Similar posts

Bryan Fischer #fundie barbwire.com

How do we de-Islamize America? While it's not easy (because of politically correct hysteria) it's simple. It must include three steps.

1. Immediately suspend Islamic immigration

[...]

Can this be done constitutionally? Of course it can. The Constitution gives to Congress unilateral authority over “the Migration or Importation of such Persons” it thinks are “proper to admit” (Article 1, Sec. 9). If Congress wishes to suspend Islamic immigration, it can do so tomorrow.

2. No more mosques

Mosques are the incubators of jihadist ideology. The Center for Security Policy determined some time ago that 95% of all American Muslims who attend mosque on a weekly basis attend a mosque which either distributes literature or features imams who advocate the use of violence in spreading Islam.

Can stopping the building of mosques be done constitutionally? Of course it can, if we use the Constitution given to us by the Founders and not the one mangled by the courts. Under the Founders’ Constitution, the States have unilateral authority to regulate religious expression within their borders.

Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, put it this way: “Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions.” If states want to ban the building of any more mosques, they certainly can.

And the First Amendment protects the right “of the people peaceably to assemble.” If any mosque assembles for anything other than peaceful purposes, it has no First Amendment right to meet at all.

3. No more Muslims in the military

Serving the United States military is a privilege, not a right. Congress has complete authority “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1, Section 8). If Congress believes it’s a mistake to allow individuals who have a sacred duty to kill American infidels to serve in our military, they certainly can prevent it. The massacre at Ft. Hood is all the evidence we need that such a restriction is timely and necessary.

Islam, as Brussels, Paris, and 9/11 demonstrate, is the Ebola virus of culture. Everywhere it has been allowed to take root since 630 AD it has brought with it violence and oppression.

Preventing carriers of this cultural virus from entering America is simply common sense, as well as the essence of compassion for American citizens who should not have to live in a society that must live in constant fear of Islamic violence.

The problem, or course, is that we cannot identify carriers of this virus until it’s too late. This simply means we must be careful with them all.

TheIncelRepublic #racist #sexist incels.co

At this point I considering moving to Pakistan, Chechnya or Nigeria

What I have read is that these places are secret based utopias for subhumans. Pakistan for example, everything I read about it is very based, honor killings, traditional values, intelligent people are praised instead of thugs, cheap standard of living. In Chechnya, they kill faggots and lesbians and in Nigeria, they uphold religious values. These places are utopias compared to the west. Inb4, "but muh tHIrD World SHItHolE". That's what cuckolds, simps and (((them))) always say. They don't want you to flee to countries that actually work, they want you to embrace the degeneracy of the (((first world))). Getting drone striked is 1000x better than feminism and degeneracy. Shithole = Not embraced feminism

Shitty internet: Good, no social media for foids Shitty water: Cleaner than the (((estrogen))) they put in yours Shitty restaurants: Again no trans fats Shitty breathable air: Just live in the country side Benefits: Cheap standard of living, great communities, great cultures and no feminism.

There's Feminism and all that other degenerate crap you hate in Pakistan. Nigeria is literary a shit hole where the sun doesn't go down. And Chechnya... even if you convert to islam, it won't work unless you're fully loaded, or a full blown chad. People in Central Asia and Eastern Europe are pretty xenophobic.

Name better countries, go on. Anyways, I can always larp as a Chechan as I am an Arab muslim. Even if those countries have a little degeneracy, there are no where near as bad as the west. Even if I don't escape Inceldom, at least I will live in non cucked country. I don't care about shitholes, I just want no feminism or sexaul capitalism.

Madoc #fundie starshipmodeler.net

Folks,

One of the best explanations of the differences in Christianity's handling of Old Testament vs. New Testament was that Jesus marks the difference. It was his arrival and his "dying for your sins" which changed things. It was that assumption of those sins that allowed the New Testament to build on the good things of the Old Testament while setting aside the excesses of the Old.

You also would be very hard pressed to find any denomination of Christians which still practice only the Old Testament ways. Very hard pressed.

Plus, Western Civilization has figured out how to handle religion in the midst of a modern and otherwise secular society. It took a while for it to do so but we've done much better hewing to that "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" principle. It also helps - a lot - that the main religion of Western Civilization, Christianity, is inherently a hierarchical thing. Thus, there is a central point from which reforms can be applied and adhered to.

Over the centuries this has caused schisms in the faith but, even there, the various Christian sects are also hierarchical. This also has helped to limit the "downsides" of Christianity.

There is not any such thing with Islam. Islam is inherently a non-hierarchical religion. Oh, it has "elders" and experts on interpreting Islamic doctrine and dogma but their authority is purely a voluntary thing. That is, any Muslim is free to adhere or ignore the fatwahs of any particular Islamic cleric.

That means that reform is an exceptionally difficult thing to apply in Islam.

Also, the Islamic world has never gone through its version of Christianity's "Wars of Reformation" which drove home the need for separation of church and state. Thus the secular and sectarian are still very much mixed in the Islamic world as opposed to officially, legally, and culturally separate as they are in the Christian world.

So, when you get some charismatic political leader in the Islamic world he's also able to wield the absolutism that comes with religion. We've learned in the West how nasty that can spin out of control. The Muslim world is continually proving that point.

Anyway, this is why it's an exercise in futility - at the least - to try picking out the nasty things in the Old Testament and attempting to use them to shut down criticisms of Islam. The two are not equal. The Old Testament is not in practice in Christianity - only the New Testament is. In the Islamic world, everything in the Koran is viewed as current and applicable.

As to how nice and un-radical are the Muslims some folks keep referring to - note their locations. The ones who are that way are almost all in the West. And they're here for a reason. Namely, their moderation would get them dead were they still back in the Middle East. And the longer they stay amongst the secular West the more moderate they get. With exceptions, sadly.

So pointing out how nice and un-radical those Western Muslims are is pretty much irrelevant when compared to how things are in the Middle East.

I also gotta say that too many people seem hell bent on ignoring the threat of Islamist jihadis. And they keep doing so on an appallingly regular basis.

Some new horrible Islamist attack is perpetrated by some new band of jihadis and their first reaction is to shrill their sorrow and weep for the slaughtered. This usually takes the form of quickly creating a heart rendering #Hastag to denote their feelings and then also generating some tear inducing image to overlay on their Facebook profile picture.

Within days - in some cases, hours - they'll then crank out the same tired old rationalizations to enable them to run away from actually dealing with the issue.

The latest terror attack by Islamist jihadist fanatics thus somehow becomes OUR fault. The attackers thus somehow become VICTIMS themselves. And we should refrain from using violence in our response as that will only create more terrorists in the future. Oh, and the self-professed Islamist jihadis who perpetrated the attack are not, in fact, Islamists at all.

It's like they're all reading from the same script or something.

This then allows them to blame the West and demand no real long term solution be meted out. And they then merrily go back to their normal lives happy in the knowledge that they are oh-so-morally superior for having such an "enlightened" world view.

Until the next horror rendered out by the next bunch of radical Islamist jihadis.

Bernie-Or-Else Website #moonbat #conspiracy bernieorelse.com

(This could very well be a Russian trolling operation, but it’s definitely trending on Twitter, along with #DemExit…)

IT WAS BERNIE OR BUST. NOW IT'S #BERNIEORELSE

ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS CAN'T DEFEAT TRUMP WITHOUT US

2313 HAVE PLEDGED THEIR SUPPORT TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE – IF IT’S BERNIE SANDERS
TAKE THE #BERNIEORELSE PLEDGE

> In the 2020 Presidential Election, I refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee unless it's Senator Bernie Sanders.
>
> No party is entitled to my vote. I refuse to "vote blue no matter who." Policy over party.

(From the FAQ section)

**Are you pro-Donald Trump?**
Absolutely not.

Trump style politics are the result of late-stage capitalism and the type of appeasement politics suggested by candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Amy Klobuchar.

The clear answer to defeat Donald Trump (and prevent the rise of an either further right-wing authoritarian) is by nominating Bernie Sanders. The Sanders platform is a clear rebuke of Trumpist policy, uncompromisingly.

**Is this a Russian operation?**
Scapegoating Russia is another example of establishment Democrats failure to recognize the shortcomings of horribly unpopular “moderate” candidates and policies.

Not every “out-of-the-mainstream” viewpoint you find online is a Russian bot.

MitchellHolmgren #racist reddit.com

You miss the most important point. Unlike immigrant countries, extroversion gene is not as prevalent in Asia. And Asian's rigorous education system filters out most people people. The ones who get to study abroad are most likely to be the most introverted ones in an introverted nation. The article states that the Chinese have different definition of friendship, which means that the introverts prefer intimate relationships, deep discussions, and one on one conversations. American party would be a torture for an introvert like me.

Ken Livingstone #moonbat venezuelasolidarity.co.uk

[From "Remembering Hugo Chavez"]

YOU won’t read about it much in those parts of the media currently arguing for war on Venezuela, but when Hugo Chavez first became president in 1999, Venezuela had endured a wave of economic and social catastrophes in the preceding two decades.

Up to seven in 10 people had been left in poverty. Income per head had collapsed to the levels of the 1950s. Millions were left to live in barrios dangerously clinging to the mountainsides, often without clean water or sanitation. Many had no proper access to healthcare and education

After Chavez’s election in 1998 with a 57 per cent vote, he set about his mission to transform the country.

Two key pillars of progressive change in Venezuela were transformations in healthcare and education, funded by a massive programme of wealth redistribution that redirected Venezuela’s oil revenues to collective social purposes.

Under Chavez, the government built thousands of new clinics, hospitals, and diagnostic centres across the country.

Through Mission Barrio Adentro (Into the Neighbourhood Mission), the main healthcare programme established in 2003, care and treatment were provided free. In Chavez’s lifetime it saved as many as 292,000 lives, cut infant mortality by a third and increased life expectancy by over two years. Mission Sonrisa (Mission Smile) provided free dental care, while Mission Milagro (Mission Miracle) restored eyesight to about 300,000 Venezuelans.

In education, tackling illiteracy was an early priority. In just 18 months, 1.6 million adults learned to read and write, two thirds of whom were women. Beyond meeting this basic need, free education at all levels was made a constitutional right.

Investment in education doubled from 3 per cent of GDP in 1999 to 6 per cent of a much greater GDP in 2011, funding provision such as free nurseries, free school meals and the constriction of more than 3,000 new schools and 40 new higher education institutions. Two million children were added to school rolls, a 25 per cent increase.

Millions of adults were also enabled to return to school to complete their basic education, while Unesco data recorded Venezuela as achieving the fifth highest level of university enrolment in the world.

Free education as a legal right was just one measure of a new progressive constitution instituted by Chavez that guaranteed a wide range of human rights and prohibited discrimination. Turning these provisions into everyday reality against a background of decades of deep-rooted discrimination was never going to be easy, but huge advances were made under Chavez’s leadership.

Women were the main beneficiaries of the social programmes tackling poverty and disadvantage, such as entitlements to social security, help to set up small businesses and co-operatives and advancements of women’s rights in the workplace, particularly through the 2012 Labour Law legislation.

Coupled with these material improvements was a drive to ensure that the concerns of women were represented at the heart of the political process. This led to women substantially increasing their representative and leadership roles, particularly in the 35,000 community councils that form the backbone, along with 130,000 grassroots “Bolivarian Circles” in neighbourhoods and workplaces across the country, of Venezuela’s constitutional commitment to being a participatory democracy.

The new progressive constitution also provided protection for indigenous people and those of African descent, within an acknowledged multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Parliamentary political representation was guaranteed; a Ministry for Indigenous People set up in 2007 and service provision such as medical care tailored to meet specific community needs.

Alongside redistributing 1.4 million acres left idle in large landed estates to 15,000 peasant families, Chavez’s government returned one million hectares to indigenous communities through 40 collective title deeds

While a specific law against racial discrimination was passed in 2011, Chavez — proud of his own African heritage — also promoted the celebration of indigenous and African ancestry and culture.

The 1999 constitution’s fundamental provision that “The state shall guarantee to every person, in accordance with the progressive principle and without discrimination, the enjoyment and inalienable, indivisible and interdependent human rights,” also enabled Venezuela’s LGBT communities to strengthen their struggle against homophobia and transphobia.

The 2012 Labour Law explicitly prohibited “exclusion or restriction in access to work and work conditions” based on sexuality, as well as other forms of discrimination.

Chavez’s programme also included advancing rights for disabled people, rooted in the new constitution’s commitment that “any person with disabilities or special needs has the right to the full and autonomous exercise of his or her abilities.” The 2007 Law for Disabled People helped translate this commitment into effect through various measures, not least the establishment of a specific Mission to meet the medical and social needs of disabled people.

Taken together, all these policies had lifted five million Venezuelans out of poverty by 2011 and transformed the lives of many more.

But to help realise his vision that “another world is possible,” not just for Venezuela, Chavez also led the creation of key regional organisations to unite Latin American voices and provide progressive economic alternatives to neoliberalism, such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), a regional bloc made up of 33 nations, and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (Alba), a trade alliance made up of eight countries.

On the global scale, he opposed the disastrous US wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, becoming ever more an enemy of the Bush administration, who (like New Labour’s Denis MacShane) backed the shortly successful coup against him in 2002.
Of course, like any other leader, he made mistakes — and he was known to have regretted not doing more to diversify the economy away from its historical overreliance on oil, which has caused so many difficulties in recent years — but we mustn’t let enemies of socialism delete from history what he achieved.

