dwindling amount of men wealthier or more powerful than them to give them tingles. As less men gave them tingles more incels were created and more men were sent their own way. And as women gained more dominance in society they complained more about beta males, and "rape" etc...
?
They even created campaigns against these increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not sexually attracted to like the:

Anti Catcalling Movement: aka 'Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public'

Anti Manspreading Movement: aka 'Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk'

Metoo movement: aka 'Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists'[2]

image

Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands

A matriarchal world where women make more money than men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of feminist MRAs in the 60s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless. Early 20th century anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax' quote still remains true, "Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband."[3]

Even in a country where feminism is intitutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, "the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket"[4]

As Eggman puts it, "Talk to any US woman and they'll tell you about men offering and actually buying them all sorts of things, when was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?"[5]

A 100% Completed Feminist World Be Better for Incels Than Partial Feminism... Theory

So far we see that feminism literally creates incels, but there may be a silver lining in a 100% feminist universe compared to a partial feminist universe, in that feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that it's not hard to become a chad or to get a woman to agree to be asked out. Since no men ask women out in the 100% feminist universe once men are so beta.

The Eradication of Feminism is Best for Incels... Theory

Because feminism has created more incels, many if not most self-identified incels are trad-con, patriarchal, and don't subscribe to the previous theory and think matriarchies won't be sexually generous. They should argue for a generous patriarchy with strictly socially enforced monogamy as not all patriarchies are alike. In most if not all modern patriachal countries, polygyny arises and men hoard women, causing inceldom as well. And in patriarchal muslim countries, the hoarding of women in harems, inflates the bride-price so high that there exists a vast underclass of singe men who are susceptible to the promise of either real life brides or virgin brides in the afterlife through terrorist organization like al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is for this reason that people joke about incels and muslims terrorists on incel boards. Some incels also believe that the only kind of pro-natalism that can be achieved to wipe out inceldom would be through a racial supremacist movement, which partly explains why people like Richard Spencer pander to incels.

Rebecca Massey #racist theargus.co.uk

A Jewish-owned community centre pulled the plug on a planned Labour Party meeting after an election candidate was accused of making anti-Semitic remarks.

Ralli Hall in Denmark Villas, Hove, was to host Hove constituency Labour party’s inaugural annual general meeting but rescinded the invitation at the last minute.

Manager Maxine Gordon told Labour officials she was left with no choice after statements on social media by Rebecca Massey, the candidate for party secretary.

In a letter seen by The Argus, Ms Gordon wrote: “It came to my attention late last night there have been contentious statements made by Rebecca Massey on social media about Israel and Judaism.

“Due to the fact she was attending your meeting at Ralli Hall on Sunday, February 3, and our building and community centre is owned and run by a Jewish Foundation, we don’t feel it would be appropriate for the meeting to continue.”

Ms Massey is chairwoman of Hove, Brunswick and Adelaide branch of the party and is standing for election to treasurer of the Hove constituency party.

Delegates due to attend the Sunday’s meeting were told by the party’s regional organiser at 4pm on Saturday the venue was unavailable.

Comments by Ms Massey on Twitter included “Interesting insight into how Israel has Tory and Labour parties under control” and “How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis”.

They were the subject of an article by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism published on Friday which sent shockwaves through the Hove constituency party, already split between pro and anti Corbyn factions.

Several leading Labour figures have told The Argus Ms Massey’s tweets contravene the new broader definition of anti-Semitism accepted by the UK Government – and Labour – in December, which includes a prohibition against statements about “Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”.

Former Hove MP Ivor Caplin, who is Jewish, said: “The definition makes clear you can’t say the sort of things she said on social media and not be anti-Semitic.”

He demanded a retraction, resignation or disciplinary action by the party.

Ms Massey issued a statement saying: “I am not a racist. I do campaign for justice for the Palestinian people and oppose continuing violations of international law by the state of Israel. This is legitimate activity and not anti-Semitic.

“As a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn I have been targeted in a horrible way by people whose aim is to derail the democratic process in Hove constituency Labour Party.”

Some on the Left of the party suggested the furore was whipped up by centrists keen to prevent Corbyn supporters, elected en masse to executive committee positions in the Kemptown and Pavilion constituency meetings on Saturday, from taking Hove. Ivor Caplin said that was “absolute fabrication.”

A spokesman for Hove Labour MP Peter Kyle said: “The Jewish community in Hove has expressed concern about an issue with a Labour Party member, therefore it is only fair to everyone involved that this is looked into with unbiased and fair clarity.”

NeetSupremacist #sexist incels.co

When a female says: "I got raped"

During my cuck period when I didn't understood the true nature of females and the blackpill I would always read in shock about females getting raped, I like most people would always think that when a female claims that she got 'raped' by someone that it would mean: "Female got penetrated in her vagina by a male against her consent." This is what rape meant years ago but this meaning changed in time, 20 years ago we would think that the penetration of the female was 'rape' but right now rape has a totally other meaning which isn't bad at all.

What does rape mean today and what do we need to imagine when a female claims that 'she got raped'?

Rape in 2019 is the following:

• Staring at a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Talking to a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Asking a question to a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Touching a female as an ugly guy (anywhere) = rape
• Praising the appearance of a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Asking a female for a date as an ugly guy = rape
• Handshaking a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Asking a female her number as an ugly guy = rape
• Touching the butt of a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Touching a breast of a female as an ugly guy = rape
• Dry fucking a drunk female as an ugly guy = rape
• Dancing with a drunk female as an ugly guy = rape
• Fucking a drunk bitch as an ugly guy = rape
• Having any sexuality with a drunk bitch as an ugly guy = rape
• Asking a female to drive her somewhere as an ugly = rape
• Complementing a female in anyway as an ugly guy = rape
• Breathing in the same room as a woman, being an ugly guy = rape

When Chad does all of the above things mentioned it is not rape anymore, in the matter of fact the females enjoy it and they will not press charges against the Chad.

Thought Catalog #sexist wehuntedthemammoth.com

No, Amy Schumer did not give a speech celebrating how she raped a guy

Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.

In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.

The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.

After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an “ambitious” attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didn’t want to be “this girl” any more, “waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.”

Looking back on the incident, she thanks her failed lover for introducing her “to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her.”

But Thought Catalog’s anonymous author, noting the extreme drunkenness of Schumer’s stumbling lover, concludes that “Amy’s actions may have constituted as rape in the eyes of her college, Towson University.” (Or at least according to the school’s current policies.)

Anonymous quotes Towson’s current policy on sexual harassment, which states:

"In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability)."

And adds:

"It’s hard to argue that Matt was not mentally incapacitated. In Amy’s words, he was “wasted.” "

Actually, the fact that Matt wasn’t too intoxicated to initiate an assortment of sexual acts with her — or to get up and change the music at her request — suggests that he wasn’t “mentally incapacitated,” at least by the standards used by colleges when investigating alleged sexual assaults. The Association of Title IX Administrators’ Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy (which sets an unofficial standard for college administrators) defines incapacitation as “a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing consent (e.g., to understand the ‘who, what, when, where, why or how’ of their sexual interaction).”

In any case, it’s not clear why Anonymous is looking at Towson’s sexual harassment policy, which is designed to deal with “non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, or requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions,” and which clearly doesn’t apply to Schumer’s story.

As for sexual assault, the school’s official web site states:

"Sexual assault is defined by Towson University as forcible sexual intercourse, sexual penetration–however slight–of another person’s genital or anal opening with any object, sodomy, or any unwanted touching of an unwilling person’s intimate parts or forcing an unwilling person to touch another’s intimate parts. Under this definition, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim’s mental or physical helplessness, of which the accuser was or should have been aware. This includes, but is not limited to, victim helplessness resulting from intoxication or from the taking of a so-called “date-rape drug.”"

This definition is drawn from the University of Maryland System Policy on Sexual Assault, which classifies sexual assault involving penetration — the traditional definition of rape — as a more serious type of sexual assault (Sexual Assault I) than those forms of sexual assault involving touching (Sexual Assault II). By this standard, assuming we equate Sexual Assault I with rape, Schumer clearly did not rape him.

Anonymous then looks at Maryland’s state laws and concludes:

"In the eyes of Maryland state law, things get a bit more complicated. Amy could be guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on whether or not penetration was achieved. According to the state law, a person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another “if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual.” Legally, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t rape, at least given the details in Amy’s speech."

Well, actually, yes it is. And not just legally, but by any reasonable definition of the word “rape.”

Because Schumer, at least by her account, wasn’t “the person performing the act.” He was. She was lying there wondering what had gone wrong with her life.

If you read the speech in its entirety, instead of depending on the selective quotations in the Thought Catalog post, this is abundantly clear. As she describes it, he:

Pushes her down on the bed; as she writes, he does “that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, ‘I’m taking the wheel on this one. Now I’m going to blow your mind. …’”

Penetrates her with his fingers; as she writes, “[h]is fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.”

Tries to have intercourse, though his penis is only half-willing; she describes him as “pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.” Even using the “made to penetrate” standard, she’s not raping him, because she’s not making him do anything; he’s the active one.

Goes down on her.

Attempts intercourse again; this time, “[o]n his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast.”

At no point in Schumer’s story does she describe herself as initiating anything. Indeed, she spends much of the time thinking to herself how much she wants to leave.

"He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? … Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, “Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay.”"

If a woman initiates sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s rape. But a woman lying motionless trying to dissociate while a man tries to penetrate her is not a rapist. Even if he is drunk.

And that’s the case no matter how you switch the genders up.

Of course that’s not how they see things on Reddit, where most of those who’ve commented on the story have been quick to agree with the Thought Catalog author that Schumer raped her partner. Ironically, it’s been those outside the Men’s Rights subreddit who have been the most outspoken on this point. In TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit ostensibly devoted to women but in fact overrun with MRAs and other antifeminists, someone calling herself Shield_Maiden831 has gotten more than 200 net upvotes for a comment concluding that “f you really believe in equality, then it seems to be a clear cut case from her own admission.”

Not everyone agrees. Elsewhere in TwoX , one commenter by the name of critropolitan argues, I think quite cogently, that

"Unless the full transcript reveals something that the quotes in the article don’t, it doesn’t seem like Schumer exploited this guys mental state to do something to him that violated his will.

He was the one who called her.

He was the one who acted every step of the way and she went along with it.

Assuming that a person who is drunk is, automatically, in virtue of being drunk, without agency, is a mistake. It is moreover a mistake only made with regard to sex – no one thinks the same with regard to bar fights or the choice to drive. Drunken sex might not be the platonic ideal of sex, but it is not automatically rape in every case regardless of the actual state of minds, wishes, and feelings of the participants. …

There is no suggestion that Amy engaged in any sexual contact with this guy while he was passed out, or that she did something he didn’t want to do but he simply lacked the capacity to effectively resist or communicate non consent. Instead he was drunk enough to show significant signs of drunkeness, but not so drunk that he couldn’t not only communicate effectively but take a sexual initiative.

Rapists can exploit the vulnerability of drunk people, but we must walk back from the bizarre and agency-denying position that all drunk sex is rape. Rape is far too serious a matter for this bullshit."

It is.

But of course the MRAs and antifeminists on Reddit now accusing Schumer of rape aren’t interested in taking rape seriously. Indeed, if we look back on how they regularly talk about rape and issues of consent, it’s clearly they’re interested in taking rape less seriously. Their main interest in this case is as a supposed “gotcha” of a prominent female comedian with feminist leanings. In the process they are slandering her, and trivializing the real issue of rape.

lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

Why Men are superior than Females in every way

Equality is nothing but a distorted dream of humanity.

Since the beginning of time Males have always been superior; always have been in every culture on the planet.

Men are stronger, have a longer prime, faster and more durable. This is why we are physically more stronger, and dominate every sport known to man. No one gives a shit about femloids playing in sports. Why do they even exist?

Our hormones do not fluctuate frequently. We are more in control of our emotions. We think rationally and logically while femloids always get their emotions and feelings in the mix (this is why femloids should never run a country or hold any kind of leadership position). We are even more intelligent than femloids. Don't believe me? Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Galileo Galilei, Plato, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Aristotle, Charles Darwin and etc are all men.

Still don't believe me? Ever look at the Nobel Prize list of winners? Ever peruse through the doctoral dissertation section of the library at your university? Even the most perfunctory of investigations will show you the following: close to 95% of them are men. Why? Men are more intelligent than femloids.

The vast majority of wealthy people and people who succeeded are men. So much so that the feminists cunts directing our country, who got in solely by playing on men's emotions (which is what they always do. Even Christianity got that right), offer advantages to businesses owned by femloids.

Femloids always need special treatment, always need that little help. One might argue that femloids raise kids better. I beg to differ. Hitler was raised by a single mother, so are most psychotic sociopath serial killers.

Eventually, femloids will be completely unnecessary. The only two advantages that femloids have over men is their attractiveness to men early on in life (mostly thanks to fakeup), and the ability to continue the human species via pregnancy and childbirth.

Scientists have already created artificial sperm and eggs using stem cells, and they are already working on getting stem cells from skin. Eventually, women will have absolutely no reason to exist. They have lower intelligence, less (if any) ability to control their emotions, low physical strength and vitality.

When it comes to femloids in relationships; there's no shortage of femloids lying about rape and mutilating themselves to fake an assault case and get their husbands and boyfriends incarcerated. The reason they do this is because they're biologically programmed to seek attention; they're basically big children. They have never been able to accomplish anything outside of government.

When this technology finally comes along, femloids will finally be obsolete.

Linda Harvey #fundie #homophobia #wingnut missionamerica.com

The Occult Roots of 'Drag' Identity

Men who dress as women love Halloween, and not just for the costuming opportunities. They are often keenly attuned to the dark spirits of the season and willing to do their bizarre, depraved bidding.

It’s one more reason to keep vulnerable children away from homosexual/gender indoctrination sessions, “drag” tutorials and parents-excluded “safe sex” discussions at your local library. These wicked people are eagerly seducing and grooming children right under our eyes, if we let them.

Drag queens are a scary presence for little kids. The young, mesmerized faces hearing the allegedly “inclusive” lessons and watching the sexual gyrations tell the real story. Something’s strange in this neighborhood, and youngsters get it, even if their clueless parents giggle and nod alongside the corrupted librarians.

The truth is, gender-benders’ public readings and sexualized performances are often influenced by an other-worldly realm. It turns out that many “drag” identifiers follow paganism, witchcraft or Satanism. They don’t even try to hide this close connection.

For instance, in a recent Tweet, the Church of Satan said, “We can confirm that there are a lot of Satanic drag queens. And they are fabulous.”

And the San-Francisco-based Satanic Temple is made up mostly of “LGBTQ” identifiers, even holding a “Pink Mass” at times. A movie made about the group is called “Hail Satan” where the leaders say they’ll fight Christian conservatives “to the death.”

Are they serious about following Satan? Who knows and who cares? Anyone who adopts his name is, tragically, fair game. Satan will exploit and manipulate these fools to his hearts’ desire, and they may never know it.

A drag-devil partnership is popping up everywhere. There are reports of Austin, Texas- area “drag” followers engaging in occult rituals (including black masses) in public parks to “hex” two city council members, courageous people who publicly objected to the perverted “story hours” at local public libraries.

And a church in Chula Vista, CA was vandalized in September with satanic symbols. Some of the members had spoken out against a local “drag queen” event. This doesn’t reflect well on the themes of love and acceptance that “drag queens” insist motivate their events.

Anna Bohach, the 500 Mom Strong leader, wrote about this movement: “Long gone are the caricatures of drag queens as clownishly quaint entertainment for a sub-group of a sub-group of sexually-isolated fetish followers. Nowadays, they want, nay, they demand, that you openly declare your support for their desires, which is focused, like a laser-beam, on your children.”

In Long Beach, California in 2017, a photo surfaced of a devil-horned library presenter who one homosexual website dubbed a “Satanic goddess.” Quickly dismissed as a joke, one has to ask, so what? Does any discerning parent want someone to read books to their children—or do anything with our kids—who dresses like a freak and jokes about such serious matters?

The weapons of their warfare are not carnal, indeed. But neither are ours and ours are far mightier. Praise God, there are believers in Christ who continue to oppose these depraved events, and in the end, our side wins.

Count on it.

But in the meantime, parents must keep speaking out and standing up, and more are doing so every day. Families also need discernment to understand how commonplace and mainstream sorcery has become, and how likely it is your children will come face-to-face with these practices in their everyday lives. At least 1.5 million Americans are witches and pagans, according to some reports, which is comparable to the membership of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Current politics drives some occult activities, with “LGBTQ” identifiers often leading the charge. Hexes and curses against conservative political figures have become common since the 2016 election. One article described the new hexing trend:

“Dakota Bracciale, a 29-year-old transgender/queer witch and co-owner of Catland Books and witch shop in Brooklyn, is pleased with the outcome of the ritual hex placed on US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in October [2018]…”

Another man, Michael Hughes, has been organizing witchcraft rituals to “bind” Donald Trump since 2017 and is doing so this year a week before Halloween.

So those who claim Halloween is just about candy and costumes need to think again. It is shaping up as a significant force, and not in a positive direction.

Around the country this October there were numerous “drag queen” story events with Halloween themes: Tucson ( for “all ages”), Dallas, Atlanta, Riverside, CA, Philadelphia, St. Petersburg. In Ames, Iowa, an all-ages drag show (where children could perform if they wanted) received substantial community push-back. Good for them!

But apparently there’s a new venue for child propaganda sessions—college campuses. Michigan State University recently held a “drag” event for little children and some students. And just as we’ve been alerting parents, it was timed to coincide with “Coming Out “day on October 11. So the goal of these female impersonators was clearly to influence minor children to embrace and then announce a homosexual or gender confused identity.

Why was this allowed at a publicly-funded institution?

Yet the red flags didn’t end there. One of the transvestites introduced the MSU “act” by discussing male cross-dressing through the ages. He said, “…whether it's jestors or shaman, every culture has this experience of getting into costume."

A shaman is essentially a witch doctor. So once again, the occult influence in “drag” venues keeps rearing its ugly head.

Why should people care? It’s a matter of keeping our children away from spiritual and sexual risk. Predatory adults have some very noticeable traits. They manipulate situations where they can be close to children, and they have few or no boundaries-- sexual, social or spiritual.

Drag queens insist on close contact with other people’s children and instantly dismiss parental (or taxpayer) concerns. Should we trust these people?

Absolutely not.

And this Halloween, if we fall for their deception, it’s a huge trick.

believeacts2 #fundie believeacts2blog.wordpress.com

DREAM (I had on 5-19-16):

PART ONE:

I was viewing this dream from two perspectives at the same time: one as an on-looker and the other experiencing what was taking place.

I entered into a huge rock/cave area, that had a fairly small and uneven entrance. It was painted with white shiny paint, on all areas of exposed rock, similar to what I saw in the developed caves in North Kansas City. These caves are utilized for storage and business.

I had a white handled plastic grocery bag in my hand, filled with stuff, which I didn’t see but knew it held things to assist people.

When I was about 9 to 10 feet into the entrance, I turned around and saw a lady that I knew in Kansas City, who had been in an employee training position for Behavioral health services. I went closer to the entrance and was going to tell her about the coming food shortage. I said to her:

“Do you know about Joseph storing up food . . . . ”

I didn’t get to finish that thought or sentence, because I then saw the entrance starting to close as if it were like an Indiana Jones movie. I tried to get to the entrance only a few feet away, but it narrowed so much I couldn’t leave, then finally was completely closed off to the outside. I was trapped inside of the cave.

I then looked up and saw the ceiling starting to come down on top of me. It kept lowering and lowering. I knew I was going to be crushed, but felt the LORD with me.

The scene changed:

PART TWO:

I was in what I later knew was a U.S. Military facility. I was going to my medical appointment and was waiting in a room for the physician to come in.

Suddenly, Obama came into the room and wanted to take my measurements.

I had my arms held straight out to my sides, as if preparation for taking measurements, but said:

“You can’t do that. You are the supervisor. It’s unethical and immoral.”

I did not comply with his wishes.

Obama then wanted me to sign up for a program.

I asked him what it was, but was not given an answer.

I then left the room, without either allowing Obama to take my measurements or to sign up for his program. I looked around and found what I believed was a Military officer.

I saw the hat he was wearing and knew he was in a position of authority. He was sitting at a desk, talking to somebody who was also seated.

I tried to report what had just happened with Obama, but the officer was not going to talk to me, nor listen to what I had to say, indicating he was busy with somebody else. He instead referred me over to another area, where I could report the problem.

I then went to where I had been directed to go, where these two military individuals were sitting at desks. One desk was perpendicular to the other one, with some space and plants between both of them. I was able to look at both people at the same time.

I looked at the man on the right and started telling him what happened with Obama, then noticed his eyes flickered and transformed into a reptilian shape . . . I saw the same thing happen with the other individual’s eyes.

They then both disappeared right before my eyes.

I knew these were demons who had been posing as humans in the military.

~ End of Dream ~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INTERPRETATION:

I’ll give the “bottom line” then go into additional details within this dream:

This dream is a prophetic picture of the United States and the subjugation that will be imposed upon the Citizens of the United States. The borders will be closed off and U.S. Citizens will not be able to leave the country. It will become an oppressive dictator-run country, under Obama-THE-Antichrist.

There will be food shortages within the United States.

Obama-THE-antichrist WILL attempt to rule over EVERY part of a person’s life, through his executive orders. His “plan” is to ultimately implement “the mark of the beast”, which will be rolled out under “Obamacare”.

Members of the U.S. Military, who could be in a position to help out, will NOT be able to assist the citizens during this time to prevent this from happening, because: “OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!”

There ARE demonic forces within the current U.S. Military that WILL be manifesting in the days ahead. I’m talking about ACTUAL demons that will be manifesting.

ADDITIONAL DREAM DETAILS:

PART ONE:

The cave painted white, that had a small opening where I entered, represented the small window of time I had to freely return to the United States to assist during the WORST times this country has ever seen, as Obama-THE-antichrist takes over the country. Note: I’m now back in the United States, so the first part of this dream has been fulfilled (I returned to the United States on March 10, 2016. . . Or I entered the cave, as shown in this dream).

The white grocery bag in my hand, filled with stuff to assist others, represents the gifts of the Holy Spirit that I have been given to use to assist others in these final days.

The cave also represents something that was man-made (the cave was painted and the underground bunkers are hewn out by machines). These are photos of actual caves in North Kansas City, that are being used for storage and business. I have been to several of these sites and yes, they do exist. I was a resident of the Kansas City Metro Area for 26 years.

The cave entrance closing, where I couldn’t get out, represents the time when the U.S. borders will be closed; U.S. citizens will NOT be able to leave (unless illegally leaving as refugees escaping across the borders).

The cave ceiling coming down upon me, to crush and kill me represents the crushing oppression that will come upon U.S. Citizens from Obama-THE-antichrist.

It will be particularly oppressive against Christians. Some of us will lose our lives as martyrs, some will be imprisoned, some will be tortured, some will be raped, some will lose their families. Some will be supernaturally protected. Each will be given grace to go through what is ahead, as we endure the testing of our faith in Jesus Christ. . YAHSHUA our Messiah.

Our lives will TOTALLY change, as we endure the redemptive Judgement upon our Nation, for the Heavenly Father disciplines those He loves.

PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IS COMING TO THE UNITED STATES!!! AND – – – OTHER “WESTERN NATIONS” . . . AS OBAMA-THE-ANTICHRIST RISES IN POWER!!!

WE MUST CLING TO JESUS CHRIST . . . YAHSHUA OUR MESSIAH. . . NO MATTER WHAT!!!! EVEN UNTO DEATH, IF REQUIRED!!!!

The individual I knew In Kansas City, who was a trainer for Behavioral health services, represents the mind control that is and will be utilized, as well as “mental health diagnosis” that will be utilized against U.S. Citizens. This was a part of the former Soviet Union’s strategy against “political dissidents” to round them up.

There WILL be food shortages. Note: I have illustrated this now THREE times. . . Are you getting this yet?

The LORD Jesus Christ. . . Yahshua, our Messiah. . WILL be with ALL true believers and followers, regardless of the dire times we find ourselves in. TRUST HIM NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS!!!! . . . WE ARE IN THE SEASON OF “THE BRIDE OF CHRIST GETTING READY.”

PART TWO:

The program Obama-THE-antichrist will want EVERY U.S. Citizen to sign up for will be THE MARK OF THE BEAST, which will be mandated and rolled out under “Obamacare” (which should be called “Obama-hates”).

DO NOT . . . . I repeat . . DO NOT take the bio-identification system that WILL be mandated by Obama. . It’s “the Mark of the Beast” and will turn you into a human puppet zombie for Satan . . . . Controlled by Obama-the-Antichrist, who eventually will FULLY transform and manifest into Satan himself.

There are demonic forces within the U.S. And other Military, that WILL be manifesting in the days ahead: REAL DEMONS (along with fallen angels, Giants, hybrids, robots, DARPA fallen angel technology, etc. . . . ALL designed to eventually destroy the human race).

WE HAVE THE CHOICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE To Obama-THE-antichrist . . . But it may indeed cost us our lives, if we choose to follow Jesus and NOT follow “THE BEAST”. There WILL be martyrs here in the United States AND in other “Western Nations”.

Alfredenuman #dunning-kruger #crackpot #sexist incels.co

Sexual selection makes no damn evolutionary sense.

image
Intro

This post will focus specifically on the human race while using animal studies as a base reference. Anthropologists, social scientists, normies and PUAs can justify describing human behavior in terms of their 'primitive animal brain' then it is only fair that this thread be allowed to do the same.
Sexual selection is the selection of mates (overwhelmingly done by females), to select the 'best' male to propagate with. This selection process is entirely based on the whims and wants of the female species. As a contrast, this is entirely different from natural selection where the best candidates for survival/propagation are determined by the environment.

With this being said, it should be noted that the argument of women selecting the best genes because of natural selection is a wholly incorrect statement. Women select purely on sexual selection and this selection process likely does not benefit to the human race as a whole, and may even impede the human race to survive.

[…]

The human species
imageAnthropological studies have indicated that modern humans have significantly smaller brains compared to our ancient counterparts, which included the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. What made the human race unique in the animal kingdom was our disproportionately large brains to our body mass. While it may seem that we are still more intelligent than our predecessors, it's mainly due to readily available information being provided to us by technology that offsets this. Ancient humans however had to rely heavily on creativity, tool making, navigation and determination which necessitate increased brain mass.
People may argue that "if our ancient cousins were so intelligent, then why did they go extinct?", and the answer is simple; it's evident that females did not value intelligence or cranial size. They simply selected on qualities that were completely irrelevant to their survival (likely because they never were involved in hunting parties and never could appreciate the importance of intelligence over something comparatively less important like height or muscle mass). Eventually the Neanderthals and other hominids went extinct, leaving the smaller, weaker (and arguably dumber) Homo Sapien male counterparts to inherit what's left. The loss had been so severe that we still have people in Africa who can't figure out how to farm.

Why human sexual selection makes no sense
imageHuman females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species. In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.

For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.imageThere will be a time where human females will keep demanding taller and taller mating partners with smaller and smaller brains, resulting in misshapen and maladapted human beings. They will very likely call for 6'2 males and progress to call for 6'4 and so on.
We do in fact have people who are monstrously tall today and they suffer from a myriad of problems, because like the Irish Elk, the human body simply isn't equipped to handle the immense physical stress from the unrealistic proportions demanded by the female species. People who are 7'0 tall already suffer from serious ailments such as joint erosion, heart failure, osteoporosis and an overall higher mortality rate. All the product of relentless sexual selection pressure for no other reason than women like it that way.
imageIt's also no surprise that the vast majority of the prison population are made of hyper masculine and aggressive males, because these are traits that were ultimately selected for by females. But why this makes no sense in terms of natural selection is that very high testosterone levels predisposes these types of males to be too aggressive; they become uncooperative and exhibit maladaptive behaviors that threaten tribal cohesion. They are less likely to care for and look after their offspring and may even kill them. They have higher drives to only procreate and spend little or not time being creative, or learning skills (if their intelligence allows them for it). They are less likely to share food and resources. They are in prison for this reason because they cannot fit into civilized society.

Yet, more than half of prison misconduct occurs between male inmates, and female prison guards.

Is there hope left?
image About 80% of human males are the unattractive 'betas' because of our evolutionary heritage, and also because a few clever ancestors devised a societal system where the provisioning of partners were evenly distributed based on merit. Unfortunately that societal system has eroded over the last few hundred years and part of the reason why women are disgusted by 80% of these men were because those men 'prevented them having their fun'. So despite having maladaptive hyper masculine animals in prison, women wil still seek them out (and unaccounted drug dealers/gangsters/crime lords, etc.) for producing offspring. Worst case scenario is that they may even engage in degenerate behavior such fornicating with animals to satisfy their sexual needs.
image
Unfortunately I don't have the answers and its my personal opinion that the human race is doomed by the way of the Irish Elk, Pandas and many other species where the females prefer extinction and/or genetic regression as opposed to mating with what they deem as a 'not good enough male'.

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

[From "Liberal Staffers are considering suicide. We should help them. With razorblade donations."]

By now you've heard the story about the pathetic assistant to a Liberal MP who is so incompetent and incapable of being a man that he has twice tried to commit suicide but can't even succeed at that. And now this pathetic little faggot is daring to lecture Canadians on "not doing enough".

Let's be clear: Paul Wernick is a sad pathetic excuse for a man. He always has been. Without somebody willing to tell him to stop whining and abandon his illegitimate sexual perversions he never will be. Like all homos (and many Liberal staffers) he has severe mental retardation. His brain is broken. And only he can fix it.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this pillow-biters hilariously obtuse 2014 article about fraternity life.

My childhood dog and playmate passed away. I decided to go to a Greek Hockey League game and as I saw one brother approach me, I was expecting to receive a firm handshake and a quick conversation to forget my troubles.

Instead I was called a homophobic slur for the hat I was wearing. I tried to laugh and pretend it was a joke but as I tried to create a conversation, the brother walked off.

I have always been one to accept challenges but I was not ready to meekly accept insults somehow deemed to test pledges. I brought the story to higher leadership within the chapter. I was told that this particular brother once had effeminate qualities with the implication that he had now grown out of it. Somehow this was supposed to help me understand what had happened to me.

What happened, Paul you pathetic uranist, was that you lost your dog. Yeah it happens. Being a dog owner is going to inevitably come with dog loss (unless, say, you jump off a bridge before that happens hint hint). You deal with this loss by DEALING WITH THE LOSS. Begging somebody else, who doesn't really actually know you mind you, to amortize your loss so that your monthly payments are smaller is a coping mechanism and not a particularly good one.

Good on your fraternity's "higher leadership" to call you out on this. You're being a pathetic sodomite. Expecting another guy who has wisely rejected this sick and evil lifestyle to feed into your toxic downward spiral (and eventually shove a dog bone up your ass) is foolhardy. Had you learned this lesson rather than wrote a butthurt article about it, maybe today we would be free of drivel from you about how "working 60 hour weeks" for a political power that you want to implement your evil sodomite policies needs to change just [U]because[/U] you can't cope with issues without trying to swallow rat poison.

(As an aside Paul, you can't get good rat poison in Canada anymore. You will just have to guzzle bleach. Lots of it. It's at Walmart)

Wernick said he didn't know about the EFAP option until after his first suicide attempt, when a longtime staffer told him about it, and that he'd like to see people from the Prime Minister's Office and minister's offices talk to new staff about the importance of taking care of themselves.

No. Absolutely no. I'm 100% against this.

IF YOU ARE A LIBERAL STAFFER YOU ALREADY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. YOU NEED NO HELP.

After all, I've seen your people's ideas on how to take care of the country and how you plan on taking care of citizens under your evil PM's yoke. They are horrible and destructive. So if that's your level of thinking, I want you to apply to to yourself.

Continue until you're as dead as Paul Wernick keeps trying to be but can't because he's a pathetic piece of trash.

whereismysafespace #sexist reddit.com

Scientist shows women's brains are wired to accept rape without resisting.

Here is an article that goes into explaining all that. Their brains are meant to accept rape meekly. I actually think men not raping women are the ones going against nature. If evolution has designed them with a simple mechanism to shut off their brain and let us have our way with them, it is perversion to use more complicated means (dates, money, attention...) to get what we need. The time and resources spent on obtaining consensual sex could be spent in other areas that benefit society. Without consensual sex, with already might have cured cancer already (think of all the money that go towards dating, attracting members of the opposite sex...).

We really have to ask ourselves, how did we come to a paradigm of "consensual sex" being the norm? To me it feels as what is most against nature in western societies. I also think that people pointing out the gays or transgenders (which are harmless and should be left alone as far as I'm concerned) as "unnatural" and "a danger to society" are doing so in order to focus people on something else rather than them realizing the abomination that is consensual sex.

Yet I still feel some forms of rape should be illegal (mostly the ones with violence, but it's the violence that is the issue to me, not the rape). You shoud leave your victim in the same state of health you found her, not only out of respect for her, but also for the next man that will rape her. I despise men who feel the need to beat a woman before/after raping her, and those who kill women. It's a waste of potential future rapes.

DERP #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Lithium in Chemtrails

I have a bad feeling that they have been drugging entire nations.

Tampa bay is getting its daily dose as i type this..


I know 200 years ago, most people would not put up with a corrupted government\and would be quit to shoot the dumb fuckers, now people seem to be somewhere between limbo and a dreamworld.

Look at the side effect of this stuff and see if you can relate someone or yourself to possible effects.

In addition to its needed effects, some unwanted effects may be caused by lithium. In the event that any of these side effects do occur, they may require medical attention.

You should check with your doctor immediately if any of these side effects occur when taking lithium:
Less common

Confusion, poor memory, or lack of awareness
fainting
fast or slow heartbeat
frequent urination
increased thirst
irregular pulse
stiffness of the arms or legs
troubled breathing (especially during hard work or exercise)
unusual tiredness or weakness
weight gain

Rare

Blue color and pain in the fingers and toes
coldness of the arms and legs
dizziness
eye pain
headache
noise in the ears
vision problems

Incidence not known

Dry, rough skin
fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
hair loss
hoarseness
lightheadedness
mental depression
sensitivity to cold
shortness of breath
swelling of the feet or lower legs
swelling of the neck
unusual excitement

If any of the following symptoms of overdose occur while taking lithium, get emergency help immediately:
Symptoms of overdose

Blurred vision
clumsiness or unsteadiness
convulsions (seizures)
diarrhea
drowsiness
increase in the amount of urine
lack of coordination
loss of appetite
muscle weakness
nausea or vomiting
ringing in the ears
slurred speech
trembling (severe)

Some of the side effects that can occur with lithium may not need medical attention. As your body adjusts to the medicine during treatment these side effects may go away. Your health care professional may also be able to tell you about ways to reduce or prevent some of these side effects. If any of the following side effects continue, are bothersome or if you have any questions about them, check with your health care professional:
Less common

Acne or skin rash
bloated feeling or pressure in the stomach
muscle twitching (slight)

Stefanie Nicholas #fundie #homophobia #transphobia onepeterfive.com

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

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

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

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

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

Fractionation Seduction #sexist fractionationseduction.net

[Can't hotlink them since they're not images, but a couple of the ads on the site are pretty damn fundie]

A fair warning:

Shogun Method is NOT like anything you’ve ever read before. Seriously.

You see, there’s a very valid reason why it’s kept pretty much underground since its inception about ten years ago, and it’s this –

It has its foundations on facts and truths that may not be “politically correct” these days… and for this reason, the mainstream media has turned a blind eye, hoping that it will be buried under obscurity for eternity…

And yet, controversy or no, the Shogun Method is primed to help you achieve everything you’ve ever wanted in dating and seduction… lots of sex, a lifelong relationship with the girl of your dreams, or anything in between… simply because the Method operates not on what’s popular or acceptable, but on what universally WORKS.

And let’s face it. What’s more important to you:

Your success and happiness? Or,
What angry people say you “should” or “should not” do in your life and relationships?

That’s a ridiculously easy choice to make, right?
Why Relationships Fail (Warning: This Might Be A Mistake YOU Could Be Making)

Have you ever wondered why so many breakups, divorces, annulments, and other relationship failures are happening in the world today?

Well, I’ll spare you the suspense and reveal the answer to you:

There’s a critical shortage of REAL men in the world today.

If you’ve not realized it already, not only the modern society seems fucking hell-bent on empowering women, it also seems to be DE-empowering men at the same time.

Everything’s about “equality” these days.

And while equality is a good thing, say, in the office, it has got absolutely NO BUSINESS butting into romantic relationships between a man and a woman.

Here’s why. Whenever you surrender your natural role to lead and dominate your relationship… and instead opt for “equality” with your girlfriend/wife… then the relationship ends up with NO CLEAR LEADER.

And when your girl feels your relationship has no leader, then guess what? She’ll naturally try to assume leadership… and that’s when bad things start to happen, because:

When she doesn’t see you as the leader, she doesn’t respect you…
…and when she doesn’t respect you, she can’t love you.
It’s not a woman’s nature to lead anything for very long (if at all).
Once you cede leadership, it’s nearly impossible to retake it without stirring up drama and bitterness.
Eventually, she’ll get so fed up that she starts looking for a stronger, more dominant, more capable man.

Makes complete sense, right?

So that’s why, my friend, you’ll need a different approach. You need to stop trying to be liked. You need to be a REAL MAN.

You lead, she follows.

You dominate, she submits.

You’re the “master”, she’s the “slave.”

Now, you might think: “Gee, isn’t that what Pickup Artists teach, anyway? Should I just re-read those Pickup Artist ebooks?”

To which I say: Actually, that’s the LAST thing you’ll want to do, and here’s why…

...

Shogun Method 101

First things first… the Shogun Method is not for everyone.

Who knows – it may not be for you, especially if:

You believe in “gender equality”.
You believe in being politically correct.
You’re easily triggered by notions of “inequality” and “misogyny”.
You believe that a woman’s happiness is more important than yours.
You think that “selfishness” is a bad thing.

Why? Well, if anything, Shogun Method is the antithesis of “gender equality” and political correctness. It puts the men well ahead of women in status based on one core belief: that a woman is happy if and only if her man is happy.

Get it?

Intrigue Generation (or stage “I“), where a woman gets interested enough in you to pay her undivided attention;
Rapport Building (or stage “R“), where you make her trust you even more than she trusts her friends and family;
Attraction Development (or stage “A“), where you make her want you romantically and sexually; and
Enslavement (or stage “E“), where she falls willingly under your domination and control for the rest of her life.

This process is known as the IRAE Model, and forms the backbone of the Shogun Method.

Out of these four stages, it’s the “Enslavement” part that shocks most guys. But it’s precisely what the vast majority of all other PUA methods lack – an endgame.

And guess what? Enslavement is the only endgame scenario where you can end up with a strong, happy, successful relationship with the girl of your dreams.

The truth is that when you see how The Shogun Method works in your own life, you’ll realize it’s not so bad… and in fact, it’s one of the best things to happen to both you AND your woman.

If you want a woman to be happy, you’ve got to enslave her emotionally. It’s really as simple as that.

...

Of course, I tried using Pickup Artist tricks on her which were about as useful as a dildo to a straight guy. I quickly turned to Google and searched for terms like “how to control and manipulate women” and “how to seduce and dominate women“ and found Derek’s work.

It only took me about four hours to learn the entire Shogun Method arsenal (believe me when I say that I was pretty fucking motivated at that time). With the IRAE Model under my belt, I took her through the Intrigue, Rapport, Attraction, and Enslavement stages… and especially with the use of the Black Rose Sequence under the Enslavement stage… I’ve successfully turned her from a feminist harpy into a kitten who absolutely loves me.

Now she’s my soon-to-be wife (we are getting married in November), and we both couldn’t be happier. She even told me: “You know what, I am glad that you’ve reined me in… because I really hated it when I had to dictate everything that we do.”

Enough about me. I want you to ask yourself right now: What’s your endgame?

Do you even HAVE an endgame?

If you want a strong, happy, successful, lifelong relationship with the girl of your dreams… and you’re willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it… then you owe it to yourself to discover what Shogun Method has in store for you.

No two ways about it!

Fair warning, though: You’re about to learn one of the most POWERFUL seduction methods in the history of mankind. I’m really not saying that lightly.

Shogun Method is going to give you the power to enslave ANY woman you want… and that’s a dangerous thing.

I’ll kid you not. Some men have already used Shogun Method to malicious ends… and has caused untold pain to women who didn’t deserve it.

Sola Awolaja #fundie rapturewatcher.wordpress.com

True Rapture Watcher Or Rapture Hater? You are claiming to be a true believer but you are still obsessed with worldly celebrities, politicians or superstars, worldly music/movies and worldly musicians/actors/actresses. You are very attached to your material acquisitions, power and worldly fame. You are idolizing your Black Berry phone, iPad or touch screen Smart- phone. You are not keen about evangelism and you are not an active soul winner for Jesus Christ. You have unforgiving spirit and no compassion for the poor or needy. You are a liar, covetous, malicious, greedy, selfish, proud, arrogant and still indulging in known or secret sins. You are still a masturbator, fornicator or adulterer/adulteress. You love pornography, worldly games, sports betting, lottery or casino gambling. In your mind, you wish that Jesus Christ can delay “Rapture” for another “50 years” due to your worldly attachment. You are not a true rapture watcher. You are a cold/lukewarm believer! Repent now!!! Don’t be left behind!

usachinanukewar #fundie usachinanukewar.wordpress.com

By the way, IF we wanna talk about the anal sex, I’m absolutely and definitely and always a virgin boy. I have a virgin ass without being penetrated by any earthly man with 6-packs and a gigantic penis. I’m a good holy boy with a virgin ass. And, tell all of you a secret. Someone loved my ass, but this someone was a SHE, not a HE. She loved my ass, and when we had sex, she always loved grabbing my ass, because she deemed my ass was so adorable and cute and sexy and TIGHT. My earthly ass was really really really tight when I was in my early 20’s. I miss my tight ass so much. But, anyway, I’m gotta have a very extremely hot and gorgeous immortal ass with IMMORTAL TIGHTNESS very soon in the Church Rapture. I’m gotta love my immortal ass so much for eternity. And, only Jesus can grab my ass in my eternal life.
*****************************************************************
And, in my eternal life, IF Jesus wanna eat me, then that’s my pleasure. I’m gotta let Jesus DEVOUR me into His stomach. Only Jesus can eat me. No one, no any earthly man is qualified enough to eat me, for they’re just a whole bunch of idiots, and I hate idiots, especially very poor idiots, very financially-stricken idiots with 6 or even 8-packs with a gigantic penis. They’re just a whole bunch of huge jumbo walking HIV in human form with no brain, but an aging and earthly penis. Their sperms full of HIV. The last thing I wanna have on the earth in my earthly, aging body is HIV. I hate HIV. And, I hate any huge jumbo walking HIV in human form, because they’re spreading the virus across the globe. And, I can tell who’s sleeping around with my keen eyes.
******************************************************************
Remember and be aware of it! I am an extraordinarily smart Bella Boy, and only my Immortal Edward, Lord Jesus Christ, can eat me. Any earthly Jacob with 8-packs and an aging, gigantic penis cannot steal me away from my Lover, Lord Jesus Christ. Loyalty is my core personality when I fall in love. And, I am in love now with Jesus. Jesus is my Lover and I am His bride. And, I only SLEEP WITH JESUS’ IMMORTAL GORGEOUS PENIS, IF He wanna eat me. I hate and don’t need any earthly Jacob’s gigantic penis and 8-packs. And, by the way, going naked swimming, diving, sun-bathing, playing volleyball, doing everything all naked in my private island with Jesus, a 2-guy world, is my dream.
***************************************************************
I have a very extremely psychotic Electra complex. And, I’ve found Jesus as my Super Sugar Daddy. Jesus and I already make a deal. He owns my body. And, Jesus is really hot, gorgeous, young, muscular, tight, in His glorious Immortal Body. No wrinkles. And, the real ultra-richest one. And, Jesus is so qualified as my Super Sugar Daddy. He absolutely can eat me if He wants. I’m gotta put myself on a silver platter and dedicate myself to Him in the first night of our wedding. I’m the little hottest, wildest immortal cat boy that belongs to Jesus, and He can do anything He wants when we’re really on the bed just in case He wanna eat me. I have an immortal Twister Tongue.
*******************************************************************
When we’re on the bed, Jesus really doesn’t have to do anything. He can just simply lie there on the center of our bed and enjoy my performance. My immortal Twister Tongue will do everything, vibrating at a lightning speed back and forth. My immortal Twister Tongue is gotta do the job, all the service. Believe me. The ultimate thrilling joy and climax. Jesus is my Man, Lover, King, Emperor, God, Super Sugar Daddy. My everything. I desperately wanna invite Jesus to go naked vacation on a island in the Pacific when we both fly back to the earth and He sets up His Kingdom. Our 2-guy naked vacation on a island in the Pacific, my dream and hot vacation, doing everything all naked. Just Jesus and I.