I was proud to host Chavez as mayor of London when he visited here, and I’m proud to write this article on his achievements and legacy today.

Chavez was the spark for a revival of the Left and Latin American liberation in the 21st century and for that he will always be remembered.

Some commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Percentage of business leadership roles held by women

image

(theWZAoff)
There is actually a fairly noticeable correlation between the promotion of equal gender opportunities and less women in high up positions. It also leads to a smaller percentage of women in STEM fields. The graphic seems to note that. It's interesting.

(sieben-acht)

It’s a phenomenon where you act up to stereotypes you’re exposed to. You tell a girl that everyone in life is against her and people think she sucks at math and no one will ever pay her and they end up being miserable. While an Eastern-bloc girl is told to pass her entrance exams like everyone else and get on with it and they do just as well as their male peers.

Have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps in a perfect country with truly equal opportunity the gender split between things like these won't be 50/50? That perhaps gender is an aspect which fundementally shapes your character and thus affects what kinds of professions you are likely to pursue, even on a biological level, and that trying to superficially impose this 50/50 outcome is the true source of inequality?

(reni-chan)

Inb4 explanation to as why east Europe leading the chart is in reality actually bad and why barbaric and uncivilized east Europeans are actually sexist and misogynist filth.

Yes yes and emancipated west europeans are well known for their honesty and unbiased media!

Here an explanation on why east Europe does so well:

"When interviewed by the Guardian newspaper about life in Poland, Maya Mortensen, a women who grew up under communist rule in the 1950s and 60s, commented: “The regime made absolutely no distinction between men and women. I never even thought about the division – all advance in society was open to men and women equally.”"

Interesting and I didn't even realise it. I was born in mid 90s in Poland and it wasn't until 2006 when I moved to the UK when I became familiar with the terms like gender equality. It was as if someone was trying to explain to me that water is wet or grass is green.

(AnaliaReborn)

I don't feel like this is a common stereotype in Western Europe. Most acknowledge that the former communist countries are ahead in gender equality issues. It's mostly racism and xenophobia which are perceived to be more prevalent in Eastern Europe. Same between west and east Germany.

Okay, but are those same people aware that white supremacy was pretty much a Western thing that didn’t have much to do in east Europe and that there is a reason most Jews and Gypsies lived in east Europe before a German tried to wipe them out from there? There’s a lot of revisionism in the West that tries to paint itself as having a tradition of anti-racism and human rights founded in the Enlightenment yet their concept of anti-racism and human rights is very new and it is already being questioned as a concept with a resurgence of the far-right in the West.

You're the same guy who told me yesterday that black people aren't as French as white people and you come talk to us about racism? You are a great example of a racist.

That’s not racism and I didn’t say that either way.

(Svhmj)
It's probably because of the gender equality paradox.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Nah, the paradox is about STEM fields, it has nothing to do with leadership positions.

The logic is the same tbh. Women don't go into STEM because they don't need to in order to make a decent living the same way women don't get into the highest echelons of bussines because there is no need for it.

Not saying is acurate just that the same logic can be applied fairly easily.

Kajm, Maxm2317, GalvaEmperor, Graeystone, Dagur-Berserker, LipsterLeo, TranquilityBass, and The-Darkwolf #wingnut deviantart.com

(submitter note: its’ Kajm again and his little group of fellow far-right trump loving circle jerkers)

[Kajm’s Journal]
'Impeachment' was a foregone conclusion. They've wanted it since the day he was elected- BECAUSE he was elected, and nothing else.

And now I understand they are stalling on sending it to the Senate and I will tell you why: The Senate will KILL it. There is ZERO chance of it going any further. And that means, the Democrats would be forced to focus upon actually DOING the work they are supposed to be doing, for the American people. Which means MORE WINNING for Trump.

They can't have this. They NEED to keep Trump's 'guilt' in the public eye, right up to the next election. They need people to BELIEVE that there is nothing Legitimate about Trump's presidency.

And that all GOES AWAY if they can't keep 'investigating' and calling witnesses who never saw anything but 'believe' the President acted (pick a crime! ANNNNNNNY crime!).

They are never going to stop. And presenting this to the Senate, is going to punch a massive hole in their narrative, when it FAILS on contact.

(Submitter notes: the comments, let the circle jerk begin!)
Maxm2317: Their narrative will wither up and die faster than any other piece of Democrat legislation that has gone into, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer so often calls it, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Legislative Graveyard.”

Kajm: And Thank God he's buried them.

GalvaEmperor: I hope so. We have very few wins to our name; losing Trump means the left will never stop ruining our lives,
We are dark times my friend

(argument between two users, leading to this)

Dagur-Berserker: False victim narrative? That's what you leftists play all the time about non-white people when you constantly excuse the crime they commit. There isn't even any evidence against Trump. You obviously don't know anything about American politics. All the democrats ever do is attack America.

Greatkingrat88: I'm not even a leftist, dude. I just hate Trump.

Dagur-Berserker: But you've yet to prove that he's done anything wrong.

Graeystone: If anyone thinks this will just stop with just Trump if he somehow magically gets fully impeached had better guess again. VP Pence's head is also on the democrat's chopping block. Line of succession if POTUS can no longer fulfill duties as president-
1) Vice President
2) Speaker of the House of Representative.
Don't like throwing around the C and T words but this does make me wonder what the democrats are actually up to.

LipsterLeo: The Democrats are actually into overthrowing the "racist, unfair" constitution, and throwing America into chaos. They believe, as Marx taught, that out of the ashes, they can build their utopia. Got news for 'em. Me, and 100 million other Americans, are armed and will not be disarmed.

Graeystone: The democrat party was the party that kept slavery going right from the start. When they started to think slavery was going to be gotten rid of, they basically triggered a Civil War. They founded the KKK. They wrote and passed the Jim Crow laws along with all the other 'legalized segregation/discrimination laws'.
As far as an Utopia goes, that is outright impossible. While its possible to imagine a perfect system it is impossible to bring one about because of humanity's imperfect nature. Imperfect people cannot create a perfect system.
Its like the democrats can never accept a good idea and if they do it will only truly benefit them and nobody else.

TranquilityBass: The House is meant to be the place of passion and rhetoric, thus the two year terms. The Senate is meant to be where the grownups live and can take long-term perspectives, thus the six year terms.
Of course, as that one doofus from Texas said, "We can impeach him more than once!" This may be necessary for the Democrats' survival, since wasting time in the House stops good work from being done for the American people. For instance, we currently have the lowest black unemployment ever recorded--but the party of the KKK, of Jim Crow, and of Lester Maddox wants to remove the president who made it so.

The-Darkwolf: Meanwhile Hillary walked away from Criminal negligence violating National Security ("I'm just a girl so I don't get all this technical stuff, but I am WOMAN so you owe me the Presidency!") Obama handed over tens of thousands of military-grade weapons to Narcos, ISIS and other terrorists ("It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I still stand for gun control!") and the collective hive-mind of 70-plus presidential candidates from the party all agree on ending the democratic process of the electoral college so that only Sanctuary Cities will matter during national elections....
The quote I love most was Clinton's campaign manager during the 2016 election finally admitting that America was socially, culturally and politically more divided than at any time since the Civil War... "But it's all the Republican's fault!".... maybe Nancy Pelosi could just order the FBI to open fire on Fort Sumpter and just get on with the inevitable... :shrug:
You gotta understand, I am not a huge Trump fan but at least he's managed to pull up the economy, unemployment is at an major low, based on full-time jobs, not part-time mcjobs and the biggest winners are young African-Americans, and he's pulling the US out of a foreign boondoggle without a hope of resolution. And apparently his great criminal act was to tell a foreign power that he was okay with their already on-going investigation into espionage involving the Democratic presidential frontrunner.....

???? #racist occidentinvicta.com

My roommate works in a warehouse on the west side of Saskatoon and frequently shares anecdotes about work. Upper and middle management are white whereas the guys on the floor are mostly Pakistanis. With the setting laid out, lets proceed. My roommate would often complain about how much he despised the high stress environment at the warehouse, not because of an overbearing management, but because the Pakistani employees simply couldn’t get along with one another. They would gossip, backbite, and constantly undermine each other. Those that are familiar with the cultures of south Asia (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh) will observe that these societies are characterized as low morality and low trust cultures. Small wonder the Pakistanis can’t cooperate with one another in a setting that requires a high degree of trust. Part of the problem lies with their peculiar pattern of communication. South Asians don’t communicate openly and directly, rather, they calibrate their speech to not cause outward offense in order to save face.

In the collectivist cultures of South Asia, Saving face is an important social interaction mechanism aimed at preserving group harmony. I have written about it more extensively here. Requests and demands are obliquely phrased while the appropriate honourifics must be used when addressing others that are of a higher social standing than oneself. So while the white man may treat his south Asian acquaintances equally, those acquaintances may not treat each other the same way and their tribal languages have the functions of hierarchy and status built into them. All of this means that if protocol isn’t observed, causing offense is inevitable; which might disrupt productivity in a work setting. I’m not saying that south Asians aren’t hard working people, quite the contrary as these guys effortlessly complete all their objectives, however foreign values can have a disruptive effect if not dealt with firmly.

My recommendations:

Mandate the exclusive use of English at work: I’m surprised that management never considered this option in the first place. English, and other European languages, are built for the precise and efficient exchange of information, not communicating status. It is a flat language devoid of honourifics that reflects the western values of egalitarianism, equality, and high trust. These values are incompatible with the tribal south Asian values of hierarchy, status, face/honour, and low trust. By enforcing the exclusive use of English at work, management may in time eradicate interpersonal conflict issues amoung their south Asian workforce. Furthermore, the daily use of English for 8 hours a day may (in the long term) make these people more receptive to the western values outlined above. This would hopefully ease their assimilation into mainstream white culture.

Fight diversity with diversity: Why are there so many south Asians at this warehouse to begin with? We need more diversity; hire more whites! Maintaining a healthy ratio of whites to non whites (where whites should be a healthy majority) would aid immigrants acclimate to White culture, its protocols, and etiquette. They might in time learn to function in a high trust environment.

Carl R. Trueman #fundie firstthings.com

The case of Stefonknee Wolscht, the Canadian man who has decided that he is not simply a woman trapped in a man’s body but actually a six year old girl trapped in the same, has attracted some web attention. At first, I thought the story was a hoax but, no, it would appear that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and it is indeed true. Even if a sick joke, however, it would still offer insights into the inner logic of the politics of identity as currently played by the Left. Thus, for example, the U.K.'s Pink News reports that parts of the trans community are upset. Not, of course, at the harm done to Wolscht's wife and children, those symbols of bourgeois oppression who are thus just so much collateral damage in the Glorious Revolution of the Self(ish). No. They are upset because his claim to be a different age “discredits their cause.”

A moment’s reflection would indicate that this condition, whereby a person is really a small child incarcerated within a much older adult body, is increasingly prevalent in today's society. Recent events on the campuses of some of America’s top (sic) universities (sic) clearly show that the transageist community is rapidly growing in size, influence and belligerence. Still, as with all vanguard movements, some opposition is to be expected. The concerned reaction of sections of the transgender community is therefore understandable.

Or is it?

If everything else which shapes our identity can now be determined by mere personal preference, why single out age as an exception? After all, the way we measure time is a human invention. For example, we arbitrarily build our calendar around the earth’s orbit of the sun. I have always thought that this is a somewhat imperialist imposition of heliocentrism on our lives. We also assume that time moves forward, one moment following another, but that too is really a linguistic construct. “Time” is a floating signifier, a patriarchal myth. To coin a term, the old-fashioned idea of linear chronology now represents a somewhat heterotemporal approach to existence, methinks.

So when it comes to transgender people mewling and puking about how Wolscht is trivializing their cause, let me put this as simply and gently as I can: When you decide that categories of identity are merely psychological and that reality is constituted by language, you consequently have neither the right nor the ability to call a halt to the Promethean process which you have unleashed just because some of the results prove to be distasteful to you and unhelpful to your political cause. Indeed, whining like a bunch of, ahem, six year old girls is not going to help you at this point.

Marcus Cicero #racist dailystormer.name

DNA Analysis Proves That Serial Killer “Jack The Ripper” was a Jew

A criminal forensics case more than a hundred years old has at long last been solved using the latest DNA analysis techniques and technology, ending the speculation surrounding the identity of Britain’s most vile serial murderer.

Jack the Ripper was both hated and feared throughout London during his reign of terror at the turn of the twentieth century, with his string of homicides made all the more gruesome by mutilations and sexual perversions that still make one’s stomach uneasy after the passing of generations.

The results obtained from the study of well-preserved crime scene evidence shocked many researchers, matching genetic markers highly prevalent among Jews of Eastern European origin. When compared to the list of suspects, Aaron Kosminski, a creature described as an “insane Polish Jew,” appeared as the almost certain culprit. This was further verified by comparing the samples with those of his living descendants, unfortunately still contaminating English territory.

[...]

Yet again, we are provided with a historical instance that can be roughly summed up in the phrase, “The Jews did it.” Such a series of brutal crimes can be laid square at the feet of a member of the racial group that has wrought so much damage within our societies.