Knowledge Transfer #fundie disqus.com

(in response to story "Parents of Eight Year Old Boy Who Identifies as Girl Sue School for "Forcing" Son "To Live as a Boy"

Knowledge Transfer:
Sure, we should let rapists; child molesters; murderers; arsonists; thieves; and felons of limitless description live and let live so that they can do what they want to do whenever they want to do it so long as they don't hurt you. Surely, you would agree to let Charles Manson live and let live so he could come to your home for a visit.

GarbageAdams:
All the behaviours you describe are abuses, they are NOT examples of "live and let live". People like you don't comprehend the concept of consenting adults. No one is being abused, you just hate what they do.

Knowledge Transfer:
The despots who have glorified despotism throughout history were consensual depots were they not? If two children consent to jumping off of buildings, are such consensual behaviors abusive to the consensual children and those who are crushed by their falling bodies when they hit the ground? Actually, consensual perversion or voluntary perversion is more evil than involuntary or coerced perversion because FREE WILL is used to pervert consensually. You simply want to be justified in you unjustifiable perversions so you support and justify the perversions of others. Misery has always loved company.

GarbageAdams:
Children aren't old enough to consent, and that goes for sexual situations just as it does for jumping off buildings, which is obviously
a self-destructive practice. COMPLETELY unlike a same-sex adult
consensual relationship which harms no one.
"Perversion" in this sense is entirely a matter of your opinion. Just as I find it perverse in the extreme what you do to the words of your Bible to inflict your hate and judgement on others. Your analogy has failed.

Knowledge Transfer:
This post was on parents who help their children become freaks. You brain has failed. Nevertheless, saluting sodomy [the always lifeless and often lethal homosexual monogamy] is like cheering on those who play in; eat from and sleep in unflushed toilets. The INFAMOUS CRIME AGAINST NATURE is defined by one word. That one word is SODOMY. Sodomy is the CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Therefore, Sodomy isn't natural. The incineration of Sodom is evidence and proof of its foul; filthy; fruitless; fatal; and fecal evilness.
Then we have the deadly siblings of sodomy: "rimming"; "fisting"; "bare backing"; "bug chasing"; "pegging"; "felching"; "taking the express"; "circuit parties"; "brown showers"; "golden showers"; "scatting"; "fulsome street parades" etc. etc. etc. Homo's gladly suffer from exponentially higher shares of all sexually transmitted diseases far in excess of their puny shares of the general population. This includes the granddaddy of them all HIV/AIDS a homocentrically inspired pandemic.
Has a pregnancy ever occurred in a rectum - especially a male rectum?

Laura Louder & Moira Greyland Peat #fundie survivingtherainbow.com

(Laura’s Preface: I’m honored and grateful to God that I can call Moira my friend. I met her through mutual friends, and we struck up an acquaintance which has grown into an important – for me – friendship. I don’t know many people who manifest the courage and faith this woman has done, although I think it’s a matter of standing up and being strong or go through life being a victim, weak and defeated; this is an option that is simply antithetical to what I know of Moira’s spirit. Both her parents were gay, and quite notorious for it. She suffered terrible abuses from both of them, and now has joined the growing ranks of Children of Gays who are speaking out in prophet voices to tell all the rest of us that, despite the gay-controlled rhetoric, homosexuality is bad for children. She’s generously written this for Surviving the Rainbow, and I hope she’ll be writing more.)

What can the straight spouses of gay parents do to protect their children?

I have been asked to respond to this question, and I admit I am at a loss. This question is not about Spouse A being right and Spouse B being wrong. It is about humanity splitting itself in two, usually for completely stupid reasons, and the devastation it wreaks upon the children.

When a spouse, usually a wife, discovers she is married to a man who has decided to pursue a gay lifestyle, she is already enduring her own heartbreak, shock, and betrayal.

Not only will her children be enduring the likely destruction of their home life, but they will be asked to endure a culture shock which will force them to confront adult questions that no child should be forced to endure.

It is bad enough to know your parent has left your other parent for an ordinary relationship. When your parent abandons his former faith, his wedding vows, and his cultural norms and values, the child is in a position of having to choose, which amounts to choosing one’s left hand or one’s right hand.

Socially, children will generally choose the path which minimizes the negative repercussions. It is understandable both to want to avoid conflict and to want to continue to be a “fan” of the straying parent.

Watching the heartbreak of the abandoned parent is awful, but cannot silence questions about the whole situation. If Mom was abandoned, thinks the child, did she do something wrong? After all, our parents are both right, they have to be, or the entire world is split in two.

Most likely the children will feel forced to choose, even if this choice has nothing whatsoever to do with either objective reality or with their own interest. Male children may choose to side with the father, because it is emotional suicide to reject the primary male figure in their lives, even if he is tarnished beyond belief.

In my own family, my brother chose my father over my mother, which in some ways made sense, because he was kinder and less cruel. In other ways, it made no sense at all, because he brought home a long succession of teen and preteen boys for sex, and he endlessly pressured my brother to have sex with them—and with him.

I also chose my father in some ways, because he was less cruel than my mother. But ultimately, I chose neither one, because neither one chose me.

We learn how to be people from our parents. When our parents choose sexual folly over keeping the home together, children learn that sex is more important than people, and much more important than we are. If our father rejects our mother, we learn that women are unimportant and can be abandoned on a sexual whim. If our mother rejects our father, we learn that men are disposable.

Most catastrophically, if our father decides to “become a woman,” it can provoke terrible anguish in the children. For both girls and boys, their father is literally gone, and “replaced” with a human who is doing disgraceful things for reasons which make no sense to a child. In a boy, it can cause them to fear that their own masculinity can be lost at any moment, and that they might inadvertently be turned into a woman. In a girl, it can make them conclude that no man will ever want them, because if their own father abandoned their mother and turned into a female, it must be because they have failed. Deep down, that failure will always be present, even if unspoken.

In my own family, where my father did not actually choose to “become a woman,” he absolutely refused masculine and feminine gender roles, which left me feeling like I was a nothing, neither male nor female. I was “less than” any boy, because he preferred boys for sex and denigrated girls for “wanting relationships.” If I was a girl. i was “one of them,” those foul creatures rejected by my father. Of course, my attempts to masquerade as a boy were never enough. I became adept at fencing, but any kind of fighting was too stereotypically masculine for my father, so again I had failed.

When a father leaves, either physically leaving the family, or by abandoning his gender for his sexual whims, the sun falls out of the sky for the children. Their very existence as males and females is called into question. Also, the mother is devastated by her own perceived failure and deep, deep grief.

If there is a custody battle, the children are figuratively torn in half for reasons that will never make sense. The wife is likely to be devalued even more in a divorce from a gay man than in an ordinary divorce, partly because of the legal climate, and partly because she will blame herself for failing so deeply as a woman that her man abandoned manhood and straight love altogether rather than remaining with her.

The children will naturally fear being abandoned by a gay spouse in their own future.

The original question was this: is there anything an abandoned wife of a gay man can do to protect her children? The answer is no, and a qualified yes.

We cannot stop the pain. We cannot stop the grief or the feelings of abandonment. We cannot stop the nightmare or the moral outrage. We cannot even stop the gay parent from allowing his new “friends” from terrorizing, molesting, or even raping the children.

In such a situation, what hope can I give?

We can stay aware that our children are hurt, and that their hurt must be handled as more important than our own. It is important as much as possible, to not allow them to see our grief in all of its fullness, not to allow them to think we are forcing them to take sides. Their relationship with their father is about learning their place in the universe, not about us.

What we must do is to remain a safe place. We have to be the one they can express their doubts and fears to. If they have to defend their father, they will be silencing their own agony to do so. This means we must be Switzerland, not taking any side but theirs. If their father commits a bad act, we must listen attentively, and respond from the perspective of helping them, not persecuting their father.

Even if their father is the worst villain imaginable, they will never abandon him. I know this, because my own father is a serial rapist of children, and I am the one who put him in prison for molesting an eleven year old boy in front of me.

I cannot abandon my father, even though he blamed me for his imprisonment, and he most certainly abandoned me. If that is my position as an adult, how likely is it that a child will be able to abandon a father for much smaller crimes?

We abandon our own hearts. We do not abandon our parents. All we can do is teach our children to pay attention to their own discomfort and encourage them to protect themselves against anything which feels wrong. We can also teach them to speak up firmly, even when they are afraid.

In a way, it feels like I am trying to explain to a fish how to be comfortable while being eaten by a shark. My advice might reduce the pain slightly, but we did not cause the injury, and we cannot prevent the pain altogether.

Let them see that you are not rejecting yourselves, nor will you reject them, even if they side with their father. It hurts, it is appalling, but it is unavoidable. Any boy around eight or nine is going to detach from Mother to a large degree and seek out his father as his primary role model. If his father is a horrible role model, telling him that will not alter his need for his father at all.

What you can do is to make sure your sons have better male role models in their lives, whether sports coaches, teachers who will mentor them properly, or relatives they have cause to admire. I did mention not telling them that you are doing this, yes? Just do it, and do not say why. The last thing they need to hear is that you are rejecting their father, because any rejection of him will feel internally like a rejection of them, no matter what you intend it to be.

My own sons identify strongly with their football coaches, thank God.

Above all, let your children know through your own conduct that being normally male and female is good and right, and that they have the right to be themselves, even if some people might want them to change into something else.

I wish I had more comfort to offer you.

All my best to you,
Moira Greyland Peat

Silver Fox 1957 #conspiracy dailykos.com

Whatever happened to the Chavez/Maduro supporters around here?

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


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

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

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

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

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

Not one thing you say here is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom DeWeese #fundie rightwingwatch.org

The bottom line is, CO2 is not a poison to human beings, CO2 is not affecting the atmosphere, there is absolutely no evidence, I can say this with absolute confidence, there is no evidence of man-made global warming causing problems. We are actually going through a cooling period right now, which is going to increase over the next few years, it’s cyclical, it happens. I used to have a weatherman in my hometown who started the weather by saying ‘whether it’s cold or whether it’s hot, we’ll always have weather, whether or not’ and that’s exactly what this is. Every time we have a dry season or we have strong hurricanes or we have a really hot summer or a mild winter, these idiots start this drumbeat again, ‘global warming, see here’s what it is.’ They tried to say that this year is the warmest on record, it’s not. They will just keep coming up with his stuff, it’s just craziness.

…

Trees give off carbon dioxide; all the plants around us give it off. The fact is some scientists have done some studies saying we’ve got a carbon dioxide shortage right now. That then causes plants to die, that causes environmental damage.

Bradford C. Walker #wingnut bradfordcwalker.blogspot.com

If there is one thing you can fault the God-Emperor for, it is being insufficient in looking out for his allies, and online is where he's failed hardest. While I fully expect the God-Emperor to win a second term, it's going to take more work to get the message out online this time due to Big Tech aggressively rigging the game against him this time around. First by changing the algorithims to make discovery all but impossible, privledging Fake News over the alternatives outside the Death Cult's control. Second by going after each ally online in turn and deplatforming them, up to and including financial cutoffs. (Just ask Red Ice.)

It is unwise to expect the God-Emperor to handle this in the time available. The wise thing to do is what the Supreme Dark Lord, Red Ice, and others have done: build your own platfoms, and diversify your presence in existing ones. The latter is very easy to do; set up accounts on competing platforms of that social media type, and ensure that people can follow you there if your FaceTwitTube accounts get nuked. The former is where you're going to need to spend either time or money because you've got to set that up and keep it up; this is where you can do the paywalled value-add thing that Red Ice does for its members-only site and Unauthorized does for its subscribers.

I suspect that, for most of us, we're restricted to the latter strategy for now. Fortunately there is no shortage of alternatives; the catch is getting links before the eyeballs of the audience who are on the main platforms, which is why many of us have opted for doing newsletters via email. (Yes, I have been very bad at this. I will fix this presently.)

As for what to do about the God-Emperor? Besides re-electing him next year, it's to push him--HARD--to smash Big Tech with the power of the state. Will he? Yes, but I think the big reason for a lot of delays in promises like this is due to the need to turn the Federal judiciary, which he has done at all levels- especially on the notoriously shitlib ends like the 9th Circuit and the DC area District courts. (Why should be obvious, but Anonymous Conservative gets into more details.) In short, he wants what he does via Executive power to not get messed with by the courts, and that takes time.

Which returns me to us relying on ourselves until that task is complete. In the meantime, I would recommend getting lawyers to review the Terms of Service; if Vox Day can beat Indiegogo by using their own TOS against them, you can too. Welcome to the Rice Fields.

Annoying bitch #fundie thephora.net

For women to be racialist or nationalistic is an anomaly. Women will engage with whichever man can provide for them the best lifestyle. This is best displayed during wartime, women of occupied countries will freely give themselves to occupying armies in exchange for food, status and protection. Men are more intellectual and guided by high-minded ideals like patriotism, while women are interested mainly in survival. This is why women are historically "oppressed" in some societies. Mongol, Hun, and Moorish armies probably did not get much resistance from European women, in fact they probably had to fight them off with a stick.

The West has become overintellectualized and has invented all these concepts (feminism, monogamy, human rights, "love marriages") to avoid uncomfortable aspects of basic human nature and none of them work because they obviously conflict with one another (i.e. how do you fall in love and stay monogamous with a feminist?).

The less intellectualized cultures on earth know all about this, which is why they place a lot of restrictions on their own women and their behavior, while at the same time engaging in the practice of concubinage (mostly of conquered or lower caste women). Another good example of this is Islamic immigrants in Europe, who guard the chastity of their own womenfolk while taking advantage of the whoredom of the white girls they feel they are conquering. This is the natural order of things. Human females similar to other primates are biologically evolved to be sluts who can take sex from multiple males in the same day. This is something Eastern cultures are well aware of and go to great lengths to both protect their own females from while at the same time take advantage of it. The Bible has a lot of the same thinking.

William Grimes #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Sermon 2: Purity and Chastity
By Rev. William H. Grimes
It's time that we discuss a very important chapter in the Bible: I Corinthians 7. I Corinthians 7 talks about married life and the single life. Liberal theologians take this passage as meaning that there is inherent value in marriage, and that marriage is better than being single. The command to "be fruitful and multiply" was ONLY for the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve. It was NOT meant to be a command in 2017! Yet people are breeding like rabbits! Fornicators such as US President Donald Trump are partially to blame for the emulation of wicked behaviors because in the eyes of the Lord Trump was never married, thus guilty of fornication, and his current "marriage" with Melania Trump is an adulterous affair!
I Corinthians 7:1 says that "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Clear as crystal, plain as day! Yet these liberals are insistent upon theological sloppiness. IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. What in the world do you think that means besides the fact that IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN?! Can Paul articulate this point any clearer?! Are you liberals dense?!!!
I Corinthians 7:8 likewise states "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." Even the liberal NIV says that "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." If even the liberal pro-abortion virgin birth denying NIV can be correct about this crucial issue, what is the excuse of these scores of other liberals who do not recognize the fact that this passage says that it is not good for a man to touch a woman, and that it is BETTER for men to stay unmarried and live lives of celibacy?
Liberals love to clap back with the following verse, which says "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." However, this does NOT say that most or all men should marry. Only men who absolutely lack self control and cannot remain chaste and then fall into fornication shall marry. A very different concept, right?! These men are seen as weaker in the Kingdom of God, and they get less reward in heaven for they had the reward of sexual gratification on Earth. Heaven has treasures far beyond the simple and fleeting pleasure of sexual gratification, and sexual gratification is completely unnecessary for humans, and people live fine lives and accomplish great things without it. Christian Sir Isaac Newton was one of the most brilliant minds that God has blessed this world with, and he never desired sexual gratification and lived a life of excellence for God and also his fellow man. This is what we need to set kids up for, not for ignoring God in favor of sexual gratification, marriage, and childrearing! It takes up a lot of time that could be spent worshiping God instead!
Back to the Trump situation, this chapter also says that "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."(I Corinthians 7:10-13) Donald Trump "married" Ivana Trump, but that was even a sham marriage because she is still married to Alfred Winklmayr, who she "divorced" right before marrying Trump, and after Ivana divorced Donald, she had two more "marriages" and "divorces" that are shams unto the Lord, as Ivana is still married to Alfred! Since Ivana has never reconciled with Alfred, and Donald has never been validly married in the eyes of the Lord, Donald is guilty of fornication and Ivana is an adultress! "First Lady" Melania Trump is "married" to Donald Trump in the eyes of the world, and Melania is nothing but a porn star and a trophy wife who has never glorified the Lord! Say what else you want about Michelle Obama, but at least she had some class and dignity, and was not an adulteress! Such a sinful and wicked and prideful man the "godly" have elected to lead the USA! Woe to America! Melania Trump is WICKED AND DECEITFUL AND SINFUL AND LACKS CLASS AND DIGNITY BECAUSE SHE HATES THE THINGS OF GOD AND LOVES MAMMON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To conclude, the wicked Americans need to WAKE UP and realize the sham that is excessive marriage and fornication and adultery because sexual gratification IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT and Onanism and other forms of impurity are NOT FOR THE GODLY and marriage is only for WEAK MEN WHO CANNOT CONTAIN THEIR PASSION LEST THEY FALL INTO FORNICATION, and if you marry and have sexual exploits, YOU WILL BE A LESSER BEING IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN PROVIDED YOU CAN BE A MAN WHO ONLY HAS ONE WIFE AND ONE LOVER! God's people said AMEN!

Graham Seibert #racist #sexist #homophobia #wingnut amren.com

Marry Your Own Kind

We can marry whomever we want. Anti-miscegenation laws are gone, and social norms have been relaxed. “Empowered” women, sexual liberation, and lesbianism mean there are fewer white women available or desirable as wives. White men are looking elsewhere, especially to Asian women.

There is a bitter backlash from white women who resent this, but nobody wants to marry a bitter woman. The “manosphere” is full of complaints about white women, so why should a white man marry one? I was married for eight years to an Asian and for 25 years to a half Asian (three children), and am now ten years into a successful marriage (two kids) with a white woman. Marrying your own kind — after choosing carefully — makes the most sense.

I have read widely on evolution. Survival of the fittest means differentiation and competition. The strategies that work best win out.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy writes that human reproductive strategy was simply better than that of our ape ancestors. Nonreproducing females — sisters, aunts, grandmothers — help raise children. Human males do the same, at least more so than male apes. Human mothers can therefore bear children every two years or so as opposed to every five or six for apes. We out-bred apes, and with homo sapiens’ unique ability to speak and cooperate, other ape-men as well.

Real diversity

In Race, Evolution and Behavior Philippe Rushton applied r/K strategy to races. We evolved different reproductive strategies because we occupy different niches. Northeast Asians — fighting a harsh but predictable climate — became the most K selected. Africans, in a benign but unpredictable environment because of disease and predators, remained the most r selected.

Families reflect these differences. Asian “tiger moms” invest a great deal of effort in each child. Every member of a multigenerational Asian family recognizes that he must work towards bringing up the next generation. More than other people, Asians fulfill their roles out of a sense of duty. One of the attractions of an Asian wife is that sense of duty. Asian wives tend to feel obligated to feed their husbands, whether they like them or not, and to take care of children.

On the other hand, libido is weaker among the K-selected Asians. The newspapers carry stories of young Japanese and Chinese of both sexes who have no interest in sex. They are more likely to be faithful, but perhaps less likely to be satisfying partners. These are population averages; there is far more variation within a race than between the races.

Africans on average have measurably higher levels of sex hormones, mature earlier, and tend to have higher sex drives compared to Asians, but they don’t feel the Asian sense of obligation to spouses and children.

Caucasians are in between, although a bit more toward the Asian end of the scale. Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli Sforza has devised a scheme of measuring the genetic distance between any two populations. The genetic distances between the major races are much greater than those between any two European nations. Since our temperaments are under considerable genetic control, we are more likely to understand a fellow European at a deep level. That has certainly been my experience.

True love

Some things do not fall on the r/K continuum. We white folks came to believe in love and romance.

James Q. Wilson, writing in The Marriage Problem, attributed the notion of marrying for love to the medieval English practice of a young man moving out of the parental house to start his own homestead. When he was established and could afford it, he went out on his own to seek a wife among the local girls. He would choose on the basis of personal attraction, without much input from parents or anybody else.

Kevin MacDonald, writing in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, pushes the practice back further. He links it to the individualism of the hunter gatherers of preagricultural Europe. Each individual rose on his own merits in the “Männerbund,” or brotherhood of men. These were egalitarian societies in which individual merit mattered more than family.

Dr. MacDonald proposes that monogamy was the standard in these societies. Individuals living close to nature don’t have enough resources to support multiple wives, and sexual rivalries would have destroyed the cohesion of the Männerbund. Both parties chose carefully because they were marrying for life. They wanted someone who was skillful at manly or womanly tasks, but also pleasant to be with. The Catholic Church, a uniquely Western institution, promoted monogamous marriage as a sacred bond, based on love, dedicated to raising children — Augustine’s fides, proles et sacramentum.

That sets Europe in contrast to the rest of the world. In richer societies elsewhere, families chose mates for their offspring to keep wealth within the family. They arranged marriages for the competitive advantage of the tribe. In some places, such as among the Indians of the Brazilian rain forest, chiefs simply assigned marriage partners. All members of a tribe were so closely related by blood that it didn’t make much difference genetically.

The upshot is that romantic love is a Western notion, and we white people evolved the mental equipment to make it work. We believe in love. While the Japanese have made a fetish out of sending Valentine’s Day cards, and the Africans certainly celebrate sex, we lead in our belief in love. Moreover, Western societies were unique in the status afforded to women. We evolved to treat them as true partners, not just status symbols or incubators of our children.

Belief in love is not an unmixed blessing. Westerners are uniquely disappointed when we don’t find it. An Asian man will remain with the wife of his youth and simply take concubines if he can afford them. Sex in African societies is unconstrained. Native Americans likewise consider fidelity to the tribe to be more important than fidelity to their partner.

We Westerners have put ourselves in a bind. Western women have grown to expect that they can have it all: a family and the true love that society celebrates and that their ancestors knew, along with freedom and a career. Sometimes it all fits, often not.

Before the 1950s, sex was seen as part of marriage, not an end in itself. People were expected to fulfill their obligations to each other in the marriage, especially with regard to earning money, keeping house, raising children, and paying bills. Satisfaction came from fulfilling obligations to family and society, not sex.

Hugh Hefner started Playboy magazine in 1953, and in the same decade, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex. The 1960s saw Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, along with the pill, the sexual revolution, the antiwar counterculture, and drugs. The emphasis turned to self-gratification, with sex becoming a plaything more than an instrument of procreation as part of a larger, social commitment. Sex became burdened with expectations it could never fulfill, leading to generations of unfulfilled men and women. This is how we arrived at today’s situation.

Children

The children of a mixed marriage are . . . mixed. My one-fourth Japanese children called themselves “mixers” — neither Asian nor white. However, when pressed, because being white is so monumentally out-of-favor, they lean toward their Japanese quarter.

If the genetic distance between the parents is great enough, the parents will be genetically closer to members of their own race than to their own children — hard as that may be to believe.

I had hoped my children would inherit their mother’s Asian work ethic and conscientiousness and my drive and curiosity. I was disappointed. Is this common? Anecdotally, I do not see as many successful mixed-race Asian Americans as one would expect.

Only one of my mixed-race children inherited the sense of romantic love I got from my parents. She is also inclined to be critical of men who don’t have an Asian level of conscientiousness. I believe that she and, indeed, all three of them would be more comfortable if they were not mixed.

There is unlikely to be a statistical study of the characteristics of Asian-Caucasian “mixers.” It is hard to imagine a more politically charged research thesis. Moreover, a rigorous statistical study would be very hard to construct. And there is the question of which Asians? Profs. Lynn and Vanhanen find that the average intelligence in Asian nations varies by as much as 20 points.

Children of any mixed marriage find themselves in the same position as my children. Are they white or Asian? Or, like George Zimmerman, white or Latino? There may never be statistical validation of this point, but it is common sense to stick with your own kind and to have children who don’t have to decide who they are.

What’s the solution?

To make ourselves attractive as marriage partners, we white people should learn once again to act responsibly. We should learn to respect each another. We should learn that true satisfaction comes from family. But what can you do if you want marriage and children when there are so few well-suited partners?

Look in the right places. Find religion. People who attend church are more likely to believe in the Christian tradition of monogamous marriage and family. Take on a self-improvement program: People who attend Toastmasters or take night courses are more likely to be just as conscientious in their romantic relationships. The people you will meet at Dale Carnegie or dance lessons are more likely to be outgoing and interested in forming stable relationships.

If you are a woman, you should attend American Renaissance conferences, where you will find many like-minded men. You will find younger people in identitarian groups. Don’t just attend — take leadership roles. Learn to speak publicly. If a person’s first impression is looking up at you on a podium, he might continue looking up at you.

You can expect the commenters on articles at American Renaissance to be on your wavelength. There are ways to protect your privacy — burner email addresses, SIM cards and Skype numbers — and still let people know how to reach you. The odds of finding a soulmate among people interested in the future of our people are certainly higher than on Tinder or eHarmony.

Millennial YouTube personalities such as Brittany Sellner (formerly Brittany Pettibone) and Blonde in the Belly of the Beast have an attractive message. Join the commenters on their YouTube pages or Mrs. Sellner’s book and make contact with them.

After my second divorce, I was too old to do these things. As a graduate student on an American campus from 2003 to 2006, I didn’t find anyone who would have interested me even if I had been young enough to be in the running. Two poignant books, “Sexual Utopia In Power” by Roger Devlin and “No Campus For White Men” by Scott Greer pretty well sum up my experience.

The logical choice for me was to look elsewhere. While there are substantial white populations in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and southern Brazil, the largest number by far are in Europe. Women in just about every less-developed or recently-developed country, whatever their race, are less affected by cultural disease than women in the United States and Western Europe. Moreover, an American income is also more attractive to them.

I consider the Visegrad countries — Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the Baltics to be recently developed. Although their standards of living approach those of Western Europe, the people remain traditional. I am continually encouraged by their resistance to the dictates from the European Union that they take immigrants. They are standing their ground, asserting that they are Christian countries and want to stay that way. The former members of the Soviet Union — Russia itself, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine — might properly be considered underdeveloped. Average monthly salaries are less than $1,000. Though Western culture is making inroads, these peoples are still better marriage prospects.

Although most people think going abroad means American men looking for foreign brides, it works the other way. The men in these countries are more traditional. They tend to be more courtly, more inclined to observe the traditional courtesies such as opening doors. They can fix things. They expect to marry, the major constraint being whether they can afford it. At the same time, the characteristics now called “toxic masculinity” haven’t been beaten out of them. A white woman looking for a real man — with both the advantages and disadvantages — could do worse than Eastern Europe.

University has always been an ideal stage of life at which to meet a partner. All of Europe has a tradition of relatively inexpensive education. Here in Ukraine, education is ridiculously cheap — the most expensive schooling is about $5,000 per year for medical school. Moreover, at some universities, a lot of the courses are offered in English. A parent interested in the prospects of grandparenthood and the well-being of his wallet could do worse than to recommend that his children study overseas. Although it will probably take longer if the language of instruction is not English, the knowledge of a foreign language will be a lifelong asset, the experience with a foreign culture invaluable, and the possibility of a delightful (and philogenitive) partner is valuable.

Racial diversity brings differences that are hard to overcome in any context, differences that are on constant display in the United States and Western Europe. Marriage is the most intimate possible human relationship. The difference between men and women is already profound, and bridging it is challenge enough for any couple. As I have learned from costly experience, it does not make sense to burden a relationship with the added differences of miscegenation. Marry your own kind.

David J Stewart quoting Jack Hyles #sexist #fundie #elitist jesus-is-savior.com

[From Jack Hyles’s advice for how to raise a young girl.]

1. Dress her like a girl. Let her have long hair. Let her wear lace and ribbons. Do not let her wear that which pertaineth to a man. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." The parent who wants to make a young lady of a daughter should see to it that she does not wear revealing clothes, but that she dresses modestly. I Timothy 2:9 and 10 says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

This must be started early in the life of a girl. If she never wears pants for the first time, she will always wear skirts. If she never wears mini-skirts for the first time, she will always wear skirts of a modest length. In these days of hot pants, mini-skirts, and pant suits, may God give us some old-fashioned mothers and dads who well rear some sweet, feminine ladies for our boys and dress them accordingly.

2. Teach her strict obedience. Other chapters stress the fact that obedience is the most necessary ingredient to be required from the child. This is especially true in the life of a girl, for she must be obedient all of her life. The boy who is obedient to his mother and father will someday become the head of the home; not so for the girl. Whereas the boy is being trained to be a leader, the girl is being trained to be a follower. Hence, obedience is far more important to her, for she must someday transfer it from her parents to her husband.

This means that she should never be allowed to argue at all. She should become submissive and obedient. She must obey immediately, without question, and without argument. The parents who require this have done a big favor for their future son-in-law.

3. She should not be allowed to play alone with boys. The parents should see to it that she plays with other girls. This is important for many reasons. She should play only with toys that are uniquely for girls. This, by all means, should include dolls, doll clothes, housecleaning equipment, dishes, pots and pans, etc. She should participate in sports enough to become coordinated but she should not excel in sports. If later she marries a man who is very athletic, she could become more proficient in some particular sport that he enjoys, but if she becomes an expert in a sport that is usually associated with men and boys, it could prove embarrassing to her future husband, and for that matter, it could entice her to become more masculine than she ought to be.

4. Teach her how to be graceful in sitting, walking, etc. Every mother who has a daughter should be careful to show her how to sit like a lady, walk like a lady, and exhibit propriety and grace in her manners. (Note the chapter on MANNERS.)

5. Teach her to be an intelligent listener and an articulate conversationalist. She should read a variety of good books and magazines and have a wide variety of knowledge. It should be obvious to any male with whom she is conversing that she is an intelligent listener and that she can understand and respond to his conversation. She should never seem to know as much as he does (even though she may actually know more) but enough to talk intelligently about his interests and to make him feel that his conversation is falling on receptive ears and an understanding mind. This means that she should learn all she can about everything, especially things that interest men. For example, she should know football, but she should not play it. There is nothing a man wants any more than to be understood by an intelligent listener.

The wise lady will never "take over" the conversation. She will add just enough to make a valuable contribution and to show her intelligence on the subject, but she will always make her man feel that he is the more knowledgeable. Of course, as a girl like chooses a man, she will want to choose the kind that is at least her equal, the kind that she will not have to dominate, and the kind whose mind and conversation will always intrigue her. This means that the wise mother will teach her girl not to be a wallflower and not to attempt to get by on beauty alone. She will teach her to be the kind of young lady who has a beautiful spirit and a beautiful soul, one who can communicate, one who is understanding, and one who is quietly articulate in conversation.

Though she should not be a football fanatic she should know enough about football to enjoy watching the game with her boyfriend, fiancée, or husband, if he so chooses. It should be obvious to him that she is enjoying the game and that she is knowledgeable about it, but that he can teach her even more.

6. Teach her to make her dad feel like a hero. A young lady that can treat her dad properly is more likely to treat her husband properly. If she makes her dad feel like a man when he is in her presence, she will not doubt make her husband feel like a man when he is in her presence. If the daughter is careful to refill Dad's glass at the table, see to it that he gets the best chair, listen to him intelligently when he talks, participate intelligently, yet meekly in the conversion, she will someday transfer this to her husband and her husband will rise up and call her "blessed."

7. Teach her to have the proper heroines. The mother should be very careful to see to it that the daughter does not idolize Hollywood starlets, female athletes, etc., but rather, feminine, yet successful women like the Bible characters Hannah and Elisabeth, and characters in history like Susannah Wesley and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Also point out feminine ladies whose path is crossed by the daughter and lead her to emulate them. It is very important that the young lady, even the girl, look up and idolize the right kind of people.

8. Teach her not to be too forward to boys. A young lady should not initiate a correspondence. If she cars for a boy she may respond to him with courtesy and feminine reserve so as to let him know she like him, but she should not be the aggressor, neither should her respond except within the bounds of propriety and right. It certainly is not proper for a young lady to call a young man on the telephone for a social talk, If there is obvious business, it may be done with reluctance, but it should never be done when the call is strictly for social purposes.

9. Do not show off her talent to others. As is mentioned elsewhere in this book it is far better for a parent to compliment character than talent. Many children have been ruined because their parents were too proud of them and their performances. This not only hurts the child but it disgusts other adults. In such cases the child receives far too much attention and then wants it for the rest of her life. Hence, she becomes maladjusted. Let her gain her own attention by her performance. Let her attract her own audience by her own ability and opportunities, not by the insistence of a mother or father who is overly proud of a daughter.

10. Let her do things that enable her to be a necessary help to another who is in the limelight. This is very important for a young lady. That is why learning to accompany a soloist is good training for a girl. Learning to take dictation is also good training. Both of these things train her to be a necessary helper to someone who is in the limelight. The Bible teaches that a woman is made not for the limelight but to complement and supplement. Proverbs 32:23 says, "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land."

The girl should be taught that her lot in life is to be obedient and helpful to her husband. Hence, if as a girl she can perform supplemental duties that are vital, she will be better equipped to be a well-adjusted lady. It is more important that a young lady be an accompanist on a piano than a concert pianist. Parents who train their daughter in this manner will someday be called, "blessed," by their son-in-law.

11. Teach her to pull for her dad. The wise mother will teach the girl to make a hero of her father and always pull for him. She should pull for him in business and do all she can to help. She should pull for him in any athletic contest and do all she can to cheer him to victory. In everything he does she should stand on the sidelines and root for her dad. She is being taught to root for the biggest man in her life and to cheer and spur him on to bigger heights. When she is married she will transfer this to her husband and will be a great encouragement to him.

The mother must teach the daughter that when the father is a success the daughter is also a success. She is a very vital part in his success, and as a member of the team she can share the victory and the spoils. When this attitude is properly developed she will feel the same way when she is married. When the husband wins a victory it will be a team victory rather than a victory just for him.

12. Teach her to plan for a profession but to hope that it will not be needed. Mothers and fathers should teach their daughters to train for some kind of profession that is always in demand. There is always the possibility that the daughter will never marry or that she will become a widow with children to rear and will not remarry. Because of this she should plan to pursue some profession that will enable her to support herself and her children in any eventuality. She should be taught that if possible, she should not follow this profession when married. This gives her a dependence, if the opportunity arises to be dependent, but an independence if needed. There are many professions that a young lady could pursue such as that of a school teacher, beautician, secretary, nurse, etc.

13. Teach her the sanctity of the body. Teach her that boys should keep their hands off and that her body should be clean in every way. She should care for her body. She should be well groomed and physically clean. Then she should also be moral and virtuous. Talk with her about situations which arise in the lives of most young ladies. Teach her how to handle each situation. Explain to her that that is the reason she should not be in a car alone with a boy. Teach her what to do if improper advances are made. Let her be conscious of the fact that her body is a very sacred thing and should always be treated as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

14. Teach her to do feminine chores. As is mentioned elsewhere it is better for a girl to do the dishes than the yard, to wash the pots and pans than the car, to clean the bedroom rather than the garage. She should do the duties that she will do when she is married and a successful mother and wife.

Much stress should be placed on the importance of her working hard. It is not feminine to be lazy. In fact, it is quite feminine to work hard. It is not working hard that makes one unfeminine; it is the doing of masculine tasks. Wise is that mother who teaches her daughter that good hard work is feminine and that the work a woman should do should be that of feminine chores.

15. Let her be around feminine women. Teach her to associate with ladies who are feminine. Point them out to her when she is a little girl and tell her they are the ones she should copy and emulate. Let these ladies be those who dress like ladies, talk like ladies, walk with feminine grace, sit with feminine charm. Let these be ladies who are good mothers and who have poise, dedication, chastity, consecration, and spirituality.

16. Let her baby-sit. It should be remembered that someday she will no doubt be a mother. She can prepare herself for this and train for it by caring for little ones while she is a teenager. When a girl gets around thirteen, she should becomes acquainted with taking care of little babies and small children. Her motherly instinct will be developed and nourished. This is very important in preparing her to be a successful and happy mother.

17. Let her care for younger girls in the family. Let her dress them, do their hair, wash their faces, etc. Even a girl seven or eight can care for a little sister. She should be encouraged to do so. This will teach her to fulfill responsibilities, to carry the load in the family circle, to work hard, and to prepare herself for motherhood.

18. Allow her to do no loud shouting or hollering. In fact, such should not be a part of anyone's household. The business of rearing children can be transacted without shouting or fussing. Especially should this be true in a girl, for the parent is to try in every way to make her quiet, meek, and feminine.

19. With the passing of the years, let her shop more for herself, and if she has younger sisters, let her aid them in doing their shopping. This will teach her to care for her own person and also for the needs of others.

The most noble goal that parents can set for their daughters is to help them become Christians. The second most noble goal is to lead them to be ladies, for one of the great needs of our generation is Christian ladies. May God use this chapter to make it so.

Andrew Extein #fundie huffingtonpost.com

Why Queers Should Care About Sex Offenders
By Andrew Extein, MSW


“So, how are the pedophiles doing?”

As a group psychotherapist for convicted sex offenders on parole and probation who also operates a private practice for queer people, I am bombarded with comments and questions from friends and family:

“Aren’t you scared?”

“I could never do that.”

“What’s it like to talk to all those child molesters?”

At first I was surprised to hear some of my most educated, liberal friends ask questions that were, to me, biased and misinformed. I had assumed that, as queers and allies, my friends would have a greater sensitivity to the persecution sex offenders face in American society. I have since come to realize that queer folk are not more prone to find empathy for this population.

I often find myself feeling defensive, and almost guilty, in the line of such questioning. “So... why are you interested in them?” they ask, a look of distaste on their faces.

Here’s the thing: I don’t consider “them” my bizarre, special interest. All queer people are invested in the plight of sex offenders, whether they like it or not.

Deviance and the Dangers of Othering

Although I studied many subjects in college, my interest especially aligned with the radical thinking of my queer theories coursework. Queer theory obliterates the idea of good and bad sex and what should and should not be deemed deviant. As such, my courses covered gay history, the timeline of the gay rights movements, queer theory, and the burgeoning transgender studies, as well as genderqueers, kink, sexual fluidity, and asexuality.

But there was a strange silence in these class discussions as well. As my education continued, I began thinking about other people who transgressed cultural norms of sexuality, other people whose sexual desires had been labeled deviant — people who even queer theory courses weren’t talking about. There might be no group more maligned, marginalized, and disconcerting as modern-day America’s “sex offenders.”

In treatment, lawmaking, and cultural discourse, sex offenders are referred to as participating in deviant sexual behavior, having deviant sexual fantasies, and being inherently “deviant” themselves. From one angle, this is true; all sex offenders have deviated from the boundaries of one or more laws regarding sex or the body.

But sociologist Joel Best describes the problematic nature of how the term “deviance” is used in our culture. In his book Deviance, he emphasizes that “a deviant label was simply a sign that some groups with power had singled out some acts or conditions for disapproval.” The term means that, according to the rules of a powerful few, something is inherently wrong with you if you are not like everybody else. In other words, deviance becomes a viral social construct that serves as a moral imperative to dictate and intimidate people into behaving.

Queer theory has well documented how those in power have employed the terminology of deviance to oppress queers. In recent history, society has labeled gays, lesbians, and transgender folk as abnormal, problematic, and threatening. Gay men, for instance, threatened to lure, groom, and convert children into the homosexual lifestyle; they were not to be trusted or validated. At one point, they were considered mentally ill and criminal. Sex between consenting adult males was illegal and morally reprehensible and served to mandate a gay man to a mental hospital or jail cell. Gay men and trans people socially congregating in bars, such as at Stonewall, was a valid reason for police to raid, frisk, and arrest mass numbers of them.

This is an important part of history that needs to be retold, to serve as a reminder of what happens when authorities dictate the lives and behaviors of “deviant” populations. In fact, this history is still among us; trans, gay, and queer people are currently arrested and incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to the general population. In this infographic, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project outlines how trans and gender-nonconforming people are at a high risk of incarceration, police harassment, and violence. Despite the existence of these contemporary systems of inequality, I worry that in the era of gay marriage, pinkwashing, and assimilatory LGBT politics, we queers may be forgetting the dangers of othering.

Because there’s no use mincing words here: The same methods historically used by the government to imprison and pathologize homosexuality and gender variation are being used today to justify the extreme marginalization, lifetime institutionalization, and oppression of people who have violated sex laws. Sex offenders are the new queers.

Who Sex Offenders Are and What We Are Doing to Them

There is a widespread assumption that all sex offenders are child molesters, pedophiles, and violent rapists. This is not true. A large spectrum of acts are considered sex offenses. These include public nudity, urinating in public, public masturbation, peeping, photographing or videotaping without consent, consensual sex with a 17-year-old, sexting, and downloading unlawful pornography; many of these acts will put the offender on the public registry. There is no single “type” of sex offender; they can be from any walk of life, and any race, class, gender, or sexuality. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, teachers, and friends.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating for the legitimization of these acts as appropriate. A forceful, coercive, violent sexual assault is not to be tolerated. But I am saying that the public perception of the sex offender, and of the laws violated to become a sex offender, is inaccurate.

It is also important to explain the ramifications of this label. In California, many sex offenders must be publicly profiled for life on the online registry created as a result of Megan’s Law in 2004. In 2006, Jessica’s Law increased the penalties for sex offenders, created a residency restriction of 2,000 feet from parks and schools, and mandated GPS tracking for felony offenders. Chelsea’s Law further tightened the restrictions and increased monitoring.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a law that allows for the indefinite civil commitment of those sex offenders deemed unfit to reenter society. This means that they are placed in a forensic mental hospital for the rest of their lives, or until it is decided that they have been appropriately rehabilitated. Very few of these people have been released from civil commitment.