The comical part of this piece is that the personality profile of the killer is actually quite common among Jew populations, with mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia, and sick perversions, more prevalent within their race than among any other people.

One has to imagine the feelings of the White women unfortunate enough to encounter this disgusting creature during their final hours. One cannot reason with a beast that lacks the ability to feel empathy or concern, again a rather “ordinary” trait among the Jews.

image
A rather accurate rendition of Jack the Ripper, that takes into account the recent forensic breakthrough.

Brama #fundie onenewsnow.com

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are already protected under current laws. You can't be discriminated against based on race, color, gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin and age. Which one of those do Homosexuals NOT fall under? Marital Status is not listed because it never is an issue for ANYONE. Homosexuals are not discriminated against just because they can't get married. They have the same right to marry as everyone else. They just don't accept the man & woman definition of marriage. That doesn't mean that they don't have the right to marry. Marriage is not limited to anyone. They just don't want the marriage that is available to them. When the definition of marriage changes, it opens the flood gates of any combination of unions to be legitimately lobbied for: multiple wives, multiple husbands, marriage to animals, etc. Even NAMBLA would have a LEGAL, although morally repugnant, precedence to adult-child marriage. Discrimination in marriage in that instance cannot be partial to anyone or form if you follow the logical repercussions of that argument. But that is an issue that those fighting against traditional marriage want to just ignore and not address.

Phil Phillips #fundie witchvox.com

The occult images found in the Care Bear series are extremely subtle. On the surface, the Care Bears teach the children to express their feelings, especially those of love, to others. At first, these sound like very good ideas, but, they are Humanistic principles, which are in contradiction to God's teachings. Magic and Eastern religious ideals also are prevalent in this series.

Ugly_equals_Death #racist incels.co

Germany is an incel hell, its celebritychad or death here. Germancells go SEA asap

Here you are poor if youre rich, you are small if youre 6'2 your face is shit if its 8/10. Even the 8/10 is a 10 in every other country. The hypergamy is so strong here its like hitlers germany ever genetic weak gets inceled. In nazi times they castrated and gassed nongermans if you were white and decent you were just fine, today they incel you for being 6'2 and not a millionaire jfl. But after all they literally hate everything thats "weak" in there eyes, its deep down in theire minds they are fascists and believe everything the establishment says and naturally hate everyone who rises against or shows weakness.

The school system here is like north korea and the dating market is like sweden or norway. Its the worst of every place.

BUT THERE IS HOPE FOR GERMANCELLS

if youre happen to be a germancell youre maybe not even ugly, youre just ugly for german standards, youre short for german standards and your poor for german standards. But for international standards your a chadlite at least no joke i see it all the time germancell wents outside germany never comes back and lives the life of a god.

Just leave germany and went to asia africa or some other shithole. You will be one of the tallest richest and well aducated people there. Just take some foreign foid and never go back again. But you need balls for this and preperation.

If you leave and come back you failed you can try again in an other county maybe it works.

If you dont try, sorry to say this but you deserve inceldom and will work in the incelmines for the shekels of someone else and it will be your fault you have no balls and deserve this shitlife of an neutered slave you live.

I will leave soon and just be fine you will see if ill make it and ascend i will inform you. If i dont make it i will try again and again. Its just over when you give up or the nail hits the coffin.

But if your under 5'8" or an ethnic its over anyway teehee.

John Guandolo #conspiracy rightwingwatch.org

Appearing on the “Stand In The Gap” radio program earlier this week, anti-Islam activist John Guandolo suggested that Trump administration adviser Sebastian Gorka may in fact be a radical Islamist plant.

Guandolo, a disgraced former FBI agent who now serves as a right-wing anti-Islam activist, was discussing a battle that he and other radical anti-Islam activists like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are waging against Muslim activist Zuhdi Jasser, after Jasser labeled extremist activists like them “Alt-jihadists” who “support, empower, flaunt, and legitimize Islamist radicals and their leaders by branding all Muslims and all Islam as one and the same, and deeming us all to be enemies of freedom.”

Gorka, who is currently at the center of a separate controversy over his ties to a Nazi-affiliated group, was a well-known anti-Islam activist in his own right before being tapped to serve as a deputy assistant to President Trump. But now Guandolo is raising questions about Gorka’s loyalty because Gorka and Jasser spoke together at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month.

When Gary Dull, one of the co-hosts of the “Stand In The Gap” program, asked Guandolo whether it was possible that both Jasser and Gorka could be “plants by the jihadists,” Guandolo said that it was quite likely that Jasser was running a stealth jihadi influence operation on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic movement.

Guandolo then stated that when it comes to Gorka, he “has his own very significant national security problematic issues.”

“I don’t think that it’s out of the realm [of possibility] that there are deeper national security problems with him,” Guandolo said, “and I would love to see a deep analysis of his background and a deep analysis of exactly what’s behind what he’s doing. I think that your question opens up the door for more questions … There are a lot of questions about his background.”

Guandolo warned people not to be fooled by Gorka’s seemingly hard-line views about Islam because “it sounds good, but this is why information operations and propaganda work.”

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

I’ve had the opportunity to get to know some of the different varieties of feminism as it is understood in different parts of the world. In truth, feminism is looked upon with abhorrence by the vast majority of the world’s population. Even most Americans – including women – refuse to identify with it, and other than in the Nordic countries it is perhaps most popular in the US. In most of the global South, which includes the bulk of the world’s people, feminists are seen as borderline criminals, and certainly bizarre, depraved women.

And I would definitely agree with my Asian, African and Latin American friends in that regard…

However, even I have to admit that there are certain kinds of feminism that just aren’t as vicious, cruel and horribly effective as our own variety has been.

Take FEMEN and Pussy Riot for example. Both are examples of Eastern European feminism, and as obscene and repugnant as they can be, the net effect of their actions has been remarkably tame. Even their anti-religious stunts – hate crimes, really – have been little more than petty vandalism and hooliganism. Contrast that to our own “Christian feminism” that has all but subverted the Christian faith in a number of denominations. Or the feminism that laid waste to Reform Judaism, and threatens to do the same to Conservative Judaism. It wouldn’t even surprise me to see a form of feminist Islam openly emerge in the near future. This is a distinctly Anglo phenomenon.

David A. Noebel #fundie thunderontheright.wordpress.com

[From "Christian Worldview Ministry Needs Your Help!"]

A number of years ago I was speaking with Dr. James Dobson when the issue of our various ministries came up…when do we know it is time to closehome-crosses up shop! Jim said that is easy—when our supporters fail to support. At that time we know it’s time to quit.

Of course, he was thinking of Focus on the Family and I was thinking of Summit Ministries. He retired out of Focus and I retired out of Summit, but what we talked about still holds true with our present organizations.

And I would certainly quit if I knew our Christian Anti-Communism Crusade family of supporters ceased supporting us. BUT THEY ARE NOT! We are still meeting our bills from month to month and for that I am indeed more than grateful, pleased and encouraged.

And, therefore, plan to keep our doors open to The Schwarz Report, Thunderontheright.wordpress.com (our blog), You Can Still Trust the Communists (to be Communists), The Naked Truth, etc. etc.

However, I need to clarify an issue. Because a number of our supporters work for the federal, state and local governments they cannot write a check made out to the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. All three names—Christian, Anti-Communism, and Crusade—are politically incorrect. Therefore, we have registered the name Christian Worldview Ministry in the state of Colorado as a d/b/a (doing business as). Checks made out in this name will be accepted as though made out to CACC. Because CACC is the 501©3 organization receipts will bare this name.

Because “Christian” is the major emphasis in our name we are extremely interested in everything that affects our Christian faith and Christian worldview. I’m sure you noticed that both Islam and Communism (Marxism/Leninism) are two worldviews that have declared Christianity their # 1 enemy. Yet some are misreading the roles being played out by Islam and the Left.

As I write our federal government has placed a number of radical Muslims in strategic positions. It appears that the federals are taking after Bill Clinton’s example of hiring such radicals. Clinton placed a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Gehad el-Haddad, smack into his Foundation. Unfortunately, Gehad has been arrested in Cairo for his radicalism. (See The Washington Beacon, September 18, 2013)

Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America, has been named to the Department of Homeland Security (along with another Muslim, Arif Alikhan). In that role Magid was able to erase from its “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum “any suggestion that Muslim terrorism draws its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam.” (See DiscoverTheNetworks.org—Mohamed Magid)

If that isn’t enough there is also Mohamed Elibiary, named by President Obama to the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010 and recently promoted to a Senior Fellow position. Pam Geller says that Elibiary is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. And Frank Gaffney’s “Muslim Brotherhood in America” details the importance of such a sensitive position. Elibiary, for example, was a guest speaker at a December 2004 conference in Dallas, titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” which was held in honor of the late Ayatollah Khomeini (the iconic jihadist).

Or Eboo Patel, a Muslim, was appointed by President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. It is important to understand that Patel describes the revolutionary communist Van Jones as an “American patriot,” a “faith hero,” and one of the “true giants of history.” To understand the connection between these radical brothers (Islamists and Reds) read the following carefully…

“In 2005 Patel and several young radicals co-authored the book Letters from Young Activists: Today’s Rebels Speak Out. Among Patel’s co-authors were Chesa Boudin (the adopted son of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers) and Ismail Khalidi (the son of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi). The book’s Preface was written by Ayer’s wife, Weather Underground co-founder Bernardine Dohrn. The back cover featured an endorsement from the convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Party member Mumia Abu-Jamal. And on the Acknowledgments page, Patel and his fellow authors thanked Ayers personally for the ‘guidance’ and ‘encouragement’ he had provided.” (DiscoverTheNetwork.org—Eboo Patel)

Is it any wonder that Andrew C. McCarthy writes, “With their collectivist philosophy, transnational outlook, totalitarian demands, and revolutionary designs, Islamists are natural allies of the radical Left.” (The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, p. 163) Jamie Glazov in his United In Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror speaks to this same combination of Islam and Communists and their love of totalitarianism, transnationalism, and terror.

But most writers who cover both of these terror-filled worldviews fail to tell the truth about their killings of Christians.

World magazine writer, Mindy Belz, puts it like this: “Why do we Americans persistently underestimate the evil that men do, and the evil of Islamic terrorism? We who lived through its destruction in lower Manhattan now watch as it turns the streets of Cairo into a fiery hell. In parts of Syria Christians dare not leave their homes. The terrorists’ dark resolve, to paraphrase Shakespeare, comes hot from hell and slips the dogs of war until carrion men are groaning for burial. It shoots pastors at point-blank range, leaving their children to watch and suffer. After that, it hunts child and mother, not content with the hundreds who have been slaughtered in between.” (September 7, 2013)

Bruce Thornton writing in a Hoover Institutional Journal (July 25, 2013) says, “Few people realize that we are today living through the largest persecution of Christians in history, worse than the Roman emperors like Diocletian and Nero…a Christian is martyred every five minutes.”

Thornton says that this martyrdom has been in practice since the “Conditions of Omar” have been promulgated since the seventh century. These conditions ”proscribed building churches or repairing existing ones, performing religious procession in public, exhibiting crosses, praying near Muslims, proselytizing, and preventing conversion to Islam, in addition to rules governing how Christians should dress, comport themselves, and treat Muslims.” If Christians refuse—“it is the sword without leniency.”

That’s the legacy of the Muslims.

Even Liberal TV host Bill Maher speaks some truth to this situation. “There’s only one faith,” says Maher, “that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam.” (World magazine, May 18, 2013, p. 4)

But there’s more…

“There were likely twice as many martyrs in the twentieth century than in the previous nineteen centuries of Christian history combined. The great majority of these twentieth century martyrs gave their lives for Christ at the hands of communism.” (George Weigel, First Things, April 2011, p. 29)

That’s the legacy of the Communists.

But the historical truth is that the Muslims make the Communists appear to be second class murderers. Missionary Peter Hammond puts this in perspective: “The persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in Western circles. Over thirteen centuries of religious discrimination and persecutions, causing the suffering, oppression, murder and enslavement of countless millions has been buried under a thick whitewash of myths of ‘Islamic tolerance.’”

Hence, the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade plans to stay on top of both these worldviews as well as defending our own Christian worldview. When it comes to Jesus Christ, Karl Marx or Mohammad it isn’t even close. And while Jesus hasn’t asked us to “save” the world (He’s already done that); he has asked us to be his witness in this world and that entails being a truth teller.

And we want you, our supporters and friends, to be a part of this ministry. Although we write you but once a year asking for some financial help we do have needs to cover. So I am asking each one receiving this brief letter and reading The Schwarz Report or reading our daily blog (Thunderontheright.wordpress.com) to help us with a gift of $5, $10, $50 or $100 for the upcoming year. This will cover our expenses. This will make your humble servant—more humble!!

Looking forward to hearing from you, I am…

Sincerely yours,

David A. Noebel, President
Christian Anti-Communism Crusade
Christian Worldview Ministry

If anyone reading these blogs, sponsored by the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, would enjoy supporting the organization, checks may be made out to either Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (CACC) or Christian Worldview Ministry and sent to P. O. Box 129, Manitou Springs, Colorado 80829 OR you may donate by visiting the following link: The Schwartz Report Online.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is Polygamy Next?