As a treatment provider for sex offenders, I have seen the effects of these punishments firsthand. One of the main issues faced is homelessness. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, the number of homeless registrants rose from 88 to 6,012 in the five years after Jessica’s Law was enacted. It is almost impossible to find steady work as a felon, and especially difficult if you are listed on the public registry, photo and all. The sex offenders that I see have been socially ostracized, often by family and friends, and suffer from mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. GPS units, parole visits, and yearly registration serve as constant reminders of their crimes, their victims, and their newfound labels as deviants with no hope of recovery.

However, it is a misconception that the majority of sex offenders reoffend, as the actual number is around 2 to 5 percent for recidivism from a sex crime. A 2008 study by the California Sex Offender Management Board reports 3.38 percent of sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998 were convicted of a new sex offense in the decade after release. A far larger number reenter the prison system as a result of parole violations, an understandable sum considering the severity and rigidity of parole terms.

The sex offender treatment models currently in use are mostly based in cognitive behavioral therapy, helping offenders reevaluate their thoughts and beliefs and make healthier decisions to reduce risk of reoffense. Despite this good-natured approach, these treatment models still speak of sexual deviance. One manual recommends ammonia aversion therapy, in which the offender repeatedly inhales ammonia while reciting his most “deviant” sexual fantasies. The intended goal — to rid the offender of whatever sexual desire is deemed unhealthy or deviant by the treatment provider — echoes gay conversion therapy methods. If queer theory allows for one’s right to a diversity of sexual desire, shouldn’t we question the “reprogramming” of an offender’s sexual feelings?

The main problem with the ammonia aversion therapy is that it presupposes that the sexual feelings motivate and explain the crime. It assumes that if you rid the sexual desire, then you rid the possibility of criminal sexual activity; sexual feelings are understood as uncontrollable dictators of sexual activity. If a man has sexual feelings for children, it is assumed that he is at a high risk of nonconsensual contact with a child. As such, sex offender treatment emphasizes sexual desire as a motivator for a sex crime over other factors, such as low impulse control, a history of trauma, lack of social support, and emotional instability. “Deviant” sexual desire is thereby equated with criminal sexual activity. This is a dangerous stance, as it heightens paranoia and fear in our culture’s understanding of all abnormal sexual feeling, thought, fantasy, belief, or identity.

Why Queers Should Care

Any queer person should feel a pang of familiarity reading about the vilification of people based on sexual desire. At one point, the idea of the predatory, untamable homosexual was a widely held belief; the very fact that a man would think of desiring another man was reason enough to criminalize his existence. Whether growing up in the early 20th century or the early 21st century, a cultural condemnation of queer desire, affect, and identity is consistently reaffirmed.

While mainstream cultural perception of queer people is shifting, it affirms monogamous sex between married, consenting gay and lesbian adults. Gender variation and other forms of sexual desire and behavior, including heterosexual female desire outside of monogamy, still face condemnation. If queerness is teetering on the edge of what culture says is deviant, othered, or wrong, an alliance across marginalized communities is vital for acquisition and maintenance of civil liberties for all.

I need to emphasize that many sex offenders are queer themselves. Many gay men, lesbians, and trans women are labeled sex offenders as a result of survival sex, prostitution, cruising, and public sex. Many queer people don’t realize the legal risks associated with a number of cultural behaviors that have become somewhat normalized, such as public cruising.

A recent example of criminalizing queer relationships is the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Kaitlyn is a now-18-year-old girl who is being charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child resulting from an allegedly consensual relationship with her 15-year-old girlfriend. The Internet has seen a groundswell of support for Kaitlyn, finding her persecution homophobic, unfair, and misguided. This reaction is certainly warranted and points to a larger issue with age-of-consent legislation. This type of legal action takes place all the time, in all types of communities, resulting in new sex offenders to label, monitor, and vilify. The case of Kaitlyn Hunt should open our eyes to the ways in which sex laws are abused in our country — not just for queers but for everyone.

The people we have labeled sex offenders are a multifarious group, with a wide spectrum of sexual desires. Empathy is needed for the group as a whole to ensure that they do not continue to be the cultural pariahs that we queers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender folk once were, and arguably still are. If we allow for the continuation of inhumane imprisonment based on what dominant culture and the government deem “bad sex,” we put ourselves at risk of further condemnation.

Clearly this is a tricky, complex, and imperfect dialogue to be holding. But I fear that if we queers do not engage in conversations about moral gray areas and uncomfortable topics, we put ourselves at risk and lose the fervor, innovation, and critical thinking that once defined queerness.

Accelerated Christian Education #fundie independent.co.uk

Teachers at Christian fundamentalist schools in Britain allegedly performed exorcisms on pupils, beat children in religious rituals and “groomed” girls for marriage, according to former students who say they have decided to speak out now after years of suffering in silence.

The former pupils told The Independent such treatment of children was a “terrifying” part of life at schools in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s in an environment where they felt too afraid to complain for fear of retribution from school staff, evangelical parents and their close-knit Baptist faith community.

One former pupil alleged that in the 1990s pupils at school assemblies would start convulsing amid “blood curdling screams” as prayers were said for the holy spirit to rid children of demons. The alleged abuse is said to have taken place many years ago at a number of schools in the UK that follow the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum, a form of learning that originated in the southern Baptist states of the US.

The former pupils contacted The Independent after reading our June report revealing that some of these schools still teach children that girls must submit to men, homosexuality is unnatural and that creationism is a fact. They said the article jolted their memories of their own experiences.

More than 1,000 4-18 year olds are currently taught in 30 ACE schools in the UK, all of them registered as private institutions. Although the schools are bound by the same safeguarding and child protection regulations as the state sector, former pupils want assurances that monitoring of these schools is more effective than when they attended.

One told The Independent that during his time at an ACE school in the 1990s: “We were told that we were the children of God and the world was out to get us. So we were isolated and couldn’t speak out. There was nobody checking on us. I just took it.”

Pupils who have traditionally attended the schools tend to come from Christian families who follow a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Former pupils said many of the children will have limited interaction with mainstream society.

One former pupil, who attended a school in the 1990s and who has asked not to be named, said: “Exorcisms used to happen at school assemblies sometimes. There would be 20 or so children and perhaps five adults. We were told that the holy spirit would come through children. I started convulsing and I couldn’t stop. Even when I went to bed I kept convulsing. I was terrified, I really thought it was the holy spirit.

“We would all begin convulsing. I remember them screaming blood curdling screams and then we’d all pray rigorously to get the demons out. Teachers would physically push us. They’d lay their hands on us when we prayed and they’d push us down. If you didn’t fall it was said that you weren’t really ‘feeling the Lord’. It was a very dark thing. It really was insanity. It got completely out of control.”

Two other former pupils from the 1990s and 2000s alleged they witnessed exorcisms performed on some occasions at other schools, where children were encouraged to “speak in tongues”.

Allegations from ex-pupils include other potential concerns. At some schools, girls were groomed for marriage from a young age, two former students said. They claimed the grooming was done by the church communities that run the schools and by teachers. Methods were said to include controlling girls’ sexuality and isolating them from boys their own age so they might later be married to much older male members of the church groups.

In some schools they were allegedly encouraged to marry soon after they turned 16, as church leaders told them it was “God’s will”.

One woman, who attended a school between the late 1990s and early 2000s, said: “There was one girl I knew who married someone more than 20 years older. The man she married had known her since she was seven years old and he was 30. She’d sit on his knee when she was a child. He’d played with her when she was a child. Now they’re married. It’s just really creepy.

“As a young girl, you were told you were not allowed to talk to boys your own age, you had to stand six inches apart from boys at all times at schools, teachers told you they’d hit you with a wooden paddle if you kiss a boy. So you didn’t get to meet anyone else and then you’re shown sexual interest for the first time and it’s some creepy old man. It was so sexualised, they were sexualising children.”

Another former pupil who attended an ACE school in the 1990s said a girl at her school had married a man at 16, when he was in his 40s, and who she had met when he began teaching at her school.

She said: “You were told from a young age that your role is to support a man and God will lead you to him. The role of women in these religious groups is quite clear. You’re told God has chosen a husband for you and God will lead this man to you. But in reality, pastors and church leaders guide men to you. It’s grooming.”

She added: “When I was 18, I experienced it. From the age of 14, the church had been pushing me towards a man in the church group who was eight years older. I was actively encouraged to work with him. They were very pushy about marriage, it was very intimidating. It’s very closed and isolating.

“As a girl, you’re left feeling redundant if you don’t get married. You’re told it’s God’s will and you’re just wasting time until you get married – it’s your ultimate goal.”

She said that none of the girls married before the legal age of consent, adding: “They are very keen to ensure nothing illegal happened, but the conditioning was around a long time before that.”

Although all the claims made by former pupils for this article relate to historic incidents, textbooks still used by the schools – and seen by The Independent – raise current concerns.

The books suggest pupils are still taught that “the wife is to obey, respect and submit to the leadership of her husband, serving as a helper to him” and “God desires for [women] to submit to husband.”

Other pupils told The Independent there were also historic concerns about corporal punishment, which they say took on a religious characteristic at the ACE schools.

They claimed children were beaten with a wooden paddle and then forced into a ritualised religious quasi-ceremony in which prayers were said for their salvation in the 1980s and 1990s. They said that the church groups believed at the time that corporal punishment was “God’s will” as it stopped children from sinning.

Corporal punishment was outlawed in UK private schools in 1998 and there is no suggestion the ACE schools breached that law.

David Waldock who attended an ACE school between the ages of 11 and 16 prior to 1998 said: “I was beaten with a cane by teachers while a pupil at an ACE school. The school was in the basement of the church. The cane was kept in the vestry. You would be led up to the vestry to a fold down desk, inside was a cardboard case and in that was the cane.

“The teachers explained to you your ‘offence’. You were told to take your trousers down. Then you were bent over a chair with your trousers down and wearing just your underwear. Then you were caned. And then you prayed for forgiveness.

“It was very ritualised. It was a ritual of confession, administration and prayer for forgiveness.”

One former pupil who attended an ACE school in the 1990s said a four-year-old boy at her school had special needs which caused him to urinate and defecate uncontrollably in class. She claims the child would be routinely taken to be beaten by the headmaster with a wooden paddle to punish this “bad behaviour”.

She says knowing corporal punishment was happening to other children was extremely distressing: “I remember feeling sick. I was so frightened I dug my nails into my hands.”

A 1993 copy of the ACE teachers’ training manual, seen by The Independent, appears to instruct teachers in how to administer corporal punishment when children have “sinned” in ritualised religious ceremonies. It says: “Demerits are for procedural violations; the paddle is for moral violations.”

The manual then lists a step by step process for hitting children.

“Using Bible verses, explain to the child the principles he has violated. Make sure he clearly understands what he has done wrong … position the child so he is leaning forward with his hands on a desk or chair and with his feet spread. Keep the paddle, switch, or belt low to avoid hitting the spine.

“Pray with the child following corporal correction. Review the offense and show him Hebrews 13.17. Request that he ask the Lord to forgive him for _____ (name the violation) and help him obey God’s Word and those people God has placed in his life to train him.”

An updated edition of the teacher training manual compiled after 1998 stops advocating corporal punishment by teachers at ACE schools. Christian Education Europe, an organisational body that runs and promotes ACE schools, say stocks of teaching manuals are regularly checked to ensure they are up to date.

A former pupil who attended an ACE school in the 1990s said: “The kind of people who send their children to schools like these believe in it absolutely. The pastor had absolute power and they could do anything.”

Atavisionary #sexist atavisionary.com

Women have a much stronger preference for security and safety than men, and vote that way. They like social safety nets and related things because of an instinctual fear that they may end up as single mothers and in poverty. There is also a component of “cat-lady syndrome” to this where women more often suffer from excessive altruistic desire without having access to enough wisdom to do so in a sustainable or pragmatic manner. They also tend to pay a lot less in taxes, so they don’t have to worry about that particular harm as much. The result is that this creates an unaffordable social entitlement structure and it creates very bad incentives for family dissolution. Every western country currently has massive amounts of debt thanks to excessively generous social welfare benefits. The only partial exceptions to this occurs when there is a substantial cache of natural resources which can be used to supplement insufficient taxes. The entitlement bubbles get more extreme and more ready to pop every year.

Women’s suffrage was certainly a massive mistake. I wouldn’t say, however, that women’s suffrage is the root of the problem. Suffrage of any form is the root of the problem. Women’s suffrage merely served as an accelerative catalyst. Men can and will also vote themselves free stuff if given the opportunity, but a greater proportion of that population has more to lose from increased taxation so the overall rate of entitlement related government degeneration is significantly slower. Yet Cthulhu still swims left. Let’s not also forget that it was men who voted and decided to grant women’s suffrage in the first place. And universal male suffrage was a result of granting only propertied men suffrage. Once the franchise is given on a partial basis it is basically inevitable that it will be gradually and continually expanded to include less and less suited populations until the strain is so high and unsupportable there is a collapse and/or balkanization. Typically this is goaded forth by cynical politicians who (usually rightly) believe they will be more secure in their power thanks to the newly introduced voting population being much more in favor of them. Even today, a major motivation for unlimited immigration is the cynical understanding by current democrats that their political positions are more secure when they elect a new electorate. This is actually a recipe for disaster, however, because at some point legacy Americans are going to, and currently are coming to the realization that they have no interest in being told what and how to do things by alien ethnic groups. Hence the waning support for universal suffrage democracy. Open civil war is not at all unlikely if the current trends continue. The desire for self determination has been both strong and consistent throughout history.

In my book, smart and sexy, I have literally hundreds of citations from scientific papers going over the biologically based differences in intelligence and psychology between men and women. In short, intelligence is substantially an X chromosome linked trait and many intelligence boosting (and lowering) genes are recessive. The result, which is easily viewable in IQ test data, is that males are substantially more variable than females. On one end, this means you have many more mentally handicapped males. On the other, you have many more very intelligent males. Since intelligence is necessary for competence in essentially every occupation that exists, including in government, you are going to have far more males competent and suited to the highest level positions than females.

You could say that probabilistically speaking, there are going to be some number of suitable women and on that basis argue that even if we can accept that there will always be a smaller absolute number of women, we should still leave the doors open for the exceptions that come about. There are a couple of problems with this. First, a population requires a certain minimum birth rate to stay stable. It has been estimated that this rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman. Encouraging women to prioritize anything above motherhood is thus detrimental to the society as a whole and should not be generally tolerated. Allowing exceptions means allowing the existence of poor role-models for the average girl. Careerism in women also seems to be harmful to the women themselves. Despite all the “advances” made by feminism in the last 100 years or so, women are more unhappy than they have ever been and a huge number are now on anti-depressants and other psychiatric medications. A large number of women are completely ignorant of the biological foundations of their fertility and its rapid decline after the age of 30. Many women who wanted to be mothers thus now find themselves unable to have children because they wasted their time pursuing unfulfilling careers instead of arranging for their families during the optimum window. It is quite sad actually to see some of these lonely, old, cat-lady spinsters. A realistic understanding and teaching could have prevented the vast majority of these cases. Instead we have a growing class of middle aged or older women who have an iredeemable life regret and thus are rendered completely miserable.

http://atavisionary.com/it-just-didnt-happen/

http://atavisionary.com/career-women-are-dysgenic/

Then lastly for this interview, workforce and employment statistics strongly indicate that even very intellectually talented women have a strong tendency to leave the workforce early or only work part-time. In general, women don’t actually want to work the same long hours that men do and this can be very detrimental for important jobs that society needs to be filled. For example, part (obviously not the only part) of the problem with our medical system being so expensive is a relative shortage of doctors. Well, this doctor shortage is largely a result of pushing women into medicine combined with their much greater rate of leaving the workforce.

ww2truth #conspiracy #racist ww2truth.com

ILYA EHRENBERG – THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE ‘SIX MILLION’

But Ehrenburg was perhaps most notorious for his viciously anti-German hate propaganda in World War II. In it, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill all Germans they encountered without pity.

In one leaflet entitled “Kill,” Ehrenburg incited the simple Russian soldier to treat the Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime … If you have already killed a German, then kill another one — there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! … — Kill the Germans! Kill!”

mass-rape-in-germany-by-soviets
And in another leaflet: “The Germans must be killed. One must kill them … Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast? … Kill a German! If you are a righteous an conscientious man — kill a German! … Kill!”

This is typical of the steady diet of pathological hate fed to millions of Soviet troops by this Jew, safely ensconced far from the front.

Ehrenburg in the 1960’s, living out his life NOT as a war criminal, but as a hero is Israel.
But it wasn’t only the ordinary German soldier Ehrenburg was talking about, whom he accused of the very atrocities the Communists were themselves committing. Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings were, in fact, a prime motivating factor in the orgy of murder and rape against the civilian population that took place as Soviet troops rampaged into the heart of Europe. Appealing to the lowest, most subhuman instincts of this Bolshevik horde, he reiterated his genocidal message:


“Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.”

The crowning achievement of Ehrenburg’s career came on December 17, 1944, when this hate-crazed fiend became the first person to mention the kabbalistic figure of Six Million alleged Jewish victims of National Socialism, and then proceeded to introduce that figure into Soviet propaganda.

After the war he joined with co-racial and fellow propagandist Vasily (Iosif Solomonovich) Grossman to produce a fictitious “Black Book” and lay the foundation for what has come to be known as “The Holocaust.” The rest is history.

Ehrenburg never forgot his Jewish roots, and before his death he arranged for the transfer of his private archives to the tribal cult center at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

And so, it is altogether fitting that the birthday of this psychopathic lie-master should have been chosen as a day on which to remember the hoax which he concocted and of which he was the original inventor.

What was the result of this hateful propaganda?

Between the months of April and May, the German capital Berlin saw more than 100,000 rape cases according to hospital reports, while East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia saw more than 1.4 million rape cases.

Between the months of January and August of 1945, Germany saw the largest incident of mass rape known in history, where an estimated two million German women were raped by the Soviet Red Army soldiers, as written by Walter Zapotoczny Jr. in his book, ‘Beyond Duty: The Reason Some Soldiers Commit Atrocities’.

Hospital reports also stated that abortion operations were being carried out daily across all German hospitals.

Natalya Gesse, who was a Soviet war correspondent at the time, said that the Soviets didn’t care about the ages of their victims. “The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty. It was an army of rapists,” she said.

This caused the deaths of no less than 200,000 girls and women due to the spread of diseases, especially that many eyewitnesses recounted victims being raped as much as 70 times in that period.

Red Army soldiers would mass rape German women as a kind of revenge against their enemy: The German army. They felt that it was their earned right to do so as the German army had ‘violated’ their motherland by invading it. In addition to not being in contact with women for long periods causing their animal instinct to be heightened.

In his book, Zapotoczny said that even female Russian soldiers did not disapprove of the rapes, some finding it amusing.

“Our fellows were so sex-starved,” a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, “that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty – much to these grandmothers’ surprise, if not downright delight.”

In 1948, rape cases decreased vastly after Soviet troops were ordered back to their camps in Russia and left residential areas in Germany.

sources:

https://rense.com/general75/ehr.htm

https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/history/1939-how-german-women-suffered-largest-mass-rape-in-history-by-soviets

Here is the original article by Ilya Ehrenburg called “To Remember” from Pravda, December 17, 1944:

Die Pommersche Zeitung writes “Our struggle was honest from the very beginning; we did not cross our borders in blind madness intending to subjugate other nations. On the contrary, needing to leave our borders behind us, we went as the messengers for a new order and a new justice. Not one German ever dreamed of annihilating Englishmen or punishing Frenchmen or enslaving the Dutch or any other peoples, in order to live by the blood and sweat of other nations. On the contrary, our victories emitted tranquility.”

Poor dears, apparently they were forced to go to the Caucasus and to Egypt in order to emit tranquility and now when they were allowed to return to Cologne and to Eastern Prussia, they meekly say “whoever we hurt, we don’t hold it against them.”

What were their intentions when they crossed their borders? This question can be answered by the maps they published between 1939 and 1942. This is an atlas of “blind madness:” “Greater Germany” included Lille and Kiev, Riga and Nancy.

They did not want to enslave other nations and live by others’ blood and sweat? Not long ago didn’t Grupenfuhrer Gasse declare to the newspaper Hamburger Fren den blatt: “The former Russia will be colonized by Stormtroopers and their childen”? And the Danzigger Fortpost was estimating “Every German colonizer will be served by eight to ten families.” Yes, at that time they were not overly modest. And the German firm Bremen was promising stockholders cotton from Turkmenistan. At that time they declared that “a nation of merchants, Englishmen, do not deserve a place on Earth.” (Felkisher Beobachter) At that time they were threatening: “Shooting hostages will show the French that nothing will stop us.” (Parizer Tzeitung) Shipping off the Dutch to the Ukraine, they declared “Only history books will remember Holland as a state.” (Antriff)

Where did they “emit tranquility”? In the “desert zone” or perhaps stoking the ovens of Majdanek or Treblinka?

Isn’t it too early for them to renounce themselves? They are still shooting and already starting to whimper. They are still tearing children’s bodies apart and already starting to wash their bloodied hands.

We have a saying “To remember is to live.” Indeed, a man who loses his memory loses half his life and starts to fade away. But to remember means not only to live, it also means to save a life, to save future generations, to preserve the idea of what it means to be human.

There occur historical events which confound wise men. Hitler’s Germany is not a sphinx. It is typhus-bearing lice. Now everyone understands what fascism is but not everyone wants to remember what they understood. To forget means to forgive. And to forgive the stokers of Majdanek means to bring up children for even more efficient future ovens. I am not a politician but in my work I deal with human feelings because every writer is a psychologist. Every writer is also a moralist even if he does not think about morality. As a writer I want to remind you about the sources of fascism.

For many years the Nazis brainwashed German youth. What were they conveying to the little fascists? A feeling of superiority. Now the world knows what racial or national arrogance means. If every nation decided that they are first in the world and therefore have the right to order others about, we will see new Majdaneks in the 20th century.

So where is the foundation of this German feeling of superiority? In the past, some will say. There is no doubt that in the past Germany had remarkable philosophers, musicians, poets, and scientists. No anti-fascist thinks about putting down Goethe or Beethoven, but you cannot live off the legacy of culture. Culture is a continuing process of creation. And in fascist Germany nothing is left from the glorious past. We laugh at the degenerate who tries to replace a lack of wisdom and knowledge with an impressive past. It is ridiculous and despicable for a nation to burn museums and libraries while at the same time pointing to Schiller and Kant.

Others would argue that Germans are proud of their present. What is there to be proud of? A money-grubbing Goering? A lascivious Goebbels? Ignorant and lewd ministers? A hardworking Himmler? Or are they perhaps boastful of their sophisticated technology, well-kept cities, and comfortable houses? But the fascists did not create any of this: Hitler only ravaged Germany. It is also good to recall that American technology is higher, that Dutch cities are cleaner, and Swedish housing is more comfortable. Besides, technology alone cannot be the pride of a people unless the strength of a nation is connected to its higher aspirations. And in fascist Germany civilization serves only the lowest aspirations. So the gas chambers for the mass murder of children became a natural expression of German technology.

No, the feeling of superiority that the fascists instill in their children is based neither on the past nor on the present. German superiority is steeped in prejudice, in the belief in the magic properties of German blood, a conviction that everything German is better than anything non-German. . . .

The origins of rivers of blood appear to be seemingly innocent swamps of human stupidity. Children sometimes make fun of things they are not familiar with; then mothers reproach them and the child, as he grows up, learns that the world does not end at the corner of his street. Each person and each nation loves what they grew up with. What Russian would be indifferent to a white birch tree? But we have never claimed and never will claim that a birch tree is more noble or more worthy than a cypress tree or a cedar tree. Your mother may be smarter than your neighbor, but you do not love her for that, you love her because she is your mother. Genuine patriotism is modest and has nothing to do with nationalism: patriotism—is brotherhood; nationalism—is carnage and death. . . .

In the countries they captured, the Germans killed all the Jews: the elderly and nursing babies. Ask a captured German why did your compatriots annihilate six million innocent people. And he will say: “They are Jews. They are black (or red) haired. They have different blood.” This began with vulgar jokes, with name-calling by hoodlums, with graffiti, and all this led to Majdanek, Babi Yar, Treblinka, to ditches filled with children’s corpses. If before Treblinka antisemitism could appear to be a common, ugly outburst, now it is a word soaked with blood; the Polish poet Julian Tuwim says “Antisemitism is the international language of fascists.”

The whole world now sees the consequences of racial and national arrogance. The ovens of Majdanek, where the Germans consumed people of thirty nationalities because they were—Russians, French, Poles, or Jews—these frightening ovens did not emerge right away. They grew out of an upbringing based on the hatred of whole nations. People all over the world need to remember that nationalism is the road to Majdanek. If a nation builds its freedom on the oppression of another, if a state restricts the rights of citizens of a different color, if a society persecutes a man because the shape of his nose or the way he speaks differs from that of his neighbors, so that nation, that state, that society is in danger. . . .

We must remember: fascism was born out of the greed and stupidity of some, and the perfidy and cowardice of others. If mankind wants to put an end to the bloody nightmare of these years, it must put an end to fascism. Half measures will not do here. If fascism is left somewhere to breed, then in ten or twenty years we will again see rivers of blood. A nail drives out a nail, but you cannot drive out fascism with fascism. You cannot liberate nations of one brand of fascism and deliver them into the hands of fascists of a different brand. Fascism—a terrifying cancerous tumor. It cannot be treated at mineral spas. It needs to be removed. I do not believe in good-hearted people who cry over executioners: these alleged do-gooders are preparing the death of innocent millions. The nations of Europe fought courageously against the invaders; and nations are not Moors who could leave after finishing their work. The French have a good saying: in his house, the collier is a master. Not only the French understand this saying. The Red Army has demonstrated what it means to liberate: the Poles, Norwegians, Serbs and Slovaks understand this. We do not install half-fascists in place of fascists: we liberate without quotation marks. We know that democracy is the daughter of a nation and not a glamorous lady whom you could only adore from a distance. . . .

Nations who experienced the fascist tyranny will understand us without any lengthy explanation: this is a time of nations and not diplomats. The courageous people of France will understand us. Our allies will understand us. There was a time when the British believed in the magical properties of the English Channel. Now they understand that the Channel is not a barrier against fascism. For a long time, the British prohibited the entry of dogs into the country: this is how they try to protect their country from rabies. But rabid, two-legged creatures in contrast to four-legged ones possess different “Fau.” And only complete destruction of fascism—from Warsaw to La Linea—can protect England from a new disaster.

When Die Pommersche Zeitung dares to claim that the Germans crossed their borders as the most peaceful missionaries, it means that the fascists now have only one hope: the loss of memory. After a severe injury, doctors sometimes diagnose a condition called amnesia. The injuries to the world are immense but nations do not suffer from amnesia. They will remember everything in the days of judgment. Even after the victory, they will not forget these terrible years. We must remember: this is our obligation to the dead heroes and to the children.

These cruel visions must remain before our eyes: this is the price for saving our world. I know that it is easier to forget but we will not forget. We solemnly swear: remember, remember, remember!

Source: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-human-behavior/to-remember-ilya-ehrenburg

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The Wright Brothers were 2 "bicycle shop mechanics" turned aeronautical engineers. They are credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. The brothers were called the "Bishop's Boys" because their father was a "Bishop" in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. He never read the verse in Genesis that says that "spies are despicable" (Genesis 42:31).

The "Bishop's Boys" were 2 British Secret Service agents licensed to ground U.S. and French airplanes.

They were as phony as "Discoverer" Christopher Columbus and "inventor" Thomas Edison.

Unless you are a born genius like Nikola Tesla, invention takes years and years of trial and error.

The Wright brothers reported to 2 men in London: Baden Fletcher Smyth Baden-Powell and Patrick Young Alexander. Baden-Baden Powell was "Mr. British Empire" personified and he was the brother of the Boer War Colonel Robert Baden-Powel–founder of the Boy Scouts Movement. He was extremely interested in developing the airplane as an instrument of war for expanding the British Empire.

Baden-Baden Powell was a British officer in the Boer War and he realized the military implications of the airplane.

He was determined to keep French avation grounded at all costs.

In 1902, he dispatched his spy, Patrick Alexander, to Dayton, Ohio, to give the 2 "bicycle shop mechanics" their marching orders!!

Here is an excerpt from an address given by Major Baden-Baden Powell to the British Aeronautical Society on December 4, 1902:

In his address Major Baden-Powell, speaking as a professional soldier, also offered the company his opinion of what the future might hold when a "practical flying machine" was developed at last. He said: "One can scarcely imagine any invention which could have a greater effect on the conduct of warfare ..."
In the audience on that December evening was a curious and remarkable man. His name was Patrick Y. Alexander, a prominent member of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain. Patrick Alexander made it his business to investigate personally the latest developments in aeronautics wherever they took place, in any part of the world.
He was so interested by what Major Baden-Powell said about the Wright brothers that he left London, almost upon the instant, and travelled to Dayton, Ohio, in order to interview Wilbur and Orville Wright about their experiments. Such was Alexander's ardour and keenness in the matter that he actually called upon the Wrights in their home in Dayton during a family holiday on Christmas Eve, 1902, only three weeks and one day after Baden-Powell had spoken of their latest achievements in his Presidential Address to the Aeronautical Society in London.
As a result of this singular initiative Alexander was now able to tell his friends in the British Army what the Wright brothers had actually accomplished, and what they planned for the future. (Golin, No Longer An Island, pp. 26-27).

It is plain for anyone to see that both men were working for expansion of the the British Empire.

In December 1903, the Wright brothers brought their disassembled "airplane" and a catapult from their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, to Kitty Hawk in North Carolina.

From Dayton, Ohio, to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina is a distance of about 680 miles (1,090 km).

A "real plane" would have flown in Ohio, saving them the long arduous trip.

The "plane" was just a glider plagiarized from Chanute and Langley.

Before setting out, the brothers consulted the U.S. Weather Bureau about the area's steady winds and they found out that it was the perfect location for gliding....They also valued the privacy provided by the location, which in the early twentieth century was remote from major population centers.

Supposedly, the first manned flight took place in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on Dec. 17, 1903.

In reality, a catapult launched the "plane," it glided for a few feet for the photograph to be taken, and that was the world's first powered flight!!

No newspaper reporters were present for an independent verification of that epochal event. It never occurred to the 2 bicycle shop mechanics to put WHEELS on their aircraft in order for it to take off as a powered flyer . . . and not as a glider.

In 1904, the brothers hired a patent lawyer named Harry A. Toulmin and asked him to file a patent covering every aspect of manned flight . . . except wheels. All they had to show the lawyer was the phony photograph from Kitty Hawk.

Lawyers can be deadly and they never invented anything to improve the condition of the human race.

One such lawyer was Harry A. Toulmin, who filed the Wright brothers patent in 1904.

Toulmin patented the idea of manned flight to cover almost every aspect of manned flight.

Toulmin also filed the Wright brothers patent in England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, and Belgium:

The application Harry Toulmin filed with the United States Patent Office in March 1904 would set the course of American aviation for the next thirteen years. Rather than simply specify the elements of Wilbur's wing-warping system as a mechanical construction, Toulmin expanded the notion of wing warping to cover any system where the angle of any device at the wing tips varied the "lateral margins" in opposite directions from the angle of wings at the centers. Thus Toulmin altered the patent from seeking exclusivity for a device to seeking exclusivity for an idea, the principle of lateral control itself. If such a patent was granted and ratified by the courts, it would apply to configurations that the Wrights themselves had not employed or even conceived of and so virtually no aircraft could subsequently be flown without licensing by Orville and Wilbur, precisely the breath they were seeking. (Goldstone, Birdmen: The Wright Brothers, Glenn Curtis, and the Battle to Control the Spies, pp. 86-87).

The stage was set for a monumental international legal battle that would delay aviation development in the United States . . . and France.

[...]

By 1910, France desperately needed a bomber to reach Berlin!!

By 1910, the French Republic was threatened with invasion by "Kaiser Bill"–the grandson of Queen Victoria. What the French needed was a few bombers to reach Berlin and threaten the Kaiser with retaliation. The Wright brothers patent suit delayed the development of the aerospace industry until after the war started in 1914.

Brazil-born Alberto Santos-Dumont was a naturalized French citizen and a brilliant aviation pioneer.

He was the first person to circle the Eiffel Tower in a dirigible.

In 1906, he flew the Demoiselle over Paris

Louis Blériot was another brilliant French aviation pioneer with so many firsts in his repertoire.

Louis Blériot was another brilliant French aviation pioneer.

He invented the monoplane and he was the first man to cross the English Channel in an airplane.

Unfortunately, his company was also grounded by the Wrights' patent.

Incredibly, the Wrights' patent was also enforced in France:

The preliminary injunctions issued by Judges Hazel and Hand gave the Wright brothers an effective monopoly in the flying-machine business in America for the first six months of 1910. Even when the restraints were removed in June of that year, the Wright patent suits continued to threaten American pilots and aircraft builders. Having forced the Herring-Curtiss Company out of business and placed Glenn Curtiss and other competing aviators in legal jeopardy, the Wrights, through their foreign licensees, launched a direct attack on their European competitors.
Late in 1910, the Compagnie Générale de Navigation Aérienne brought suit against six rival aircraft manufacturers (Blériot, Farman, Esnault-Pelterie, Clément-Bayard, Antoinette, and Santos-Dumont) for infringement on the Wrights' French patents. The case was tried before the Third Civil Tribunal, composed of three judges and a substitute, a state's attorney boasting special technical qualifications. (Crouch, The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright, pp. 415-416).

At the very time that the French Republic was facing her greatest peril, aviation development was stalled in the French courts.

Queen Victoria's grandson would never have invaded France in 1914 if that country had an air force capable of bombing Berlin.

The cowardly Kaiser would have hesitated before starting the war if he knew that his palace in Berlin would be bombed.

According to experts on the pioneer days of aviation, the Wright brothers' lawsuits in the United States and France delayed the development of aviation by at least 5 years in the crucial years before World War I. It was only the defeat of the British-Prussian axis that allowed the aviation industry to soar once more in France and the United States.

Ryan Anderson #fundie townhall.com

Last week many of us were disgusted to learn Planned Parenthood is harvesting and selling body parts from aborted children. As the largest provider of abortion in America, Planned Parenthood is part of the problem, on the “supply” side. But as we all learned in Econ 101, there’s both supply and demand. What’s behind the demand for abortion? A major factor is the breakdown of the family. And the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage is only taking us further down that road, putting even more unborn children at risk. After all redefining marriage redefines parenthood.

The best protectors of unborn children are a strong marriage culture and people who take the virtue of chastity seriously. But the new consent-based view of marriage reduces marriage to a mere contract and it makes a culture of chastity harder to foster. And, as I explain in my new book, without a culture of chastity, we will never have a pro-life culture.

Indeed, both the pro-choice movement and the movement to redefine marriage reduce human community to contract and consent and limit our obligations to other human beings to those we have freely chosen. Consider their slogans: “My body, my choice.” “I consented to sex, not to having a baby!” “Love makes a marriage.” “Marriage should last as long as the love lasts.” They all reflect the belief that consenting adults should do whatever they want to do, a belief that puts adult desire before the needs of children. And weakening marriage will lead to a culture with more nonmarital sex, thus more nonmarital pregnancy, and sadly more abortion.

Redefining marriage will also increase the use of assisted reproductive technologies. The movement to redefine marriage insists that there are “no differences” between the marital union of husband and wife and the union of two people of the same sex, yet a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child naturally. To achieve full “marriage equality,” then, it will be necessary to turn to modern technology. Same-sex couples must use assisted reproductive technologies—with the assistance of sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate wombs, etc.—so they can “have children of their own.”

SchrodingersDick #crackpot #sexist #homophobia #transphobia incels.co

[Blackpill] My theory on lesbianism and feminism.

(It’s kind of all over the place. Not meant to be an essay; I copy pasted what I wrote offhand in a group chat with some homies.)

Possible lesbian formula:

1: Ugly: can’t get chad, sexually unsatisfied, never experienced submission to a larger-than-life dominant man

2: High standards: only wants gigachad because she is aware of his existence. No other man can match up, doesn’t want anything less than the best she’s aware of. It would be settling but she doesn’t see it as settling. finds herself not attracted at all, so thinks she’s not attracted to men period, except for the exceptional men.. Keenly receptive to mogging. Also prob damaged from being ugly in high school. Had a bad time immediately after being thrust into the sexual market/adult social hierarchy as a low value female.. did not recover.

3: Low self awareness: doesn’t realize that her disgust of 99% of men doesn’t mean she hates men with very very few exceptions/flukes, just means she’s a normal, healthy eugenicist

I dont have any personal experience with lesbians, but I seriously doubt that if you were to put one (any girl really) in a room with a gigachad, that she wouldn’t get wet, submit, and love every second of it. “You know even though I’m a lesbian, I weirdly liked it teehee I’m quirky I had these feelings I can’t explain and I felt so safe” .. shit like that. MAYBE some robust high T lesbians wouldn’t like that.. like the masculine one in a dyke relationship..

And girls turning dyke faster and with less resistance than guys “turning” gay or coming to the conclusion that they’re gay could just be female to female dynamics being unlike male to male dynamics. Foids are ok in close proximity with eachother, sharing a mate and shit.. men in proximity with eachother are sexual competition and will kill eachother for eggs.

The default life strategy for women is to trade their looks for the best deal they can get. Whether this be through prosecution, marriage, onlyfans, dating, even applying to jobs while wearing makeup, getting promotions by being hot/putting out, etc... so the Formula for a feminist is just be ugly and unable to leverage your eggs to make it through life comfortably. Be unable to exercise the default strategy for a women because you have very little value to trade and hence can not trade it for a good enough deal.. Be unsettled by this and imagine a world with an alternate source of value for women, one in which you could be considered high value (mandatory that this value metric be malleable. Personality, career, education, sense of humor, emotional strength, etc)... And then campaign and screech for society to recognize some other, malleable, source of value for women, in which, conveniently, you would have value and power in the eyes of society and most importantly your own eyes. “Women are more than their looks” - says the ugly girl.. “men are more than their height” - says the manlet. Same principle as trannies thinking their problems will go away, they will get to live in a new world with a new, more enlightened metric of value, and they will accept themselves but only after everyone else accepts, validates, and entertains their delusions. It is expecting the non malleable to adapt to the malleable. That is not how adaptation occurs. Adaptation takes the path of least resistance.

It’s really a defensive reaction to learning an uncomfortable truth about personal value, it being non malleable, and the unequal nature of people’s value. The world being generally cruel and unlike what Disney said it would be. So the world must change and there is nobility in being on the front lines. And like kaczynski said, it’s an outlet for hostility and satisfies the need for power.

The ugly feminist will stop being a feminist if she becomes hot. She won’t believe any of it anymore and won’t care about women’s progress or w/e the fuck unless doing so conspicuously confers social status to her. Feminists don’t want to be feminists, they just want to be hot. Feminism/striving for an alternate source of value is the next best option for curing their low self esteem.

The manlet will stop saying “height doesn’t matter” if he gets taller, unless for the same reason the now hot former feminist still preaches feminism. And like the feminist, the manlet doesn’t really want height acceptance, he just wants to be tall. Advocating manlet acceptance/bluepill ideology is the next best thing for his self esteem/life outcome/sexual success.

I don’t have an explanation for hot feminists. Strictly status seeking/herd mentality/tribe acceptance, or seeking high value in both metrics, both in looks, and in malleable metrics. or the handicap principle is applied. “Teehee I’m a feminist that just so happens to be hot, And I think girls shouldn’t be judged on their looks, even though I’m judged positively on my looks.. I dont put effort into my looks (because I don’t have to) and I’m still hotter than you.. im more than just my looks, I’m beauty AND brains”. Still, I’d imagine a girl with conservative friends would assimilate their beliefs and attitudes pretty quickly. Bitches are like water.

Every fake aspect of a removed-from-reality worldview is either a convenient lie or a supporting lie to back up some other convenient lie. Most people are professional copers.

Persiana #fundie canadaka.net

[ I thought you were somewhere in your 20s. It's fairly typical of the younger generations (and I include myself there, as most "feminists" are older than I am) to feel the job's been done, without realizing what all they did for us. And no, there's still more to be done. Wages might not matter to you, and it's great that you're in a position where your work is values, but that's not the case for everyone.

I just reread your last line... sexual harassment isn't about women inviting comments. I thought we were long past the time when we blamed the victim. ]


Lily in feeling as if the job is done, I'm not simply disregarding what has been accomplished. I'm not unaware of what all they did for us at all, I'm very aware of it. Yes there is probably stuff that can still be done, but I disagree that it needs to be dealt with in an extremist manner, by extremists. If on individual levels women are unhappy with their work, we have the voice & we have the power now to do something about it. Sitting & bitching isn't doing anything. Change jobs, or report the issue to the higher powers, and if necessary, report the issue to people outside of the company. Crying "woe is me" and doing nothing, doesn't fix the problem either.

Sexual harassment in SOME cases isn't about women inviting comments. In many cases, I agree 100%. I do however, think that there are also SOME women out there, who DO invite comments. You can't dress like a hooker, and expect to be treated like a lady.

[ Wow, you could be an Australian Cleric. Some girls who dress slutty are experimenting, some don't want to be talked to by like a lady, and some might wear the t-shirt "Just because I'm a slut doesn't mean I'll sleep with you" ouch.

If only the gay boys took to such reasoning. He was wearing a tank top, I could just tell he wanted it. Nope, not going to fly. Want to have sex? get consent. A bikini does not signify consent. ]


Your reasoning might work except your examples are lacking.

If girls who are wearing t-shirts and self-proclaiming themselves sluts, they have little respect for themselves and can hardly cry unfair when they get treated like a slut.

I never said bikini's signified consent. However, if you're 14 years old with breasts just popping out of your chest and you're running around in hooker boots and booty shorts where half your ass hangs out (No, not just short shorts, I mean booty shorts where half your ass really IS hanging out) and a bikini top or some other fragile excuse for clothing, and you get spoken to with disrespect, and you get treated with disrespect, then my point is that they can't really place the entire blame on the other party. The disrespect began with themselves.

[ Again sorry, this does not signify disrepect on the part of the girls or the apropriatness of a fifty year old man to offer his services ]

I suppose it depends on the individual, really. There's the girls who are simply too young & ignorant, and rather unfortunately have parents who simply don't care... they usually grow into young adults who also don't care, it has a rather snowball effect. There's also the 'rebels' ...the girls who do come from perfectly good homes, who rebel against their parents morals and do so by being as scantily clad as they can without getting arrested for public indecency. Women and girls who dress "nicely" are fine. Women and girls who dress "slutty" and "Skanky" are not so fine. I do not look at them & think "Wow, they look fine!" although you as a male perhaps are doing so without even realizing how shockingly low these girls self-esteem truly is. Healthy sexuality does not mean that they have to sleep with everybody who pays them a compliment, nor does "slut" equal healthy sexuality. A girl who wears a "slut" t-shirt and takes a 50 year old guy up on his offers, isn't healthy. I rather prefer the girls who can actually realize the inappropriateness of the fifty year old man offering his services that you mentioned, than the ones who don't. Both types of girls exist but when they dress the same way, how is the 50 year old guy supposed to be able to tell them apart? Get it yet? Its a learning curve. 50 year old guy has probably learned that he has better luck with skanks than classy women, so those are the ones he offers his services to.