For years I’ve been saying that once you open the door to redefine marriage, where do you stop? Well, that’s already starting to happen since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision to legalize gay “marriage” in June. After all, if “love wins,” as gay “marriage” activists say, then by this line of thinking why shouldn’t “love win” in cases of polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia? As soon as you get rid of an absolute standard—God’s Word—anything and everything goes with regard to marriage. It’s just like Scripture says, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

Well, the Browns, a polygamous family made popular by the reality TV show Sister Wives, says the SCOTUS ruling “shows that laws restricting consensual adult relationships are outdated, even if certain unions are unpopular.” Now, the Browns are currently in court “defending a legal victory they won in 2013, when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah’s law banning polygamy.” The Browns are not seeking to have polygamy legalized, but just to uphold this court ruling that would allow them all to live together without fear of arrest. But court cases like this raise the question of when a polygamous family will decide to fight for the legalization of polygamy. With the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry since the new philosophy in our culture is “as long as they love one another”? Again, without an absolute authority you can’t call anything right or wrong!

But polygamy—and other perversions of marriage—are wrong, and we as Christians can say so because we have the authoritative Word from the Creator of marriage. You see, Genesis describes the creation of marriage. It is not something that evolved or that society or a government invented. It’s an institution created by God,

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:27–28)

Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:

This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22–24)

In Matthew 19, Jesus quotes from Genesis 2 (one flesh) as the basis for marriage being a male and female—one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–7).

Some erroneously believe that the Bible endorses polygamy because of clear occurrences of it in the Old Testament. But the cases mentioned in detail actually point to the sinfulness of mankind and negative consequences of such situations. God created marriage, and He designed it for one man and one woman for life. Because we have the absolute standard of God’s Word, we can authoritatively declare certain behaviors and practices to be wrong because our Creator says that they are wrong. As Christians, we need to boldly stand on the authority of God’s Word and defend biblical marriage as we act as salt and light in a dying world. You can also read this article on the Answers in Genesis website about whether the Bible condones polygamy.

Those who reject God’s Word as the absolute authority have to live inconsistently in this world. If there is no absolute authority, then who draws the lines in regard to moral issues—and why? Who sets and standards and why? Ultimately, the culture will become like that described in the book of Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Bryan Fischer #fundie barbwire.com

[On the 2015 San Bernardino shooting:]

President Obama, of course, was quick to blame guns (all of which in this case were legally purchased) and to say the solution is to do something about guns. No, Mr. President, the problem is not guns. The problem is Islam, and the solution is to do something about Islam. The key is not getting control of guns, it's getting control of Islam. That's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism.

[...]

If the problem is Islam, then we are wasting our time and our breath if proposed solutions do not deal directly with limiting and reversing the spread of Islamic ideology in the United States. Suspending Islamic immigration altogether must be on the table, as well as aggressive surveillance of mosques and the Muslim community. The wisdom of granting permits to build even one more mosque in America must be part of the discussion.

The Center for Security Policy has determined that 80% of all the mosques in America promote jihad, either through literature or invited speakers. And since these are the most popular mosques, 95% of all Muslims who attend mosques on a weekly basis attend one of these jihadist-promoting houses of worship.

[...]

The point here is that there is no way to tell when the next Muslim will develop sudden jihad syndrome. It is perfectly irrelevant to the families of the 14 dead that only a small minority of Muslims are capable of such murderous violence.

President Obama is determined to bring 10,000 additional Syrian refugees to America, despite the widespread support among the Syrian people for ISIS. We have no way of knowing how many of such refugees - or any other Muslim immigrants, for that matter - will be infected with the jihadist virus.

Imagine for the sake of argument that someone offered to send you and your family 10,000 M&M's. But, by the way, they tell you, ten of them contain a lethal poison that will kill you, and we can't tell you which ten they are. In fact, the chemical composition of these M&M's is such that some of them might even turn poisonous after they get to your house. And I'm sorry, but we have no foolproof way of identifying which M&M's you have to worry about and which ones you don't. Now would you accept the shipment? Of course not.

[...]

God has already answered our prayers for protection. He's given us his Word, which indicates that Islam is a religion from hell and should not be embraced by any rational society. But we spurn his gift. We don't read his Word and we certainly don't heed it.

He's given us a Constitution which permits our government to seal our borders from carriers of the Islamic virus. But we are so blinded by political correctness that we don't do it.

And, according to Romans 13, he's given us a government with his delegated authority to use lethal force to protect our citizens from the Islamic threat. And yet our political leaders are so paralyzed by political correctness they won't even use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" let alone use the God-ordained power of civil government to do something about it.

If we don't use the resources God had given us in response to our prayers, we can hardly blame him when we get cut down at our Christmas parties.

Phil Elmore #fundie wnd.com

The latest deviancy they're trying to mainstream

Exclusive: Phil Elmore sees 'furry' perversion as next crack in society's foundation

Emily Gaudette, writing for Inverse, said it best early last month: “When Disney released an explanatory teaser for 2016’s ‘Zootopia,’ one could almost hear the sound of a billion DeviantArt accounts whirring to life. … The film’s teaser alone reads like an explanation of the furry manifesto: that anthropomorphized animals can be sexualized and identified with as easily as humans. … Could it be a coincidence that Disney chose a fox protagonist for its first fully anthro feature, considering foxes are arguably the most popular ‘fursona’ cited by furries? Many furries name the hero of Disney’s animated Robin Hood, also a fox, when recalling their first sexual feelings for anthropomorphized animals.”

Wait, what? Yes, you read that correctly: Disney’s new film, “Zootopia,” is arguably an attempt to mainstream “furry” sexuality – the practice of dressing up in fuzzy animal mascot costumes in order to engage in one’s perverted, prurient practices. This column has profiled the intersection between “furry” perversion and left-wing politics before. Already, the “otherkin” movement, in which various losers redefine themselves in terms of the animals and fantasy characters with which they “identify,” are posting lists of their preferred pronouns on their self-absorbed blogs. That’s where it starts. The more society in general becomes aware of this movement, the more it will creep into the mainstream of popular culture. Once lodged there, it will be impossible to root out, and society will be that much weaker for it.

When the debate over Obamacare produced the “Pajama Boy” meme, right-thinking people reacted in horror at the emasculation this imagery represented. It juvenilized young adults in a way that any real grownup would find repugnant. That is, after all, what the push toward societal acceptance – be it for furries, “otherkin,” “bronies,” transgenders, or some other sexually delusional perversion – is all about. If masculinity is the fuel on which society runs, on which innovation occurs, on which industries are built and on which wars are fought to protect a free people, then feminism, liberalism, furries, bronies, transgenders and the Star Wars cantina of progressive freaks with body image issues and self-esteem deficits is the sugar in society’s gas tank. Progressives hate themselves, so they invent new sexual personas and new deviancies to keep themselves entertained. Liberals hate families and decency, so they champion sexual perversion and child molestation while holding it up as viable “other” sexuality. Can there really be any doubt that the majority of “furries” are likely pedophiles?

As social media is used to promulgate countless delusional, perverted indulgences, society suffers. By embracing “furries” and other perverts, we are producing a population of incapable, weak-minded children. As our culture sags under the weight of these useless Pajama Boys and Pajama Girls, it is no wonder, then, that our foundations are beginning to show serious cracks. The mainstreaming of “furries” is the furthering of liberal destruction of society. It presages the extinction of the rational, responsible adults who once formed the backbone of our nation. This destruction started on social media, and it is there that this battle was, is and will be fought.

Siberiandragon #fundie reddit.com

I definitely think the materialism that is prevalent in Asian cultures creates a lot of strife between Asian men and women and has been at the heart of Asian feminism and low marriage and birth rates in Northeast Asia. That's the main reason why I suggested pursuing an Eastern European woman because Eastern Europe is the one area that has not been affected by feminism on a large scale and so their women are still mostly traditional and feminine.

High Priest Mageson 666 #conspiracy angelfire.com

The whole point of the attacks are most likely to legitimatize further military involvement in the Jewish started war in Syria. The French polls showed the majority of French where against such maybe till this event. It’s a French 911. I have written before the Jews are trying to use Syria as the spark for WW3 there are Russian, Chinese, Iranian and N.Korean troops now in Syria with Assad. And America has literally put American troops in Islamic Jihad lines to make it harder for Russia to bomb them with Air Strikes the British Air Force has been armed with anti-aircraft missiles and ordered to fire on Russian planes. And now the Jihadist forces in Syria shot the Russian passenger plane down over the ME. So there are NATO troops along side the Jihad forces in Syria. There are no moderate rebels this is a lie. The secular rebels are Islamic Jihadists who want to create Islamic Syria. The head of the Free Syrian Army is openly allies with the head of ISIS. He called them "Brothers". The Jews are looking to create a series of trigger events between the super powers in Syria. Obama their puppet has already pushed at China with American Warships in the east. And China has taken Island's and turned them into foreword basis for a military strike against NATO basis in the east.

There are two sides in this coming WW3 Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Against NATO. As mentioned Jew run China has plans for an all-out attack and invasion on America they are willing to take massive losses for victory against America. Russia is allies with North Korea and China and Chinese troops have been training with Russian forces on European soil for a war with NATO. Japan a NATO nation is rearming at an alarming rate because they know a war with China and North Korea is coming.

The Jews need another World War for the same reason they started the other two. To create a World Jewish dictatorship and totally destroy the White Race and enslave the other races. Which is the whole point of Judaism and the Torah is the blue print for. The White Race is the only major obstacle in their way of global rule as they state. It was White resistance that smashed their Communist machine in Europe and around the world. The Far East will be Communist forever. It was the White Race that offered the successful resistance.

Joseph Backholm #fundie fpiw.org

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

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

Sounds fun, right?

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

The jizya is a tax for not being Muslim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And of course he’s right.

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

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

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

Dhimmitude is for jihadists, not for Americans.

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

If I had a dollar for every time Bill Maher got more cheers from conservatives than liberals, I’d almost have enough for a Little Ceasars Hot-N-Ready. Yet Maher is getting support from several conservative quadrants for his bold and non-compromising stance on the inherently violent nature of Islam.

It’s kind of amusing how host Charlie Rose keeps throwing Maher a lifeline (how many times does he say something like, “But you’re not really saying…”). Maher doesn’t take the hint, though; he doubles down, especially when Rose tries to make Christianity as primed for radicalization as Islam:

Maher: There are illiberal beliefs, that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people…

Rose: Christians too

Maher: No, that’s not true. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion, you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ, you should get killed…Would most Muslim people condone [ISIS]? No, but most Muslim people in the world do condone violence for what you think.

Atheist Sam Harris agreed with Maher on his show recently, much to the animated dismay of actor Ben Affleck.

Affleck, however, called these characterizations “gross and racist” and argued that Maher and Harris were just conflating the minority views of radical jihadists with the beliefs of the rest of the world’s estimated 1.6 billion Muslims

I’ve seen a lot of posts from fellow Christians and conservatives saying something like, “Never thought I’d agree with Bill Maher,” or, “Maher gets it right for once.” Maher doesn’t like Christians–even in the Rose interview he makes a point of saying that all religions are stupid–but in this instance, he seems to be getting some unrequited support.

Carol Brown #fundie americanthinker.com

As the Islamic invasion advances, mosques are proliferating across the United States at breakneck speed. And there appears to be no end in sight.

Since 9/11, the number of mosques in America has grown by 75%. The timing of this is no coincidence. Mosques are a symbol of Islamic supremacism. Islam attacks. Then it plants a triumphal mosque on the battlefield. And another. And another. And another.

The proliferation of mosques is also a sign of our incomprehensible response (or lack thereof) to the threat of Islam.

War has been waged against the United States and what have we done? We have welcomed the enemy with open arms. Dhimmitude has paved the way for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new mosques since the day nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam.

If we don’t put an end to this madness, we will ensure the continued assault against us – an assault that, ultimately, will spare no one. (Do you hear that, dhimmis? That includes you.)

Mosques pose a dual risk to Americans. First there is the nature of what is preached inside the walls of the mosque. Second is the nature of the walls themselves.

As to the first point, recent studies show that 80% of mosques preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials) and that more than 95% of Muslims attend such mosques.

But the horror doesn’t end there as one considers the issue of funding. While many Muslims claim they raise the money for mosques within the local community, there is reason to doubt this assertion in many cases. Common sense alone would cause one to question how, for example, tiny communities of Muslims could raise millions of dollars to built gigantic mosques. Common sense aside, there is evidence that shows that 80% of mosques in this country receive funds from Saudi Arabia.

[...]

Do you see a pattern here? It’s the same pattern we see with all aspects of the growing Caliphate as Islam spreads outward from the Middle East to engulf more and more nations. And toward that end there is the ever-present mosque – a place where jihad is preached and in some cases, a place from which the jihadist attack is launched. (If the idea of having jihad attacks launched from mosques across America does not seem plausible, in addition to pondering what I just wrote, look into the 3 stages of jihad.)

[All hyperlinks in original]

Andrew Anglin #racist dailystormer.name

Poll: 16% of Americans Want to Go Live in Another Country

I think it is safe to assume that 100% of these people are white, because immigrants surely don’t want to leave. And black people sure as hell don’t – they’re barely aware that other countries even exist. In fact, I don’t think you could really say that they are “aware” of that fact, because it becomes too abstract to imagine somewhere they’ve never seen as being real.

So if 16% of the total and only white people answered yes, then that means… do the math.

Probably about a third of whites said “yes, I would like to move to another country.”