Yes, some girls are just experimenting and some quickly learn that isn't the way they want to be seen. I see 12/13/14 year olds walking around here, wearing stiletto boots, miniskirts (and I mean *MINI*) and crop tops with their bellies hanging out & these miniskirts aren't even like the 80's miniskirts, these are mini on the leg & mini on the hips. I quite literally have underwear which covers more than these skirts do.

Am I saying "all the blame rests with the victims" no, not by a long shot. However, like I said before, common sense should prevail. If a woman makes herself an easy target for lewd remarks and sexual harassment, common sense should speak to reason, and she should realize that if she dressed less slutty, she'd get treated with more respect. We don't live in the age of ignorance. If a woman is working late & its dark outside & her car is parked on the far side of a dimly lit underground parking lot, is she to blame if she gets attacked? No, but YES there are preventative methods available in most of these instances, to keep stuff like this from happening. Ie, have a security guard escort you to your car.


Basically you reap what you sow.

If you disrespect yourself, and show it through your own method of dress, you cannot expect respect from others.

If you ignore common sense for dangerous situations, then yes you ARE partially at fault for the fact that it even happened and YES there WERE ways that you could've prevented it from happening, in many instances.

Women want "equal status" except they want to hang onto their "vulnerable" female helpless status at the same time? I don't think so. Physically we are no match for most men, that is fact. Mentally we could be equal if we'd stop placing ALL the blame elsewhere & started using our brains and common sense.


[ Well, I couldn't dissagree with you more. I have a great deal of respect for women with healthy sexualities and the strength to be themselves... that is respect. That doesn't mean that they want to be abused or that every lad is in their market. Raping a slut doesn't mean that you're man enough to deserve her. ]

I too have a great deal of respect for women who have healthy sexualities and the strength to be themselves. There IS a difference, however, between a woman with a healthy sexuality, and a woman who is insecure & needy for attention, and dresses herself in a manner that ensures she gets the attention whether its positive or negative. I don't know what kind of world you might live in, but where I live "slut" is not a complimentary term.

Atavistic Autist #sexist #racist #homophobia incels.co

[JFL] Incels are called "psychopaths" for analyzing society and advocating for a more ethical order, while actual psychopaths are loved by normies and foids

I just came across this thread on le Reddit, which argues that the amount of psychopaths/sociopaths/antisocial people in society is severely underestimated, which is a proposition I would agree with.

But the example the OP uses for unappreciated psychopaths is... us. JFL

Learning how social dynamics operate, especially as it concerns female nature (which our soyciety not only allows but encourages to be totally uninhibited and unrestrained), and detesting it as "brutal" and "cruel" is not psychopathy.

Psychopaths are the ones who prosper in modern society, and are enlivened by brutality and cruelty, not the ones who are victimized by it. The free-for-all environments of the feminist "sexual marketplace" and the capitalist economic marketplace are their playgrounds, where they are the bullies and we are the bullied. By virtue of being as exploitative and parasitic as possible in intent, yet extremely charming in affect, psychopaths automatically excel with foid-bloodsuckers and their equivalents in the social climbing game: rapacious, greedy scum in corporations and manipulative liars in politics.

Just take Pete Butt as an example. He is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is a literal psychopath. Since the age of 6 year old, he has been completely enamored by the need to climb the social ladder and become the most powerful man in the world. Virtually everything he's done in his life has had that end in mind: to build a resume which would qualify him for the presidency, and establish its superficial credentials, while internally he believes in nothing but his own ambitions for the ultimate reigns of authority. He would be the youngest president to ever take office. And normie and foid voters are actually letting him get as close as he is to his goal!

Pete Butt is also gay, something which he did not admit until it became politically expedient for him.

I'm a psychopath for complaining about being lonely, but a dude pummeling his gf every day and all the thugs getting laid are good people.

Yeah okay.

Men scoring higher in psychopathic traits tended to receive higher ratings from women
Brazil, KJ. Forth AE. 2019. Psychopathy and the Induction of Desire: Formulating and Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, pp 1-18. [Abstract]

Women are drawn more than men to nonfiction stories of rape, murder, and serial killers
Vicary AM, Fraley, RC. 2010. Captured by True Crime: Why Are Women Drawn to Tales of Rape, Murder, and Serial Killers? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1): 81-86. [Abstract] [FullText]

Childhood bullies experience greater sexual success than non-bullies
It was found that a greater likelihood of being the perpetrator of bullying behavior was correlated with a greater sexual partner count. However, due to the nature of the study it was impossible to tell if the mediating factor in this relationship was the bullying itself, or the HEXACO personality traits that are associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in this behavior, specifically the trait 'Honesty-Humility', that was found to being generally lower among bullies. This personality trait has also generally been found to be related to the 'dark triad' traits.

Volk AA, Dane AV, Zopito AM, Vaillancourt T. 2015. Adolescent Bullying, Dating, and Mating: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology. [FullText]
Provenzano DA, Dane AV, Farrell AH, Marini Z, Volk AA. 2017. Do Bullies Have More Sex? The Role of Personality. Evolutionary Psychological Science. [FullText]

Male gang members have dramatically more female sexual partners

Palmer CT, Tilley CF. 1995. Sexual Access to Females as a Motivation For Joining Gangs: An Evolutionary Approach. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(3):213-217. [Abstract] [FullText]
Mocan N, Tekin E. 2006. Ugly Criminals. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 12019. [FullText]

Male serial killers, terrorists, and rapists receive thousands of love letters from women in prison

Fimrite P, Taylor M. 2005. No shortage of women who dream of snaring a husband on Death Row / Experts ponder why deadliest criminals get so many proposals. SF Gate. [News]
Gurian EA. 2013. Explanations of mixed-sex partnered homicide: A review of sociological and psychological theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 18(5): 520-526. [Abstract]

Criminal and anti-social men have more sexual partners and have sex earlier
Ellis L, Walsh A. 2000. Criminology: A Global Perspective, 1st Edition. pp 227: Table 8.11. [References]

Cluster-B personality disorders lead to 3.5x as many sexual partners and more offspring
Guitiérrez et al. (2013) conducted a study in order to determine if the various personality disorder clusters—Type A (Schizoid, Odd), Type B (Narcissistic, Anti-social) and Type C (Avoidant, OCD)—were solely detrimental in terms of life outcomes for the individuals with these personality disorders (PDs), or if they instead presented their sufferers with various potentially adaptive benefits, such as greater sexual and social opportunities.
Namely, those individuals high in type-B personality cluster traits (Narcissism, Anti-Social, Borderline, Histrionic) of both sexes has 3.5x as many mates as low B subjects, with five times as many short-term mates and twice as many long term mates. It was also found that those higher in cluster B had 39% more offspring then those lower in cluster B traits.

Gutiérrez F, Gárriz M, Peri JM, Ferraz L, Sol D, Navarro JB, Barbadilla A, Valdés M. 2013. Fitness costs and benefits of personality disorder traits. Evolution and Human Behavior. 34(1): 41-48.

39% of hospitalized male psychopaths had consensual sex with female mental health staff
Gacono C, Meloy JR, Sheppard K, Speth E, Roske A. 1995. A Clinical Investigation of Malingering and Psychopathy in Hospitalized Insanity Acquittees. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 23(3): 387-397. [FullText]

Men are attracted to "nice" women, but women are not attracted to "nice" men
Researchers sought to evaluate niceness by defining it as: "a characteristic that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship." In other words, niceness is the degree to which a person understands, values, and supports his partner's identity and values and is willing to put commitment and effort into the relationship. This is also known in psychology as "responsiveness."
The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." They also found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal from the men and greater desire for a relationship.
On the other hand, when women perceived their male partner to be more responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

Birnbaum GE, Ein-Dor T, Reis HT, Segal N. 2014. Why Do Men Prefer Nice Women? Gender Typicality Mediates the Effect of Responsiveness on Perceived Attractiveness in Initial Acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 40(10): 1341-1353. [Abstract]
Mejia P. 2014. Study Finds That Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around. Newsweek. [News]
Judge TA, Livingston BA, and Hurst C. 2012. Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. [Abstract]

Female narcissism reduces marital quality for men, but male narcissism does not for women
It was found that high degrees of female narcissism predicted a decline in marital quality and satisfaction over time. However, male narcissism did not negatively affect marital quality or satisfaction.
This would seem to imply men are greatly bothered by narcissistic wives, but women are not so typically bothered by narcissistic husbands. This conclusion is in keeping with evidence reviewed that women find narcissistic men more attractive and actively seek them as husbands.

Lavner JA, Lamkin J, Miller JD, Campbell WK, Karney BR. 2016. Narcissism and newlywed marriage: Partner characteristics and marital trajectories. Personal Disord. 7(2): 169-79. [Abstract]

Women desiring marriage and commitment are more attracted to narcissistic men
Haslam C, Montrose T. 2015. Should have known better: The impact of mating experience and the desire for marriage upon attraction to the narcissistic personality. Personality and Individual Differences. 82: 188-192. [Abstract]

BRUTAL

Cluster B personaliteehees rule the world. It is up to Cluster Cs with the revolutionary and cleansing spirit of OCD to wipe them all out and build a new ordER.

For their part, Cluster As will establish the new mythology/religion, and what superstitions foid-cattle should believe in.

Ted Bundy was a textbook psychopath but he got tons of women consensually and attracted female attention even after his crimes were brought to light.

Ted Bundy was literally a Republican activist and had his eyes set for a career in law and then politics. But he was too sexually dimorphic for his own good, and simply could not help himself from raping gullible foids to death.

Pete Butt and his innocent, neotenous face (not to mention his homosexuality) is much more suited for a psychopath with political inclinations tbhngl. Even if he was to engage in his sexual fantasies and rape little boys or murder, sodomize, and then cannibalize homeless men, nobody would even deign to investigate it.

Notably, the homosexual psychopath I study in the OP is into rap music:

Do you like rap music? You could be a psychopath

The article argues that this goes to show how neurotypical and normal psychopaths are, and I agree, but I think that it demonstrates the existence of a psychopath-negroid synthesis as well.

Just like ~50% of violent crime in the US is committed by Blacks, ~50% of violent crime is also estimated to be committed by psychopaths. Rap music seems to unite them, and together they commit an overwhelming majority of the violent crime (not all of it, because there is some demographic overlap between them, of course).

''It was convinient'' or in other words, he is just a typical follower. He is just a part of the hive mind and everything what might be considered different than that from the hive mind itself, is dangerous to it and therefore repusled.

The conceit of psychopathic niggers to appropriate autistic terminology and refer to others as "neurotypical" compared to them, and call their pathetic manipulations "masking," is absolutely hilarious.

I cannot wait until they are all put down. There is no place for narcissists and psychopaths in the upcoming ordER. They will learn the spirit of collectivism, cooperation, and solidarity which has heretofore eluded them in their mass graves.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Arthur Gordian #elitist #racist socialmatter.net

A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Malkin #fundie vdare.com

Socialist genius Bernie Sanders has figured out what’s really ailing America.

Our store shelves have too many different brands of deodorant and sneakers. Just look at all those horrible, fully stocked aisles at Target and Walgreens and Wal-Mart and Payless and DSW and Dick’s Sporting Goods. It’s a national nightmare! If only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products and fewer workers manufacturing goods people wanted, Sanders believes, we could end childhood hunger.

Nobody parodies the far left better than far-leftists themselves.

In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”[10 questions with Bernie Sanders, CNBC, May 26, 2015]

Try to suppress a snicker: Sanders, Decider of Your Sanitary and Footwear Needs, is casting himself as the Everyman in touch with “ordinary Americans” to contrast his campaign with Hillary “my Beltway lobbyist and foreign agent operator Sid Blumenthal is just a friend I talk to for advice” Clinton.

Blech. By the looks of the 2016 Democratic presidential field, liberals really do practice the anti-choice principles they preach.

At Caracas-on-the-Green Mountains, every business owner’s success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. Because some tummies may be grumbling somewhere across the fruited plains, all must suffer. In Sanders’ world, it’s the “greedy”– America’s real makers, builders and wealth creators — who must be punished and shamed, specifically with a personal income tax rate hiked to a whopping 90 percent for top earners.

Of course, the wealth redistributors in Washington never bear any of the blame for misspending the billions they confiscate. Nearly 100 million Americans participated in dozens of federal food assistance programs in 2014. The General Accounting Office reported last year that $74.6 billion went to food stamps, $11.3 billion went to the national school lunch program, and $7.1 billion went to the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program, along with $1.9 billion for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and $10.7 million for a federal milk program.

But no, it’s not the fault of command-and-control bureaucrats and their overseers on Capitol Hill that the War on Poverty and the War on Hunger have failed.

In Sanders’ bubble, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Just as Sanders believes there are “too many” products on the shelves, President Obama recently opined that families of America’s top earners in the financial industry “pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use.”

We need not speculate about whether the wealth-shamers’ recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by “too many” deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk or coffee. Food distribution is under military control. The currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent.

Here in America, dozens of private household goods companies make billions of dollars selling scented, unscented, quilted, two-ply, white and colored toilet paper that people want and need. In Sanders’ utopia in South America, the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long. The shelves are empty. The daily battle for subsistence is brutal.

Persiana #fundie canadaka.net

Sexual harassment in SOME cases isn't about women inviting comments. In many cases, I agree 100%. I do however, think that there are also SOME women out there, who DO invite comments. You can't dress like a hooker, and expect to be treated like a lady.

Wow, you could be an Australian Cleric. Some girls who dress slutty are experimenting, some don't want to be talked to by like a lady, and some might wear the t-shirt "Just because I'm a slut doesn't mean I'll sleep with you" ouch.

If only the gay boys took to such reasoning. He was wearing a tank top, I could just tell he wanted it. Nope, not going to fly. Want to have sex? get consent. A bikini does not signify consent.


Your reasoning might work except your examples are lacking.

If girls who are wearing t-shirts and self-proclaiming themselves sluts, they have little respect for themselves and can hardly cry unfair when they get treated like a slut.

I never said bikini's signified consent. However, if you're 14 years old with breasts just popping out of your chest and you're running around in hooker boots and booty shorts where half your ass hangs out (No, not just short shorts, I mean booty shorts where half your ass really IS hanging out) and a bikini top or some other fragile excuse for clothing, and you get spoken to with disrespect, and you get treated with disrespect, then my point is that they can't really place the entire blame on the other party. The disrespect began with themselves.

Yes, some girls are just experimenting and some quickly learn that isn't the way they want to be seen. I see 12/13/14 year olds walking around here, wearing stiletto boots, miniskirts (and I mean *MINI*) and crop tops with their bellies hanging out & these miniskirts aren't even like the 80's miniskirts, these are mini on the leg & mini on the hips. I quite literally have underwear which covers more than these skirts do.

Am I saying "all the blame rests with the victims" no, not by a long shot. However, like I said before, common sense should prevail. If a woman makes herself an easy target for lewd remarks and sexual harassment, common sense should speak to reason, and she should realize that if she dressed less slutty, she'd get treated with more respect. We don't live in the age of ignorance. If a woman is working late & its dark outside & her car is parked on the far side of a dimly lit underground parking lot, is she to blame if she gets attacked? No, but YES there are preventative methods available in most of these instances, to keep stuff like this from happening. Ie, have a security guard escort you to your car.

Basically you reap what you sow.

If you disrespect yourself, and show it through your own method of dress, you cannot expect respect from others.

If you ignore common sense for dangerous situations, then yes you ARE partially at fault for the fact that it even happened and YES there WERE ways that you could've prevented it from happening, in many instances.

Women want "equal status" except they want to hang onto their "vulnerable" female helpless status at the same time? I don't think so. Physically we are no match for most men, that is fact. Mentally we could be equal if we'd stop placing ALL the blame elsewhere & started using our brains and common

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid #conspiracy islamqa.info

Praise be to Allaah.

Freemasonry is a secret political society whose goal is to put an end to all religions and good morals, and to replace them with man-made laws and non-religious systems. It strives to provoke ongoing revolutions and to replace one regime with another, on the basis of its call for freedom of thought and freedom of belief. This is what they have stated clearly.

This is what was announced by one of them in the Students’ Conference held in 1865 CE in the city of Liege which is considered to be one of the centers of Freemasonry. He said:

Man must prevail over God, and declare war on Him. He should demolish the heavens and tear them like paper.

It says in the Masonic Grand Lodge (1922, p. 98): We will strengthen the freedom of individual thought with all the powers at our disposal, and we will declare war against the real enemy of man, which is religion.

The Masons say that Masonry takes the human soul as its object of worship.

They say: It is not enough for us to prevail over the religious people and their places of worship, rather our basic goal is to wipe them out of existence.

Minutes of the World Masonic Conference, 1903 CE, p. 102.

They say: Freemasonry will take the place of religion and its Lodges will take the place of places of worship… and there are many other statements which clearly point to the intensity of their enmity towards religion and their uncompromising war on religion.

The Freemasons are one of the most ancient secret societies which still exist and its origins are still unknown to many people and are still unknown to many of their members, because the plots of their leaders are very secret and hidden and they are so keen to conceal their plots and aims. Therefore most of their affairs are conducted verbally, with no written record.

When they want to write an idea or announce it to the public, it is first subjected to the scrutiny of Masonic censors who decide whether it may be released or not. The foundations of Freemasonry were based on theories taken from several sources, mostly from Jewish traditions.

This is supported by the fact that Jewish ideas and teachings were taken as the basis for the founding of the Grand Lodge in 1717 CE with its principles and symbols. The Masons still venerate the Jew Hiram and the temple that he built, from which they take the design of the Masonic lodges in the world. The greatest Masonic leaders are Jews and form the backbone of the Masonic movement, and they are the ones who represent Jewish organizations in Masonic lodges.

It is to them that the spread of Masonry and global cooperation between Freemasons is to be attributed. They are the driving force behind Freemasonry and this Jewish elite are leading different secret cells, running their affairs and directing them secretly as they wish. This is supported by a report in the Masonic Acacia magazine (1908, issue no. 66) which says that there is no Masonic lodge that is free of Jews and that all the Jews do not follow one way or another exclusively, rather there are only principles for them to follow. And this is also the case with the Masons. Hence the Jewish synagogues are our [Masons’] support and we find many Jews among the Freemasons.

This is also supported by what it says in the Masonic publications: that the Jews are certain that the best means of destroying religion is Freemasonry. The history of the Masons is similar to the history of the Jews in belief. Their symbol is the six-pointed Star of David. The Jews and the Freemasons both consider themselves to be the spiritual sons of the builders of the Temple of Solomon. The Freemasonry which distorts other religions lends full support to Judaism and its followers. The Jews took advantage of people’s simple-mindedness and good intentions, and infiltrated Freemasonry and reached high positions within it, thus they breathed a Jewish spirit into the Masonic lodges and subjugated them to their own aims.

One of the clearest indications of their intense desire to conceal their plans to destroy religions and provoke political revolutions is what it says in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where it says: we will concentrate these cells under a single leadership that is known to us alone. This leadership will be composed of our scholars and these cells will have special representatives, so that the true location of our leadership will be concealed. This leadership alone will have the right to decide who will speak, and to draw up the plans of the day. In these cells we will plan to lay traps for all the socialists and classes of revolutionary society.

Most of the secret political plans are known to us and we will decide when to implement them. But the agents of the international secret police will be members of these cells. When the conspiracies start throughout the world, that will mean that one of our most dedicated agents will be at the head of these conspiracies and of course we will be the only people to direct the Masonic plans. We are the only people who know how to direct them and we know the ultimate goal of each action, whilst the illiterates – meaning non-Jews – are ignorant of most of these things, especially Masonry, and they can only see the immediate results of what they are doing.

And there is other evidence which points to the strong connection between the Jews and the Masons, and the cooperation between the two parties in revolutionary conspiracies and stirring up destructive movements. Even though Freemasonry outwardly appears to be a call to freedom of belief, tolerance and social reform in general, in fact it is really a call for permissiveness and destructive factors which cause social disintegration and the loosening of bonds between nations and destruction of religion and morals and the spread of mischief.

Based on this, any Muslim who joins a Masonic group knowing the true nature of Freemasonry and its secrets, and carries out its rituals and is keen to do so, is a kaafir who should be asked to repent. If he repents, all well and good, otherwise he is to be put to death and if he dies in that state then his recompense will be that of the kaafirs. Whoever joins the Freemasons but does not know what they really are, or know about their plots against Islam and the Muslims, and their spreading evil and the evil that they are planning against everyone who tries to bring people together and reform nations, and he joins them in their general activities and talk that does not apparently contradict Islam, is not a kaafir, rather he is excused in general because of their concealing their true nature from him, and because he does not share their basic beliefs or aims. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Acts are but by intentions, and each man will have but that which he intended.”

But he must disavow himself of them when he finds out what they really are, and he must tell people about their real nature and strive to spread their secrets and their plots against the Muslims, so that this will cause a scandal for them and will undermine their efforts. The Muslim should surround himself with good people who will cooperate with him in his religious and worldly affairs. He should be far-sighted in choosing close friends so that he will be safe from being tempted by these apparently attractive ideas and be safe from the evil consequences of honeyed words, and so he will not fall into the traps of the people of shirk which they set up to ensnare those who are easily deceived, follow their whims and desires and are weak in reasoning.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesusisprecious.org

Hip Hop is the Devil's music. Lasciviousness is of the Devil. A common tactic of the Illuminati behind the music industry is to pick, groom and promote a new singer, and require them to do bizarre, subversive and morally decadent things in their music and videos, then years later that same singer enters into the religious music scene, or they mellow out. So their new fans go back and are exposed to the filthy, raunchy and satanic videos and music of their earlier career. Nelly has mellowed out and has gained millions of new fans, but his filthy and demonic sexually promiscuous videos are still available and being sold.