Blaming this on Donald Trump is insane. Typical HuffPo gibberish.

Nothing has changed since he has been President, other than that things have gotten much more Jewish because Jews have lost their minds and flexed their muscles.

I cannot imagine that a single liberal can name a single way in which their own personal life has been negatively affected by the Trump Presidency, at all. Let alone in such a large way that they feel they need to flee the country.

It certainly has negatively affected the lives of conservative white people – because again, Jews have lost their minds, they’re clamping down on everything.

Maybe the women said they want to leave because of Trump, because they felt they were morally obligated to say that. I don’t know. Nor do I care about what women think.

But a lot of the men answering they want out is simply because the US has become a shithole country.

I haven’t lived in the US really at all in my adult life, and I miss my people but I’m not sitting around longing to go back.
No Freedoms

People hate living in America because there aren’t any freedoms.

We’re actually living under an extreme form of brutal Jewish tyranny.

For as much as the ostensible American vision is about “freedom,” there is hardly a country on earth that has less freedom than America.

The only “freedoms” that exist that don’t exist in alleged “dictatorships” are “freedoms” to be deviant and depraved – stuff that should be illegal.

In America, you have the freedom to:

Do man on man anal masturbation
March around naked
Be a Moslem
Produce, distribute, consume pornography
Inject your son with estrogen
Inject yourself with fentanyl
Smoke marijuana
Own guns (restrictions apply)

In America, you do not have the freedom to:

Live in a homogeneous community
Send your kids to a homogeneous school
Pray at school
Refuse vaccinations
Drive around without being threatened and harassed by police
Post your views on the internet
Go to a brothel
Go camping on public land
Not have health insurance
Demonstrate in public without fear of being physically attacked and then charged with crimes
Have sex without fear of being charged with fake rape and sent to prison
Safely get married without fear of being divorce-raped
Do anything at all without some license
Hire employees based on merit or other employer preference
Buy bump stocks
Not bake an anal cake

In China, you have the freedom to:

Drive around without being threatened and harassed by police
Drive through any neighborhood without fear of being shot by black people
Walk around at night without fear of being attacked by black people
Post your views on the internet (everything except anti-government)
Keep your bar open as long as you want
Beat your wife (within reason, restrictions apply)
Start your own small business without being taxed to death
Go to a brothel
Live in safe, homogenous communities
Work and make a good living
Get married without fear that the government will give all of your money and your children to your wife in the event of a divorce
Smoke cigarettes in coffee shops and bars
Do things without being asked for a license
Hire whoever you want
Bake cakes for whoever you want

In China, you do not have the freedom to:

Criticize the government
Own a handgun without a license
Do man on man anal masturbation
Produce, distribute, consume pornography
Be a Moslem

So I mean, I don’t know – it’s not exactly a math equation, but it would be a hard argument to make that you actually have MORE freedom in the USA than you do in China. Certainly, on a day-to-day basis, you feel a lot more free in China than you do in America.

Though this is not exactly specific, in America, you have a constant feeling that there is pressure pushing down on you from all directions, and you do not have that in China. At least not as a foreigner. Chinese people do feel a lot of pressure from their parents.

Overall, the argument that there is a higher level of freedom in America than in China or whichever other country is demonized as a non-freedom country by America is stupid, and I think a lot of people feel very oppressed in America.
The Browning

I haven’t lived in America in a very long time, but I talk to people, and everyone says that all these places I grew up in are now overrun with various “New Americans.”

We know that diversity creates a feeling of alienation, and I imagine people want to escape that.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the number one reason that ex-pats give for having left the West is immigration. Granted, that is usually Europeans rather than Americans, because there aren’t very many American ex-pats, relatively. But clearly, the same principle applies.

So I would not be at all surprised if a lot of men answering this poll were responding to immigration. Even if they aren’t consciously aware of it, or willing to admit it, this is the thing that is changing America. Donald Trump – regrettably – is not changing America.

That’s how we all feel. But much worse.

It is deep, soul-crippling alienation.

So it really isn’t a surprise that people want to get out of this mess. Especially when all of these social-engineering programs have successfully broken down family ties.

America was the best country that ever existed, and these kikes have wrecked it completely.

It hurts me to think about what they took from us.

underverse #fundie mmo-champion.com

f an underage girl pursued an older male and she initiated sex with him and they both consented, enjoyed it, and she was not traumatized by the experience, then is it still wrong, is anyone really hurt, or is there even a victim at all? The same for an underage male pursuing an older female?

On topic, no there's no damage caused. There's no victim. We just have religious/puritan roots and tolerate sexual interactions to only the most necessary degree.

Can't consent according to the law of most civilized countries.

The difference is that 2 16 year olds have a pretty similar power balance, whereas a 16 and a 21 year old have a completely different one.

Power imbalance is inherent to the vast majority of relationships and is actually a good thing in most cases. It increases the risk of abuse, but it also increases the reward for the weaker party as they are able to obtain extensive resources and knowledge through their power imbalance relationship.

When you consider things like attraction, though, power imbalances generally disappear.

the law dictates that kids are complete absolute 100% dumb fucks.

Kids are deemed so stupidly retarded they cant even answer a simple question 'yes or no' regarding sex


Oh but they can. They can consent to sexual activities with other people their age who are, apparently, just as clueless as they are. An then people wonder why teenage pregnancy and STDs are so prevalent.

If anything, age differences in relationships are safety nets.

Besides if any adult decides to mess with my Daughters, regardless of who initiated the contact, they better invest in some soap on a rope. I'll make damn sure that fucker ends up behind bars.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the parallels with fathers who would say the same thing about a black man 'messing with their daughters' not too long ago are pretty overt.

ut the man opens himself up to a world of hurt should the girl regret her decision, and the law is in place to just give a clear-cut line where it's not any use in saying "but he/she wanted it too!" for the adult. It's to stop adults from taking advantage of young people.

I never understood this argument. When I was younger, I was in a relationship with someone 7 years older than me, for 2 years. I had basically all of the power in that relationship, for a few reasons: one, I could leave whenever I wanted to, and as the object of desire my basis for remaining in the relationship did not involve attraction, but rather behaviors and stability. Two, our culture hates it when older people are in relationships with younger people for some shitty reason, so if anything went wrong I would have the full support of everyone around me. In short, I couldn't be in the wrong, and that gave me a significant amount of power.

If anything, it's the younger person that's taking advantage of the older one. The older one gets some eye candy and maybe fulfills their desire to provide and protect, while resources and knowledge are transferred to the younger one.

The damage people experience as a result of such relationships is largely an outcome of societal condemnation. If you remove a minor's agency and condemn their behaviors - even if they are not responsible for it - you will damage how they view themselves and relationships. That's right - WE are responsible more than the 'perpetrator' of the act for the damage caused by these relationships (in most cases, not all). The only reason I have a solid mental state and positive image of myself and relationships after coming out of that relationship is that I don't give a single fuck about what other people think. I used to, but not anymore after I realized how destructive other people can be just with their opinions, and especially to an underdeveloped mind as my own was when I had to think about these kinds of things at 15.

I want to reduce damage. I also want people to be able to acquire resources and stability if they so choose. Living in a society that condemns relationships with large age differentials and illegalizes them in some cases does neither.

I was in a sexual mentoring relationship with someone significantly older then me. It worked well for me, gave me an edge over my peers, and is party responsible for my success. I'm still good friends with the guy, and though I am not interested in a sexual relationship with him any more he still provides me with guidance. I would not have been able to obtain all of the knowledge and resources I did without the relationship being sexual; it wouldn't have been worth it for him, and I didn't mind/enjoyed it after a few times.

Brother Nathanael Kapner #fundie realjewnews.com

"States Rights" IS our last protection against the FEDERALIZED JEW agenda.

JEWS have taken TOTAL CONTROL of the CENTRAL Government and DEEPLY EMBEDDED in every political, juridical, financial, and information venue in this JEW-RUINED country.

Now the wicked FREEDOM-HATING, TRUTH-HATING, MORALITY-CORRUPTING (for the goys) want to shove their HOMOSEXUAL depravity "same=sex" marriages down our throats by DENYING states to BAN morally repugnant same-sex marriages.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to mitigate the "death penalty" for homosexual acts, wanted to have the homosexuals CASTRATED.

But today, with JEWS infesting our court system, everything the Founding Fathers envisiones and enscribed BY LAW has morphed into a "Living Constitution" where SICK JEWS twist and turn the ORIGNINAL INTENT of our founding document, the US Constitution.

Woe to your country when Jews, queers, and women, rule over you!

David J. Stewart #sexist jesusisprecious.org

Women Have Significantly More Mental Problems Than Men

Don't get mad at me ladies, I'm just giving you THE FACTS! Look at this nutcase in the photo to the right! (Click on the photo, go ahead, see what she is bragging about!) According to a 2016 medical study in England, women have significantly more mental problems than men...

Women are more likely to have mental health problems than men, with young women at particularly high risk, the biggest survey of mental health disorder and treatment in England has found.

The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, conducted every seven years and based on interviews with a cross section of the general population aged 16 and over, found that one in six adults (17%) had a common mental disorder—one in five women (20.7%) and one in eight men (13.2%).1 Common mental disorders were classified as generalised anxiety disorder, depression (including mild, moderate, and severe), phobias, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and non-specified disorder.

The prevalence of mental health problems has been growing since the survey was first undertaken in 1993. ...

SOURCE: https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i5320

Read about the insane wife of Evangelist Ted Pike! Sadly, she ended up committing suicide. I am not down on women, God forbid. I am simply pointing out that women today are MESSED-UP, largely due to feminist indoctrination by the Rockefellers. The average churchgoing female doesn't even realize that she is also a victim of feminist re-engineering! Proof of what I say is that there are MILLIONS of young single women today, many of whom were mothers before they dropped out of high school, and now they cannot find a man foolish enough to raise their bastard children!

This includes messed-up Christian women, who are so liberated and messed-up these days that they cannot find a husband! Many women in churches today are unfriendly, ungrateful, snobby, self-righteous and unapproachable. They want a perfect man who doesn't exist. They are too darn picky, and they'll end up as an old maid in just a skip and a hop in time. We live in perilous times of effeminate queers, murdering abortionists, perverted sodomites legally adopting children, rebellious wives filing for divorce, and single Christian women who are spoiled little brats! Romans 3:18, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

RCQ_92130 #fundie barbwire.com

No one in the civil rights movement, apart from Black panthers and that ilk, were devoted to evil and destruction as is GayGestapo. Blacks simply wanted an end to racial discrimination and to be left alone to live their lives in peace. The same can hardly be said about GayGestapo. Your fellow travelers, being demonic, rage filled haters, will NEVER be satisfied. With each new conquest the thirst for destruction simply grows.

I used to believe the pendulum would right itself, but no longer. I now believe sodomites are INCAPABLE of controlling themselves and their rage. As a result, they will continue to attack and destroy until open warfare finally results. Of course, that will not bode well for the 1.6% of the population side ... and even a smidgen of sanity would cause your side to moderate it's behavior and avoid annihilation. But, as I said, I think GayGestapo is fully demonic and unable to do so, even to save it's own existence.

Brother Nathanael Kapner #fundie realjewnews.com

In April, the Supreme Court decides if states have the right to ban same-sex marriage.

If the court denies that right then "States Rights" are over forever and only a federal ruling class will henceforth decide what states and individuals of those states can and cannot do.

With four Jews on the highest bench holding a pro-same-sex stance, the death of liberty is only one month away.

[...]

The Founding Fathers considered sodomy and same-sex relations as morally repugnant crimes.

That's why the Thirteen States adopted British sodomy laws which carried the death penalty.

But this is not what the debate is about. It's not a "14th Amendment" debate. It's not an 'animus' debate. It's a States Rights issue. Period.

What people do in private will have repercussions for them.

You want to be a homosexual, go ahead. But don't override States Rights, our last shelter of freedom.

Come April, "States Rights" is about to be sodomized forever.

B Woodman #fundie thisainthell.us

Let’s see if I can come up with something that will offend as many people as possible. . . ..
AS it can be shown that most “mass” shootings are connected with some form of mental disturbance or illness. . . .
AND it can be shown that many, many forms of mental illness/disturbance are connected to Libtardism (“progressivism”) and/or religious fanaticism. (I leave it as an exercise for the readers to show the chain between Libtardism and religious fanaticism, with The State being the Libtard’s religion of choice).
SINCE State Religion Libtardism, and Islam jihadism seem to be the primary culprits in these current spate of mass shootings,
THEN restrict the purchasing of guns from Libtards and muzzies.
TO MAKE a list of either/both:
IF you have voted DemonRat in both of the last two FedGov elections (i.e., O’Bozo), THEN you’re a Libtard, and will NOT be allowed to buy guns.
IF you attend mosque on even a semi-regular basis, THEN you’re a muzzie, and THEREFORE a potential jihadist, and will NOT be allowed to buy guns.

And once you’re on the Restricted List, good luck getting yourself off of it. (I figure what’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. And if the DemonRats want to get THEIR Favorite Children off the Restricted List, then they will fix that system, so that the innocent will also be able to get themselves off the List).

Rick Wiles #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Rick Wiles: Obama Using Gay Rights And ISIS To Destroy America

On Friday, “Trunews” host Rick Wiles said that President Obama is “waging jihad” on America through gay rights advocacy and the extremist group ISIS, which Wiles believes is a U.S. government proxy. During an interview with Walid Shoebat, an anti-Muslim commentator who is the favorite of many conservative groups and media outlets, Wiles claimed that “Barack Obama is more than a Muslim, he is a jihadist.”

“He is waging jihad from inside the White House, his foreign policy is 100 percent pro-Islam, he has waged jihad on this country, he has shredded the Constitution, he has defiled the U.S. military by forcing the military to accept homosexuality,” he said.

“Obama is destroying Christian America, that’s his assignment as a jihadist, it is to destroy Christian America.”

After Wiles said that CIA director John Brennan is also “an Islamist,” Shoebat claimed that the U.S. government is feeling the effects of an Islamist “infiltration.” Shoebat added that God is punishing America with Obama’s presidency: “America has abandoned its Judeo-Christian ethics and so God has given them to their own desires and that’s why we have Obama. When Americans wake up and God removes Obama and we have a different president, maybe God will have mercy on us.”

[....]

“This is a demonic influence and the more America becomes liberal, the more that kind of influence prevails in America,” he said, warning that liberals will dispose of the First Amendment in order to ban criticism of Islam and “the homosexual agenda.”

Kebiinu #fundie m.neogaf.com

If someone got treated for HIV, found out they have it, and neglected to tell their partners. The risk is on YOU. You chose to have sex with that person. Anytime you have sex with someone, you're taking a risk (and not just HIV, either) and it's not THEIR job to inform YOU on their status.

Would it be a nice thing to do? Yes. Should they go to jail if they don't? No.

Most people with HIV don't even know they have it. And the reason most don't know they have it, is because they fear the diagnosis, not the disease. The stigmas on HIV make it as if the diagnosis itself is a death sentence. Then people fear dating (or even just being around) people with HIV, and now you have people being selfish with their status on top of that.

This bill doesn't make those problems go away, but it encourages people to get tested, and get informed. It also makes people (like y'all) who are trying to live in a bubble; more aware of the various incurable and curable diseases you are at risk of contracting every, single, time you have sex.

Use condoms, protect yourself, get tested. Shit, if you REALLY want to be safe, don't have sex at all. We need to stop criminalizing HIV.

Lol @ some of y'all saying "ALL STDs should be criminalized!" do you know how prevalent STDs are in America? A quick google search will show that as many as 90% of American adults have been exposed to herpes. An absolutely incurable disease that can appear around the genitals and as cold sores. Ever had a cold sore before? Congratulations, you have herpes. Make sure you diagnose that information to every potential date/fling/romance. HPV? 75%...but dont worry, in most cases the virus has no health issues! Still, it's an STD we gotta criminalize, yeah?

Take responsibility. Get educated. Get tested. America is already a cesspit ripe with disease. Don't blame others when you should be asking yourself why you never used a condom, or why "Yeah, I'm clean." is a good enough response before you drop your pants.

My coworker/good friend has a body count of 16+ of random women and romances, when I asked him if he knows his status, his response was "Well I'm sure I'm clean, I've never noticed anything." and when I asked him about the last time he's been tested for STD's, he told me he's NEVER been tested. NEVER BEEN TESTED. The man is 26 years old, slept with all types of women, kissed all types of mouths, and he's NEVER been tested.

I guffawed at his responses, but he was telling me how it's not a big deal at all. He's a totally normal dude otherwise, and I know he's one of many, many Americans. Maybe even some of y'all can relate...

When was the last time you've been tested? If your answer isn't "less than six months ago," then you honestly have no say in whether or not STD's should be criminalized.

Worry about yourself, not putting people in jail for shit like this.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

In the June 18 issue of The Anti-New York Times, we made the following forecast about ISIS, the new super villain that had just popped up out of nowhere:

"And now, just when the Iraqi government seemed to be getting too chummy with Iran, it's back in we go. But first, a pretext was needed; ISIS.
The ISIS "uprising" is a US-Israel engineered plot using provocateurs, mercenaries, "jihadist" fanatics, and NGO's. The Axis of Evil and its various puppets seek to smash any independent Middle Eastern state that refuses to bow down to Greater Israel.

Apart from its relationship with Iran and proximity to Syria, the other reason for blowing up Iraq has to do with planned chaos. The Zionist dream of a Greater Israel, to stretch from Iraq to Egypt, requires fragmented and weak Arab states that can later be ethnically cleaned." (emphasis added)

In the wake of the fake beheading of a CPR dummy standing in for known CIA asset James Foley (here), as well as other real ISIS atrocities, now comes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make the closing argument. From today's article:
“Can they (ISIS) be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

This is all so transparent now. What a brilliant set of strategic maneuvers we have witnessed over the past year or so. Here is a review of the events which have us on the brink of the very same Middle East war that was narrowly averted last year:

1. September 2013: Russia and China block an attack upon Syria (and Iran) by openly flexing their military muscle in the Mediterranean Sea
2. March 2014: US / Israel stages a coup in Ukraine
3. Summer 2014: NATO and puppet Ukraine threaten a military operation against Russia
4. Summer 2014: Japan, Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines antagonize and divert China
5. Summer 2014:Phony controlled ISIS is unleashed in Iraq and Syria
6. Today: Neo-Cons and other assorted warmongers call upon the USA to "stop ISIS"
7. Soon? With Russia and China diverted, NATO slips into Syria to "save the world" from ISIS

Tooting our horn once again, from our September 15 issue of 2013:

"Putin's strong diplomacy (backed by the threat of force), combined with overwhelming public opposition, forced Obongo to back down. But Evil never sleeps. It only changes its tactics. In a sense, the situation is perhaps more dangerous now than it was one week ago. The U.S. now understands that when it returns to the brink of war, it will have to bring a whole lot more firepower to the arena if they want to confront Russia, China, and Iran."

With the 13th (an unlucky number) anniversary of the 9/11 false flag attacks upon us, the threat of an ISIS "attack" looms large. That's one forecast we hope to be wrong about!

n Egyptian mythology, Isis was the mother of Horus / The Eye of Horus & Pyramid are the NWO's symbol.

JG Smoothy #fundie barbwire.com

Holy Savagery

One of the objections to Atheism is its inability to account for the morality of our conscience. If God doesn’t exist, why not steal, why not murder, why not rape and pillage. Some of the most dastardly deeds are done by seemingly conscienceless individuals. Their ends usually win them the best seat in the execution chamber: the ever-coveted high-voltage chair, or else an extended furlough in a ten-by-eight cell.

They have overridden the morality in their conscience and convinced themselves that God doesn’t exist, leaving them free to follow depravity’s path.

Unlike the community criminal, the Jihadist has a deified blessing to carry out evil against the non-Muslim. It’s an excuse for the Muslim to let their baser instincts (a result of man being born into sin) take over with a wink from Albert, (bless-his-name-forever-more) sorry, I mean Allah.

Society’s Split Brain Syndrome

On our end, we want freedom from God to lust, to abort, to steal, to cheat, to hallucinate, to trade natural affections for unnatural affections, to fill our minds with trash or to ignore the poor. We want God to go stand in the corner till we need Him to prosper, to grow, to protect or to heal.

“Come close God…ok now go away”.

The “Obamination Ad-menstruation” getting in for a second term is the result of our schizophrenic relationship with The Almighty. Like I have written before, we now have our modern day ‘Saul-ibaba’.

Two Enemies in the West

What we have seen in Paris is not unfathomable, but totally predictable. I mean you’d have to be in a coma to not have seen this coming. The western world has allowed two demonic enterprises to join forces and attack the spiritual backbone of what are now just cadavers of nations.

On one hand we have invited the most barbaric political ideology possible, Islam, to come find some nice fertile soil in our own backyards. Putting up with their Halal this, cover that; “We’re offended by this institution”; offended by that cross over there; “Take down that nativity for Allah’s sake!”

We ignore the fact that they are taking over entire towns and recruiting for Islamic guerilla camps within our own borders.
Bring this up at the next cocktail party you attend (total “elephant in the room” scenario).

On the other hand we have the disgruntled atheist who demands that not even the resting places of dead soldiers are sacred ground (and we joke in disgust about the Westboro Baptist cult!).

“Get rid of the nativity!”

“Remove those three most repugnant letters (G-o-d) from society.”

Really the only difference between the far-lefty and the Jihadist is that one of them will put bacon in their Caesar salad. In reality they both hate America and desire to reshape it into something we totally abhor.

You just can’t let subcultures have this kind of power.

It’s easy to be a terrorist in Europe.

al-Khanssaa Brigade and unnamed British female jihadists #fundie ibtimes.co.uk

Up to 3,000 Yazidi girls have now been brought to Raqqa, an IS stronghold in Syria, and locked up in brothels, which are managed by an all-woman religious police force, known as the al-Khanssaa Brigade, according to the Mirror.

"These women are using barbaric interpretations of the Islamic faith to justify their actions," a source told the paper.

"They believe the militants can use these women as they please as they are non-Muslims."

Eyewitness, Zaid Al Fares, previously told IBTimes UK that in Raqqa the al-Khanssaa Brigade has around 50 fighters affiliated to IS, which until recently patrolled the city's streets pursuing women, who broke IS sharia law and enforced legal marriages to Islamist fighters.

The leaders of the battalion are said to be a group of female British jihadists, who are running the brothels.

"It is the British women who have risen to the top of the Islamic State's sharia police and now they are in charge of this operation," the source said.

"It is as bizarre as it is perverse."

Katy Faust #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

Children Have the Right to Be Loved by Their Mother and Father

Like most Americans, I am for adults having the freedom to live as they please. I unequivocally oppose criminalizing gay relationships. But defining marriage correctly criminalizes nothing. And the government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce. Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our “live and let live” philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.

Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalizing the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?

Justice Kennedy, I have long admired your consistency when ruling on the well-being of children, and I implore you to stay the course. I truly believe you are invested in the equal protection of all citizens, and it is your sworn duty to uphold that protection for the most vulnerable among us. The bonds with one’s natural parents deserve to be protected. Do not fall prey to the false narrative that adult feelings should trump children’s rights. The onus must be on adults to conform to the needs of children, not the other way around.

This is not about being against anyone. This is about what I am for. I am for children! I want all children to have the love of their mother and their father. Being for children also makes me for LGBT youth. They deserve all the physical, social, and emotional benefits of being raised by their mother and father as well. But I fear that, in the case before you, we are at the mercy of loud, organized, well-funded adults who have nearly everyone in this country running scared.

Six adult children of gay parents are willing to stand against the bluster of the gay lobby and submit amicus briefs for your consideration in this case. I ask that you please read them. We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a “triumph of civil rights,” and they will turn to this generation for an answer.

What should we tell them?

Hoodedcobra666 #racist josministries.prophpbb.com

So far my experience with Asians go, I have met a few who were genius. They could fold any Rubik cubes or whatever else of these 'nerdy' things in no time. This Chinese guy I met had around 145 IQ, it was proven, and could solve any riddle and so forth. However from toxicity in the jewish universities, he could never get ahead of simple thought patters inscribed to him by the jews, which limited him severely. He could analyze any concept and solve any riddle, but he could not make a riddle to explain what I observed plainly.

There are also creative Asian creative geniuses but the point is that this is not the norm. It is rare, but it happens. They are also very masterful when it comes to perfecting already existing objects, and maintenance of them. Honda motors is one example. Nobody is able to overcome Honda or other such Japanese serious enterprises for this reason. They didn't invent the automobile but they really developed all the necessary details.

With an initial creative push, they can take it from there with stuff. Jews on the other hand are a disaster, they can never do anything. A jew never found anything on this planet that he hasn't copied from someone else...

Another Asian girl I had met long ago, she learned native languages so quickly, it was crazy. She would sit for over 8 hours on end, learning and learning. Asians are very skilled in learning things that way, and very determined, at least from what I saw. Therefore they topple systems which give them this ability, like how the system is nowadays. Looking back, I never met a stupid Asian either. Nor an ill mannered one. If they are given the initial tools they can take it far. Maybe it's the one's I encountered, but just relating my experience.

I also never met an Asian with race inferiority complex or any such other mental cripples. They just seem to cleverly devote energy into self-overcoming instead. They are also far more serene and civilized in all their movements than other people who are far more lousy, noisy and so forth. It seems race achievement also has given them a natural sense of self confidence. They just don't have this inferiority complex, or even give a shit to compete so to say. They are kind of on their own path. At least the majority doesn't seem to have this at all.

They also totally enjoy vacations in the west, know to respect art and culture, and they are never dirty, untidy and disastrous where they go such as foreign countries and so forth. Obviously not everyone is the same, as with anything, but the vast majority is like that.

Also I never saw an Asian whining in any race debate. They simply know who they are and so forth. They don't compete for bullshit identities, bicker, or waste time for no reason. They just don't give a crap because they just understand nature. So they waste time advancing instead. I can't say about places in China as I have never been there, and also, it's Communist.

Just relating my experience with Asians over the time. I don't really have many if any negative things to say. And I doubt most people have. Mostly if not all are positive.

Also reading Asian history with the Samurais and so forth, plus seeing the info they have preserved and the culture and so forth. They have my earned my respect. I read of a few people around the block with history, and I have seen they actually also raised the Serpent and anything else, reaching very high states of awareness, consciousness and power with it. Reaching super high Siddhi levels and other stuff. Kikes razed Tibet for a reason...