Nelly released his fifth album in 2010 called, “Nelly 5.0.” The documentary about Nelly's life would have the public to believe that Nelly worked hard to get where he is, but the truth is that the Illuminati is behind his success as they promote him. Look at the album cover to the left and notice the subtle occult symbols. There are three occult pyramids formed at the lower right by overlapping scratches. Also, notice that Nelly is forming one side of a pyramid with his left arm, but the subliminal message is clearly understood. Also, his three fingers are an occult sign of 666. EVERY mainstream artist in the music industry, somehow, someway, has occult imagery on their album artwork.

Here are some of the perverted lyrics to Nelly's recent 2010 song, “MOVE THAT BODY”...

Move that body
Work that body girl
Twist that body
Shake it shawty

All my bad b! tches stand up
See you gotta bug on put your hands up
See you got a boyfriend shawty and what
Ass so big better pull your pants up
Well I got some footie rosey bootie
Hands in the air put yor bootie where the flow at
You should know dat
Anywhere move it
Pause for the picture shawty we should take a Kodak

Cause you got some mean on
Like you painted them jeans on
And then your whole click back and you team strong
I know your ex want you back till em dream on

Shawty wanna tell you how your body gonna work
I like all that seduction
She gotta look closer over and over
Shakin that butt thin
I got somethin I gotta show her what somethin
But if she wanna rock with a player
She gonna have to follow my instruction
Like

Nelly promotes sexual promiscuity, lewdness and filth. Despite the content advisory, millions of youth are still able to watch the videos on the internet freely. And they're buying the albums. It's a shame what is happening in our nation today. America is corrupting the entire world with our filth. Judgment day is coming. The Bible warns in James 4:4 that friendship with the world means that you are God's enemy. You can't be on both sides, it's one or the other.

Millions of American youth are walking around with their pants hanging down, their belt unbuckled and inappropriate in other ways because of the ungodly influence of worldly entertainers. Notice that Nelly's belt is unbuckled and hanging down. Nelly works for the New World Order now, part of the Devil's crowd.

Unknown author #fundie hizb.org.uk

Western notions of democracy have come to dominate all discourse on governance, government structure, justice and accountability. Despite this dominance, electoral numbers at elections, trust in politicians and the ruling classes is at an all-time low in the West. Some thinkers in the West, class their liberal democracies as universal and consider all opposing systems as dictatorships. With the Muslims world demanding more and more of Islam to be present in their politics the Khilafah’s ruling system is a viable alternative for many. A lot of this is due to the failure of democracy to cater for the needs of the Muslim world and its flaws can be seen from a number of areas.

Whilst all would agree that their leaders should be elected, the reality of democracy is that regular elections favour those with money and adversely impact tough long-term decision making. Politics becomes about serving the elite not the public. The problem with frequent elections is that the more elections there are the more there is a requirement for money. Money and politics is one of the major cancers in democratic politics.

In essence the more elections you have the more likely you are to poison your system with money and short term thinking. This is what we see in the West today, countries dominated by powerful interests, riddled by political corruption and with soaring deficits and other long-term problems left completely un-tackled.

An alternative to both democracy on the one hand and dictatorship or absolute monarchy on the other hand is an election of a ruler with no term expiry as exists within the Islamic political system. This allows people on the one hand to freely choose their leader but on the other allows that leader the time to take tough long-term decisions for the benefit of the people.

Legislative sovereignty is at the very heart of Western civilisation, the ability to create one’s own laws, change them, adapt them and suspend them is held in high esteem as one of the bedrocks of liberal democracies. This is why we find after the events of 9/11 Western Europe has suspended some key principles and rights. We have seen the suspension of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the right to be aware of the evidence that is being used to imprison you. These key rights, enshrined in Western maxims and used to extract other laws have been altered at will, even though they are supposed to be the bedrock of Western political tradition. With secularism at the heart of Western legislation, laws can be changed and even suspended at a whim.

The protection of individual freedoms is the bedrock of Western civilisation. However, the dilemma secular legislators face is what is beneficial to one person is not necessarily beneficial to another. People’s interests overlap and as a result there exists a constant renegotiation of space, entitlement and privilege. More often than not, the underlying criterion for an action is self-gratification and fulfilment – ‘What’s in it for me?’

A society where an individualistic outlook is common can only decline into a virtual free-for-all, as everyone, including the government, would attempt to take full advantage of life. Freedom therefore leads to people seeking their own benefit and more often than not, those with political and/or financial clout have the upper hand. This produces a host of problems, not least the conflict of people’s freedoms.

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is that legislation is arrived at through majority voting. In the absence of any divine text, the need to derive legislation must be sourced from elsewhere.

(...)

Secularism, the complete separation between God and governance has become established as the Aqeedah of Capitalism, legislative sovereignty of man over god is central to democracy however one defines it. Islam is on the diametrically opposite side of democracy. Islam makes the Islamic texts sovereign – the supreme reference, mankind plays no role in legislating, only implementing.

Islamic governance does not proceed upon the same route as Western legislation, where safeguarding individual freedoms is considered the basis of legislation. Islamic governance does not make freedom the subject of discussion; it does not recognise or reject freedom. Hence, Islamic governance does not look at humans from the angle of them undertaking or not undertaking actions on the basis of freedom.

Whilst Islamic governance has many details and has been written about throughout Islamic history, the following are its key aspects.

The current situation prevalent in the Muslim world, where ruling families decide the laws that society must abide by whilst they remain above the very laws they have created, is just the other side of the democratic coin.

In Islam Allah (swt) is sovereign as explained in the Qur’an:

???? ????????? ?????? ??????

“The rule is for none but Allah” (Al-Anam:57)

This means that all laws need to be derived from the Islamic sources which are the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma Sahabah and Qiyas. Whilst all laws, maxims and principles are contained within these texts their application is where mankind must use its own capacities to ensure the right rule is applied for the reality it came for.

To ensure this happens Islam has recommended a constitution for the Islamic lands, where the role of the ruler and positions of power are clearly defined and mandated a constitution where the relationship between the ruled and ruler are clearly delineated. All this ensures that society is aware of the laws it will be judged by, which cannot be changed at whim, this will ensure a multiple tier society does not develop, where different laws apply to different segments of society. It also ensures the elites cannot influence the laws.

Islam has enshrined both institutional and decisional independence for the judiciary which far exceeds what is seen in Western democracies. Islam institutionalised an independent high court called the Court of Unjust Acts (Mahkamat Mazalim). It is presided over by the most eminent and qualified judges (Qadi Muzalim) and granted extensive powers by the Shari’ah. It has the power to remove any official of state regardless of their role or rank, including, most importantly, the Khaleefah if he persists in pursuing a path that lies outside of the terms of his Bay’ah (contract of ruling).

Ordinary citizens who have a complaint against the state can register it with the Court. What is unique about the Court of Unjust Acts, compared to other judicial courts, is that the Government Investigations Judge (Qadi Muzalim) has investigatory powers and does not require a plaintiff to register a complaint before launching an investigation. This court will therefore constantly monitor the actions of all officials of the state and the legislation adopted to ensure it conforms to the Shari’ah and no oppression (mazlama) is committed against the people. The executive counterbalance to the power of this Court is by the Khaleefah in principle having the power to appoint and remove the Chief Justice and any judges below him.

The laws and Islamic independent judiciary work to enforce are derived from the Islamic sources, this restricts what can be enforced as law. As Islam’s fundamental source – the Qur’an is revelatory, what is right and wrong is defined and thus the ruler nor the judiciary can deviate from this. With the introduction of a constitution, which allows more detailed rules from the Islamic sources, society will clearly know where it stands with regards to those acts which entail punishments and fines if violated.

The US constitution is considered a model template, which empowers the President with many powers but then restricts them through various mechanisms as power corrupts. Accountability in Islam is guaranteed through the institutions of government, in the obligation to establish political parties and through an individual obligation on all the citizens to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. There are also a host of various mechanisms rooted in Islam which act as checks and balances and restrict and regulate the ruler.

The Khaleefah is given wide mandatory powers in Islam, this is different to what is the norm in democracies where power is shared with a cabinet or parliament. Whilst the West institutionalised this in an attempt to curtail the possibilities of a dictatorship in reality it has given rise to mob rule where the collective act in concert like any individual dictator.

Islam has mandated that authority belongs to the Ummah. The Khaleefah is not a king or dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion or force. The Khaleefah’s authority to rule must be given willingly by the Muslims through the Islamic ruling contract known as Bay’ah. Without this Bay’ah the Khaleefah cannot rule. After this his authority is restricted to the hukm shari i.e. he cannot change what the Islamic texts have defined as right and wrong.
Islam has institutionalised the Bay’ah contract as the method to appoint a ruler.

This was outlined in many ahadith, amongst them: Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Hazim who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurayra five years and I heard him talk about the Prophet (saw) saying: ‘Bani Israel used to be governed by Prophets, every time a Prophet died, another came after him, and there is no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many.’ They said: ‘What would you order us to do?’ He (saw) said: ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them one after the other, and give them their due right, surely Allah will account them for that which He entrusted them with.” (Sahih Muslim). The Bay’ah is between two parties – the Khaleefah and the Muslims. It is the people who elect the ruler, through popular will.

(...)

The Bay’ah is a contract and as such it is allowed to add extra conditions to this contract that the Khaleefah must abide by, as long as these extra conditions do not violate the fundamentals of the contract. It would be allowed to restrict the Khaleefah to certain constitutional processes such as the empowerment of the Majlis al-Ummah (People’s Council) and the judiciary as counterbalances to the executive power of the Khaleefah.

Without the restriction on the term of office, the Khaleefah can focus on long term strategic planning for the state instead of short-term planning from one election to the next as we find in democratic systems. It also prevents corporate interests from hijacking the government agenda through campaign contributions that any Presidential candidate or party in the West must secure to achieve power.

The ruler possesses many executive powers such as appointing governors and mayors, developing the state’s foreign policy and accepting foreign ambassadors. He is however restricted to these and cannot go beyond this remit. The ruler’s role is restricted to the public sphere and so Islam would forbid him from interfering in the private lives of his citizens. So whilst the Khaleefah holds all executive powers within the Khilafah his powers are restricted by the Shari’ah.

The powers of the Khaleefah are further restricted in Islam by the establishment of the Majlis al-Ummah. This is an elected council whose members can be Muslim, non-Muslim, men or women. These members represent the interests of their constituencies within the state. The Majlis has no powers of legislation like in a democratic system but it does have many powers that act as a counterbalance to the executive powers of the Khaleefah. These include expressing dissatisfaction with the assistants, governors, and mayors and in this matter the view of the Majlis is binding and the Khaleefah must discharge them at once. It also includes selecting the list of candidates standing for the position of the Khaleefah, no candidate excluded from this list may stand and the decision of the Majlis is binding. The Majlis also decides how much the ruler is paid and the allowances he may get.

In modern times the most appropriate style of conducting the Bay’ah is through a general election, where all mature Muslims, male and female have a right to vote for the Khaleefah of their choice. The Muslim representatives of the Majlis al-Ummah will shortlist the candidates for the Khaleefah and the people then vote for one of the candidates of their choice.

Islam has ordered the establishment of political parties. Political parties in the Khilafah are established primarily to account the Khaleefah and his government. Their task is to safeguard the thoughts of Islam in society and to ensure the government does not deviate from the implementation and propagation of Islam. The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Holy Qur’an. No permission is required from the government to establish political parties. Although members of the government will in many cases be members of political parties. The Khilafah does not have a party system of ruling as found in Western democracies.

In addition to the institutionalised mechanisms of accountability discussed so far, accounting the Khilafah is a right of all citizens of the state whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Although their representatives in the Majlis al-Ummah will undertake this task on their behalf they still have a right to perform this task themselves. Political apathy is a growing problem in the West. General elections are seeing fewer people voting especially amongst the young. Growing individualism among society is leading people to ignore the problems facing their communities and wider society and be concerned only with themselves. Islam not only obliged political parties with the task of enjoining ma’aruf and forbidding munkar but also individuals.

A central argument of liberals is that after restricting religion to the private lives of individuals, the West has seen unparalleled progress. Secularism has been central to the period of enlightenment and the postmodern world we currently live in. However there is a consistent pattern across all democracies of corruption. The US may be the preeminent democracy in the world but it is also one of the most corrupt.

US politics is riddled with special interests, a revolving door between politics and big business, political favours and backhanders. Though on the surface elections occur every two years, the reality is that incumbents rarely lose. In 2008, 94% of incumbents won in the House of Representatives and 83% in the Senate. This isn’t by accident, due to the significant money advantage enjoyed by incumbents and the continued redistricting.

Democracies should have secularised money and politics and not religion and politics. In Islam the ruler is not an employee who gets paid a wage, since he is not hired by the Ummah. The Khaleefah is given a pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) by the Ummah to implement the Shari’ah and convey the Islamic Da’wah to the world. Although the Khaleefah is not paid a wage an allowance is assigned to him from the Bait al-Mal to meet his needs.

This allowance is a compensation for him since he is kept busy with the obligation of the Khilafah and cannot work and pursue his own business interests. This allowance is determined by the Majlis al-Ummah who will decide through shura (consultation) how much the allowance should be. They are the elected representatives of the Ummah and giving them the ultimate decision prevents any abuse of the public funds by the Khaleefah.

The ruler, governors, delegated assistants and judges – all the positions of ruling – are not paid a wage but an allowance as compensation as they are unable to take on employment. In this way Islam ensures money is kept far away from ruling.

(...)

Individuals have the right to account any organ or employee of the state, regardless of rank or seniority, this includes the head of state. Complaints can be submitted to the Madhalim Office who will initiate a process of validating and following due process in establishing facts. This office has the subsequent power to stipulate punishments. Individuals, Muslims and non Muslims, are allowed the right to peaceful congregation and protest. They are also allowed to seek out support to make representations to the state on their behalf.

Glory2YAHUVEH! #fundie endtimeprophecies.nl

[intro]

MY Beloved One, I know your heart and those that judge you falsely do not know what they are speaking of. I am your judge and jury, not those who hold court without MY permission. Step aside and do not ask why, for if they do not defend you now in small things, they will not defend you later in big issues.

You are MY beloved, and those that hold court against you without any evidence will see that I am not pleased. I brought you to this site to encourage you, and to soothe your ravaged heart. For you and I know the pain you feel. The rejection is not for you though, but they are rejecting a part of ME.

You have your sense of humor for I have given you that sense of humor, I called you and ordained you just as you are. You have been given the gift of laughter, to help ease the burdens of yours as well as others. Laughter doeth good like a good medicine. But even laughter and humor have a balance. I am not in the movement of the churches where foolish demons manifest and make fools out of MY People.

Beware where anything is going on, any manifestations that you could not picture your YAHUSHUA partaking in. Does your God bark like a dog, meow like a cat, growl like a lion and mock MY own word? Would the RUACH ha KODESH humiliate anyone and cause people to be uncontrollable to the point of being disruptive? This demonic manifestation and worse is allowed to continue and they can’t even distinguish the genuine moving of MY RUACH ha KODESH (Holy Spirit), and the counterfeit moving of the anti-messiah. Those that stand behind the pulpits and think themselves wise are behaving so foolishly. Opening themselves up and the congregation up for demonic manifestations, and possession, and oppression.

Deliverance must be done and house cleaning of MY Temples from who were called the most respected spiritual leaders of today. Because of this foolishness I am now gathering troops around the world. I never close a door without opening another. Do not think this is the ending for it is merely a beginning of a bigger work I am going to use you for. Do not change for anyone but for the Almighty God YAHUVEH you serve. You cannot please all the people, all the time, so quit trying. In your heart you know what is right, just continue to do it.

Listen for MY voice, speak MY words. I do not judge or condemn you, but those that have falsely accused you will be judged. You forgive them, for they were used by the enemy of your soul and they knew it not. New wine and old wine cannot and never will mix. The new wine I have filled you with to overflowing will burst the container if you try and mix the old and new. The old wine wants no part of the new wine do not grieve for that what you think you have lost, for you have lost nothing that I will not give you back even more, pressed down and shaken together and running over. You will be blessed.

You must let loose of the old anointing to make way for the new anointing. Keep your ears, and eyes, open and speak what I tell you to say though you will be judged harshly you know MY voice, and you have the boldness of John the Baptist to speak forth MY words. When you think you are stepping down for ME, you have really just stepped up and forward. Do not grieve for yourself, but grieve for those that I will chastise for causing MY little one such grief and sorrow. Grieve for those that have accused you falsely.

I love you MY beloved and only I know your heart. It pants after ME like a deer pants for water. When you suffer persecution for MY Name sake you are truly blessed. The servant is not above his master, I suffered persecution especially from those that called themselves religious, and so do you. I know their hearts like I know those that judge you falsely. Keep your hands innocent of wrath and let ME take vengeance. For if they don’t REPENT before ME, then they will see. Vengeance is MINE saith YAHUVEH and I will truly repay. Do not judge ME by the way others who claim they represent ME judge you.

You are MY beloved and MY Warrior and I have called thee and ordained thee and no one can take that from you. The road of a Prophet is paved with trials and tribulations and sorrow misunderstandings. So few really want to hear what The Almighty God YAHUVEH has to say. They want to believe I am only love and mercy, and forget “I AM” who “I AM” and “I AM” also a God of balance in all things. That means along with love and mercy, I am balanced with wrath, and judgment and yes hatred, so many forget that I have wrath and hatred for MY enemies.

Does not MY Word say, “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated?” Does not MY Word say, “Blessings to those that obey. Curses to those that disobey?” You must preach who I am in completeness. Not just the side of YAHUVEH that does not offend, but the side of Almighty God YAHUVEH that does offend many. Sin is Sin and I have not wavered or changed nor shall I ever. Look at Rev.19 and Rev.20. How few understand I was the slain Lamb but once. I was a victim but once. For you, I became the victim.

But now I am no longer that meek, mild, Lamb. When I come again to destroy those that oppose ME and Holiness you will see I am Almighty even in war. MY Children need not fear, but MY enemies will tremble and do tremble for they know I am a God that will take vengeance on MY enemies. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I have held back MY rage, building it for that day. None will stand in MY way.

Preach it, teach it, so others will believe it. I am a God that not only brings salvation, but damnation to those that choose to oppose and deny MY Saving Blood and Saving Name. There is no salvation other than coming through the shed Blood of Calvary. And through the Name of YAHUSHUA ha MASHIACH. I know MY Children, and they know ME, and I know all those who are MY enemies. When they touch you, they touch ME. If innocently they have offended you MY Children, then I will forgive for the enemy is out to deceive and confuse. But if intentionally they set out to destroy you, tell them beware.

For it is MY wrath they will feel breathing down their necks. Only in repentance will again they have MY favor. I chastise those that I love. I destroy those that I hate. What is not Holy is not of ME. No matter who stands behind the pulpit and says, “God is love he will understand.” SIN is SIN. I am a God that does not change. Man changes. I, the great “I AM” does not change. Preach it, teach it, so others will believe it. Those that know MY voice will recognize I have spoken, all others will remain deaf. For MY enemies it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God, YAHUVEH and YAHUSHUA. At times yes, I have to spank you, but also MY hands shelter, guide and protect you. MY hands for MY Children who try and obey ME, have nothing to fear, those that are washed in MY Saving Blood.

But those that hate ME and hate what I stand for have every reason to tremble and so they shall. Repent, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. I have offered you the gift of salvation, now it’s your choice whether to choose salvation or damnation. Choose ye this day which God you will serve. Preach it, teach it, so others will believe it.

Given to this Child, Warrior, Bride of YAHUSHUA ha MASHIACH on 10/16/97

Prophet Sherrie Elijah (Elisheva Sherrie Eliyahu)

Tucker #racist #wingnut amren.com

RE: Nikki Haley Positions Herself to Lead the Post-Trump Republican Party

Here is my reminder to every White Southerner: Nikki Haley has proven herself to be a virulently anti-White, anti-White Southerner, hard core globalist, amnesty supporting, open borders loving, war mongering, Israel First treasonous witch of the absolute worse magnitude that the 'Deep State' could dredge up from its deepest and darkest sewers. While Governor of the Southern state of South Carolina, she displayed her eagerness to cuck to the Cultural Marxists who are waging a full scale war against the courageous Southern men who fought and died for the Confederacy by seizing upon a mentally unstable kid (Dylan Roof) who committed a mass shooting at a black church - and she used this crime, which was committed by an individual - for her excuse to ban the Confederate Flag and to kick off this accelerated demonization of all things related to the War for Southern Independence.

Furthermore, she was a leading anti-Orange Man GOP establishment voice during the 2016 presidential campaign, and is on the record as strongly opposing just about every single promised agenda item that the Orange Man ran on in 2016, and after he stupidly let Jared Kushner talk him into hiring this mouthy and dangerous woman into his administration - she repeatedly and brazenly engaged in acts of insubordination by shooting her mouth off in open defiance to, and direct contradiction of, official White House policy - demonstrating a clear lack of respect for the sitting Commander in Chief and treating him as if he was HER subordinate instead of the other way around.

I have been watching Nikki Haley with a keen eye ever since she exploited the Dylan Roof incident to prove her 'Deep State' credentials by showing her hatred and disrespect for the thousands of White Southerners who fought and died in the War for Southern Independence - and, trust me on this - she did that as part of her audition to the Deep State, because hating the South and proving you are anti-White is high on the checklist of these Cultural Marxists who hate and despise traditional America. Nikki Haley is consumed with anti-White Southern bigotry - and that means she is an enemy to ALL racially healthy White Americans, regardless if they are Southerners or living somewhere outside of the Southern states. The Deep State anti-Trumpers have been grooming this evil woman as a possible future candidate for either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. Do NOT fall for this scam.

Nikki Haley is a war mongering, globalist who is a puppet for the Israel First Lobby and she is the mortal enemy of every one of the 62 million Americans who voted for Trump based on his 2016 promised agenda.