It's true the Alt-right and many others have turned a lot towards Asia or Japan specifically. But you can't really blame them either, there are things to look for here and people like the Japanese are a good reminder for people to get their own act together. Japan is one of the most highly developed places on earth. Much more than a few European capitals. Therefore what does this show...racial and cultural cohesion = success.

However I don't think most Whites get it that way, the paradigm of Japan has been over-pushed into nonsense, and used by many shills to promote light memes that lead nowhere in the end.

Common in Asians also is to have a sense of duty, which many other peoples and such don't have so built in. Hitler commented on the importance of such sense in the Table Talks. Duty is important and without this inner understanding of sense of duty nothing goes nowhere.

The only bad thing is that if they fall under bad rule, they don't shake it off easily, neither the trends of such, such as now in during Mao's Communism. This is a necessary leftover of the mentality of loyalty, which the jew turned against them, like they turned White's individuality. They study their victims well...

Rvbomally #psycho #wingnut #racist #fundie deviantart.com


The year 2016 was a year of major shifts in politics, and the beginning of the end of the old order. The United Kingdom left the European Union, prompting the Netherlands and France to petition for their own exits. Against all odds, Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and then the presidency. He was unfortunate enough to have to deal with another recession - this time Chinese in origin - within a hundred days of his implementing extreme tariffs against Chinese goods. The beleaguered Chinese Communist Party decided to put the blame on the Americans, escalating tensions in the South China Sea, on the Korean Peninsula, and even against Russia. This policy proved unwise, as Trump was unwilling to back down and responded to provocation with more provocation. Before long, events escalated out of control, and by late 2017 the world was at war.

Russia and America joined forces against China, while the Americans turned a blind eye to the Polish-Russian invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Belarus. Russo-American forces made great advances in China, but the desperate Chinese government retaliated by using its nuclear arsenal. The Russians and Americans responded with overwhelming force. Only a few Chinese missiles hit their targets, most of which were against foreign armies on Chinese soil, while the Americans and Russians devastated China in return (although the exchange remained limited). In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia - already abandoned by the Trump government - invaded Syria and Iraq to prevent the Russians and Iranians from gaining total hegemony. The Saudis were roundly defeated.

The global economy collapsed in the aftermath. The American government temporarily lost control as they scrambled to reorganize in Philadelphia. Trump's controversial and disastrous policies were widely unpopular; the nuclear attack on America was icing on the cake. State governments declared that they would not follow Trump any longer, Texas and California chief among them. With much of the American military destroyed in China, the federal government relied on loyal militias, some of which had their own agenda and used the civil war to carve out their own states. The federals secured the South against the neo-Confederates, but lost Texas to evangelicals, the West and New England to libertarian militias, and the Northwest to once-loyal white supremacist militias who saw Trump as too soft on the "racial question." Trump himself did away with the old government and, as his most ardent supporters wanted, proclaimed himself Emperor of the American Empire. In Russia, Putin did the same.

NATO and the European Union collapsed, and civil wars broke out across the European continent. Britain closed itself from the world, while nationalist and far-right organizations saw weakness in continental governments and began an armed uprising. The far left and Islamist groups retaliated, officially on behalf of the government, but fighting the government and one another just as often. Russia, seeing an opportunity to expand their influence, backed these groups and attempted to conquer the old Warsaw Pact. However, they were rebuffed by the Visegrad alliance, which became a close-knit alliance in the face of Russian invasion. The Russians were thrown out of Eastern Europe, while European nationalists secured their victory by using nuclear weapons they claimed to have acquired from old NATO bases (some evidence points to Russian involvement). In the wake of their victory, the nationalists exercised brutal reprisals against their enemies, real and perceived.

The Chinese Communist Party did not survive World War III. Years of warlordism followed the nuclear attack, as did starvation and disease. The Chinese population plummeted. However, the gender imbalance in the country continued despite the deaths of many young men in the war, and indeed got worse after the strikes against Chinese cities. Uniting many desperate, angry young men was the idea of a new, patriarchal Chinese empire, where they could form the ruling class and thus could pick as many women as they could. Influenced by the Western "manosphere," this movement became popular among many young men, thus allowing it to overpower its opponents and claim power. The Chinese also invaded their neighbors, explicitly to take their women; while successful in Mongolia and Korea, the Chinese were defeated in Vietnam, putting an end to their expansion and forcing the Chinese to lick their wounds and rebuild.

By 2042, the world has stabilized. The Russians and Indians are the most powerful societies on Earth, although the standard is not very high. The fighting in Europe and Asia has died down definitively, and the new orders are going strong. Most countries focus on rebuilding, particularly those devastated by WWIII. Poverty is widespread, protectionism is commonplace and global trade has collapsed, and much of the African and Asian continents are suffering from a wave of famine. Technology has stagnated since the 2020s, and few advancements have been made since; the American Empire is reinvestigating the EM drive, but little progress has been made. However, the Japanese have been successful at alternative reproduction, but the technology is taking a while to catch on elsewhere.

New religious movements have become popular, particularly the Cult of Kek and the Redpill Church. The Cult of Kek, arising out of an online meme, believes that through the use of "meme magic" - the constant repetition of something online - the ancient Egyptian god Kek will alter reality to suit their needs. The Cult has become popular simply because the events of the 21st century - known as "The Happening" among the Cult's members - were almost exactly what people online "memed" into existence, thus proving the religion correct. The Cult of Kek has many sects and forms, but most are loyal to the current alt-right new order and seek to further it.

The Redpill Church is one that arose out of certain portions of the online "Manosphere," and gained widespread acceptance in the aftermath of WWIII, particularly after the rise of the Chinese Empire. Teaching that women are biologically "hypergamous" - that is, almost parasitic upon men - the Redpill Church seeks to facilitate the final destruction of "gynocentric" society. This is facilitated through teaching by Redpill monks, who travel the world to preach the message. As with all religions, the Redpill Church is divided. Some sects believe that their goal is to enforce the current "patriarchy," while others believe that even the rise of the traditionalist regimes in the wake of WWIII is not enough, and others still want to do away with the need for women entirely through the use of artificial wombs.

Russia was not hit hard during WWIII, and while Putin has died, his image lives on as the father of the new Russian century. Tsarina Yekaterina, purported to be Vladimir Putin's daughter, holds the throne, but she has elected to be more of a figurehead and allow the oligarchs to run the country. Nonetheless, Russian authoritarianism has returned in full, based on a strange mix of Imperial and Soviet patriotism. Stalin is now a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, now Russia's state religion. The Islamic minorities remain noisy, but given the sheer brutality of the Third Chechen War, they are wise enough not to start any violence against the government.

America remains shattered, and there are no signs that this will change. Emperor Donald I has perished, and his son, Donald II, has taken the throne, and there are those in the Empire who worry about the future of the monarchy if Donald II does not live up to his father's legacy. Given the major territorial losses suffered during the Second American Civil War, the Trump monarchy's greatest achievement - the Great Wall of America - does not exist within the Empire. The Empire, modeling itself off Rome, is a rather unpleasant absolute monarchy, where any opinion that dissents from the Trumpist line is punishable by imprisonment. The Lion Guard, ironically referred to as the "Trumpstaffel" by its detractors and its supporters, acts as a "private" enforcer of the regime.

Texas remains a democracy, although the only choices are "fundamentalist Christian" and "slightly less fundamentalist Christian." Formed by the evangelical factions of the Republican Party - opposed to Trump even before the civil war - Texas considers itself a shining city on a hill, the last bastion of true Americanism. It does maintain the Great Wall, but it has built walls of its own on its borders with the Empire. The Governor of Texas is all-powerful, with the legislature doing everything he wants. Christianity is the state religion, although Texas is protective of Jews, and atheism and Islam are banned outright.

The libertarian states on the continent - the Pacific States and New England - have formed a defensive alliance. Although starting out as a rag-tag group of states, the necessity of defending themselves from hostile neighbors have vastly increased the size of government, particularly the military. Both governments are now dominated by their militaries, which are the descendants of various militia groups, and are unfriendly to anti-libertarian political expression. However, both states do remain tolerant of foreign cultures - so long as they keep to themselves and participate in the economy - and while they discourage "statism," freedom of expression is still protected. A vast majority of the population is poor, and receive no aid whatsoever from the government.

In the Pacific Northwest, a white nationalist state has established itself. Originally supported by the Federal government, the Northwest Republic broke off and promptly expelled all non-whites and any whites who objected. Due to the major destruction the war and the purges caused to the rich coastal cities, and the pariah status the Northwest Republic has, it is an impoverished state, although it maintains a large military to remain a threat. Modeling itself somewhat off the Third Reich, the Northwest Republic is a single-party state with a single "President" at the top, and is closed off to all non-whites.

In Europe, nationalism reigns supreme, but in varying degrees of intensity. The United Kingdom remains a democracy, albeit an "emergency" one with a UKIP-Tory coalition in perpetual rule. The United Kingdom has taken a policy of "splendid isolation" with regard to the continent, and has expelled portions of its population that the government deemed "dangerous," but there are still some Eastern European and Middle Eastern communities on Great Britain (of course, they are thoroughly Anglicized). The European Brotherhood takes the position of pan-European nationhood, albeit one that respects the different cultures in Europe. The EB is practically a French empire, with a presidential dictatorship. The EB models itself off Rome, but local rights are respected - so long as the localities are European. Christianity is encouraged by the state, Islam is banned, and non-Europeans have been expelled from the country. The EB and the UK, while aligned, do have major differences of opinion on the question of the continued British occupation of northern France. In the East, the Visegrad Union promotes traditional European culture as a counterpoint to the current Russian regime. The Union is heavily Catholic, and even the current Pope is a conservative Pole.

The Nordic Union has taken a different track: the Nordics reject Christianity as a foreign religion, and have turned back to the worship of the Aesir. Believing themselves to be the successors of the old Norse, the Nordics are ashamed of their multicultural past (although they direct most of this at Sweden), and try to make themselves "suffer" to atone for it. This includes the belief in radical self-improvement as a vector for racial improvement as a whole; Nordic education involves a lot of reading esoteric works from men like Julius Evola, and a major focus on physical fitness. Then, there is the Fourth Reich, an openly neo-Nazi state that seeks to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. Already, the Reich has crushed all opposition within its borders, and only its isolation and relative weakness prevents it from waging a war of conquest.

Iran was the big winner in the Middle East, successfully defeating the Islamic State, the Kurds and the Saudis, and establishing friendly regimes in Iraq and Syria. Iran remains a Shia theocracy, and is attempting to impose this form of government on secular Iraq and Syria. However, their Russian allies caution them against inflaming religious tensions and possibly sparking another war in the region.

Military regimes returned in Egypt and North Africa after the recession of the Islamist tide. These brutal dictatorships make the Gaddafi regime seem humanitarian in comparison. They extremely anti-Islamic and have attacked mosques suspected of harboring members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-government organizations. The most powerful regime among them is Egypt, which has made a somewhat successful attempt at securing hegemony over the region. The Egyptians have their eyes set on the rest of the Middle East, not out of expansionist desire, but because of what is going on in Arabia.

After the fall of the Islamic State, many of its fighters flooded into Saudi Arabia. The Saudi military, already hammered hard by Iranian and Russian forces, proved incapable of stopping them; indeed, many Saudi units defected. The Saudi monarchy was overthrown, as were the other Gulf monarchies, and a caliphate established to replace them. Ironically, little has changed in Saudi Arabia since the rise of the Islamic Federation, apart from the destruction of "Western" influence in cities such as Dubai, the destruction of "idolatrous artifacts" in Mecca and Medina, and the stricter enforcement of preexisting Islamic law.

South Africa has been placed under white rule, mostly by Europeans fleeing the chaos of the EU. The ANC government collapsed in the wake of WWIII, allowing the Europeans to take control of the cities, ironically with the aid of Russia. Apartheid has come back in full force, as the South African government believes that blacks are inherently incapable of governance. The remnants of the ANC disagree violently, and the South Africans are currently waging a brutal bush war against them.

The Chinese Empire is still licking its wounds. Draconian laws, akin to those of the Qin, have been scaled back by the most recent set of reforms, after the Chinese government realized that it may cause a revolt. The gender disparity is less of a problem now, although the Chinese still resort to imported sex bots and concubines to keep the powerful and the enforcers of the regime happy. The Chinese have done away with any child policy, seeing that as a vector for disaster, and now the Chinese population is booming. It has now exceeded pre-war levels, and now the issue is the lack of food, territory, and the continuing lack of women. The Chinese look outward for expansion, but have run out of easy targets.

India was a big winner in WWIII, indeed becoming a superpower by the 2030s. This did come at a cost: the famine of the 2020s hit hard, particularly India's poorest, but the fall of China allowed India to restructure its economy among more modern lines. It did so through Chinese-style modernization, and now India is the workshop of the world. India is still suffering from problems, such as the pollution, but now India is extending its influence into Africa with one mission: to take in more resources.

Conservapedia Editors #crackpot #ableism #fundie conservapedia.com

RationalWiki (RW) is an atheist/agnostic, wiki website.

As can be seen above, on May 17, 2020, the RationalWiki administrator who goes by the moniker DuceMoosolini, indicated that RationalWiki "attracts all sorts of weird people". The statement was made on their Discord channel (Discord is a chat website). See also: Atheism and social outcasts and Atheism and social skills and Atheism and mental illness

Message to RationalWiki editors: Gentlemen, birds of a feather, flock together!
RationalWiki administrator Oxyaena wrote: "it's just that i am probably raging too much most of the time to form coherent sentences."
[…]
Question: Why is the website called "Rational"Wiki if one of their administrators is probably raging too much to form coherent sentences? There is a lot of irrationality at "RationalWiki". See also: Atheism and irrationality and Atheism and emotional problems and Atheism and anger and Atheism and mental illness
[…]
Theodore Beale wrote: "This would also put Bruce Charlton's Mouse Utopia observations into context, as atheism appears to be one aspect of the nihilistic despair that is a consequence of the increased prevalence of genetic inferiority that results from easier circumstances."
Gentlemen, full exoneration. Just like I expected!
[…]
First atheist controlled, mainland China was shown to cause the coronavirus pandemic through their bizarre eating habits and deceit. And now this! 2020 is the worst year in the history of atheism gentlemen, just like I predicted! See also: Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic

Titus Greenwood #fundie americanthinker.com

I say let the Blue States go in peace. I'm not the first to say this on AT, but I agree with it. Let the Blue States have all the GUN CONTROL they want. Let them have all the ILLEGAL ALIENS they want. Let them have all the ELFARE FREELOADERS, those who refuse to work and ride the free bus! Let the Blue States have all the LIBERAL SOCIALISM they want. They won't need a army or navy because they'll need what money they can print to PAY for everyone who refuses to work. Let em have HOLLYWOOD and Alec Baldwin, Demi Moore, Danny Glover and all them Leftist fools who think they got it so bad in what was, a good, decent and God fearing nation! Let them have all the DETROIT'S, CHICAGO'S, LOS ANGELES'S and such places, that are decaying and rotting under the CORRUPTION and CRIME wrought by LIBERAL SOCIALISM. Let the 0BAMA'S, CLINTON'S, KERRY'S, REID'S and PELOSI'S of this Liberal Socialist utopia, RULE over their "subjects." Where only the police (hell they won't need them either) have guns and EVERYONE gets SNAP cards! Let em have 0bama as their Supreme Ruler. But as for ME, I want to live in a FREE nation, where FREEDOM and FREE ENTERPRISE are the norm. A nation where the CONSTITUTION is the core of law and honored and respected. A nation where ALL are equal under the law and have the opportunity to reach for the stars! Not a place where the government tells me how big a TOILET TANK I can buy, or where the government tells me how big my soft drink can be. I want to live in a country, where the PEOPLE tell the government what THEY can do, not the other way around.

Adrian Sol #fundie dailystormer.name

Man Faces 15 Years in Jail for Getting Cucked by Slut Wife

Oh, this poor spic bastard. He’s finding out the meaning of “American justice” right about now. After finding out his wife cheated on him with her boss, he’s now in a situation where not only are they getting off scot-free, but he’s the one facing over a decade in prison for hurting their feelings or whatever.

Let that be a lesson to all the beaners occupying our land: if only he had stayed in Mexico or whatever shithole he’s originally from, he could probably have just killed both his wife and her lover and the cops would have been like “serves em’ right, bro!” and let him off.

A husband caught his wife cheating, and now he’s facing up to 15 years in jail.

Sean Donis’s wife, Nancy Donis, 38, said she was going to dinner. Donis stayed behind to watch their 5-year-old son. When he couldn’t find his iPad, he turned on the Find My iPhone app to locate it.

The software showed the electronic device moving toward an unknown location; he had a hunch that his wife had taken it, and he decided to follow. He arrived at a house and opened the unlocked door. On the second floor, he found his wife in bed with her boss, Albert Lopez, 58. With his iPhone, he recorded two brief videos of them in bed.

Okay, that’s kind of creepy.

The New Jersey man got a letter last July informing him that a grand jury had indicted him on charges of felony burglary and unlawful surveillance for the April 2016 incident.

“I feel like it’s unjust what they’re doing to me,” said Donis, 37, to the New York Post in September. “It’s like I’m being punished twice.”

While it’s hard to feel bad for a foreign invader occupying our land, you have to realize they’d do exactly the same to any one of us in a similar situation.

The legal system is rabidly anti-men. This is a key part of maintaining the feminist social-order, which itself is a key part of enforcing the will of the Jews.

“I was in fear,” Lopez testified of the moment when Donis caught him in bed with his wife. “I kept telling him, you need to get out of here,” Lopez told the jury hearing Donis’s felony burglary case.

Donis’s wife worked for Lopez as the billing manager for his orthopedics practice.

Lopez said he was so desperate to get the enraged husband out of his home that he asked Donis “if he wanted to die.”

In other words, he threatened to kill him. Isn’t threatening to kill someone some kind of felony as well?

“Kill me. I don’t care,” he said the desperate husband responded.

The incident left Lopez traumatized. “I couldn’t go to sleep. I had repeated memories of what occurred. I started to go through the house and check all the doors and make sure they were locked,” he said.

Lopez also noted that Donis’s wife said they were separated, and he thought Donis was out of the picture.

The husband’s lawyer, Howard Greenberg, told jurors that the husband actually “deserves a medal,” not a prison sentence, for uncovering his wife’s unfaithfulness without physically harming his rival.

“The defendant should be given a medal for the amount of restraint he showed when he entered that scene,” Greenberg told the jury.

However, despite the fact that Lopez slept with Donis’s wife, prosecutor Nabeela Mcleod asserted that Lopez was a victim — a victim of Donis’s breaking and entering his home and recording him and Donis’s wife without their consent (Donis shared the videos with his wife’s relatives). He now faces a possible maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

So the guy who got cucked showed the woman’s family the video in order to shame her, which is generally a good way to go. Women should be shamed for their slut behavior every chance we get. But apparently that’s now a criminal act.

You think that if a woman filmed her husband cheating on her and shared the video, that she’d be facing over a decade in prison? Lol. The media and the legal system would just go “you go, girl! Show that pig!”

Trump needs to immediately pardon this man.

And then deport him to Mexico along with his slut wife.

Chet #conspiracy yahoo.com

The Biggest lie of all

Mr. President, it was you who on ABC News referenced "My Muslim Faith."

It was you who told an Islamic diner "I am one of you."

It was you who gave $90.42 million U.S. taxpayer funds to rebuild foreign mosques.

It was you who wrote that, in the event of a conflict "I will stand with the Muslims."

It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that ""I am a Muslim."

It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.

It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and America while professing Marxism.

It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that everyone else has to pay.

It was you who purposefully omitted "endowed by our Creator" from your recitation of The Declaration of Independence.

It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On the Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'Holy Quran'.

It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States of America.

It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of a 'Ground Zero Victory' mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.

It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic Prayer Breakfast at the White House.

It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak but, in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.

It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.

It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to the Homeland Security.

It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.

It was you who, as an Illinois Senator, were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.

It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.

It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of Islamic terrorists.

It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.

It was you who refused to speak out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture but yet have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human rights abuses.

It was you who, when queried in India, refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorist assaults.

It was you who funneled $813.74 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

It was you who ordered the USPS to honor a Muslim holiday with a new commemorative stamp.

It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help 'empower' the British Muslim community.

It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.

It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in grammar schools across our country.

It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.

It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for not participating in seasonal White House religious events.

It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; buy remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians and destruction of Coptic Christian churches.

It was you who appointed, as your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, who is an avowed member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, Barack Obama, it is you who is a socialist Islamist. Continuing in your quest to 'completely transform America'.

It Was, and Is, YOU! The evidence is clear for all except for the blind, deaf and stupid.

Anna Diehl #fundie 924jeremiah.wordpress.com

Rampant sexual perversion is a recurring theme that we find particularly prevalent in societies that God is about to destroy. People start having sex with total strangers just because they can. Prostitution becomes huge. Same gender sex gets popular. Adults start sleeping with the young. Parents sleep with their own kids. People have intercourse with animals. Pornography is displayed in public. These are all the flags of a society on the brink of destruction. Whenever laws start changing to say that perverse sex is okay, we know we’re getting near the end of God’s patience with us.

In America, more and more individual states are legalizing gay marriage. Child molesting is out of control. Our country is one of the biggest producers of pornography in the world. Over the last ten years, our justice system has overturned several laws which attempted to make the distribution of child pornography over the internet at least partially illegal. We now claim to be against it while in reality we rake in millions of dollars of profit for producing it. Our position is clear: we want to look at porn and we really don’t care about all the kids we’re destroying in order to get it. Meanwhile, we are aggressively promoting the idea that everyone should have multiple partners in life without any concern over gender or style of intercourse. In elementary school we present sexual promiscuity as the only realistic option to our children. We teach them that trying to control their urges is impossible, then we hand out condoms and think we’ve been good educators. America is excellent at acting shocked and horrified when someone comes forward to say they’ve been molested for years by someone else. But in reality, we know this is happening all the time and we love it. While we shun rapists and molesters as being moral scum, we encourage them to continue degrading themselves and others by protecting them from any severe legal consequences and making real help hard to find. The bottom line is that we WANT perversity in this country. We are one step away from becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah—cities in which it was acceptable for men to gang rape any newcomers who came to town, regardless of their gender. God completely destroyed those cities in what sounds like some kind of volcanic explosion. What will He do to us?

Tucker Carlson #sexist wonkette.com

HEADLINE: Being Tucker Carlson Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry For Defending Child Rape

On Sunday afternoon, Media Matters For America released a series of audio tapes of Tucker Carlson making regular calls to the Bubba the Love Sponge show in which he made a variety of disturbing comments, not the least of which were several defenses of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs and his habit of marrying young girls himself or forcing them to marry other older men -- a crime Tucker Carlson does not consider all that bad if it is even a crime at all.

While most people in Carlson's position would apologize and do the whole "I know better now" rigamarole, he is refusing, and has instead released a statement telling people to watch his show.

Media Matters caught me saying something naughty on a radio show more than a decade ago. Rather than express the usual ritual contrition, how about this: I'm on television every weeknight live for an hour. If you want to know what I think, you can watch. Anyone who disagrees with my views is welcome to come on and explain why.

Hard pass!

The newly released tapes reveal that in 2006, Carlson defended Warren Jeffs by saying that he didn't do anything that bad because he didn't rape any of those underage girls himself, insisting that forcing a girl to marry an old dude and have sex with him the rest of her life just is not as bad as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her.

CARLSON: He's not accused of touching anybody; he is accused of facilitating a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man. That's the accusation. That's what they're calling felony rape. [crosstalk] That's bullshit. I'm sorry. Now this guy may be [crosstalk], may be a child rapist. I'm just telling you that arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her. That's bullshit.

THE LOVE SPONGE: But Tuck, that's just a small little thing that they got him on. Now, this guy is a --

CARLSON: Wait, wait, wait. Since when do you believe everything the government says? Wait a second.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Hold on. You know what --

CARLSON: All of a sudden, like we're very skeptical about everything until like some prosecutor comes out and says, "This guy's bad," and the rest of us nod in agreement like a church choir, "Yeah, he's bad." How do we know he's bad? What do we know exactly? Nothing.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Tucker, Tucker, settle down, lover. I mean, come on. I mean, jeez.

CARLSON: Get excited.

Yeah. If Warren Jeffs had only ever forced underage girls to marry and have sex with old dudes, that would still be illegal. However, that was not the case. While the charges Jeffs faced in Utah and Arizona were for facilitation only, he was indicted in 2008b on felony charges in Texas for personally sexually assaulting two girls, ages 12 and 15 (the conviction on which he is currently serving time, as both the Utah and Arizona charges were thrown out so that Texas could pursue the more serious charge). In May of 2008, The Smoking Gun released "first anniversary" pictures of Jeffs, taken in 2006, with a girl he had married when she was 12.

[Photos of Jeffs with his child-bride shown (her face is blurred). Caption reads, 'These were available and well-publicized at the time Carlson said Jeffs did not marry underage girls himself.']

Now, had Carlson only said these things in 2006, it would have been fair for him to say "Well, that information was not available to me at the time." Yet, all of this information was available to Carlson in 2009 when he made these other statements about Jeffs, which repulsed even the shock jock hosts:

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to love and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's be honest about it.

CO-HOST: That's twisted.


That is, indeed, twisted.

By no measure is rape somehow more OK if you marry a woman and rape her for the rest of her life. It's not more OK if the rapist "loves" the victim, it's not more OK if they buy the victim dinner first, or if that rape is part of their "religion." A father who rapes his daughter has also made a commitment to love and take care of her, and I don't think anyone would say that is somehow "less bad" than if he grabbed another girl "off the street." Jeffs forced hundreds of underage girls to marry adult men and have sex with them. He also married and had sex with underage girls himself.

In 2009 -- which was, I remind you, a full year after Jeffs' Texas indictment and the pictures released by The Smoking Gun -- Carlson continued insisting that Jeffs absolutely did not marry underage girls himself.

CO-HOST: Yeah, that's what Warren Jeffs' in prison for. He's not in prison for polygamy, he's in prison for child rape.

CARLSON: Well, actually, he's not in prison for that. He didn't -- Warren Jeffs didn't marry underaged girls, actually.

CO-HOST: No, he's in prison for facilitation of child rape.

CARLSON: Whatever the hell that means.

CO-HOST: That means that --

CARLSON: He's in prison because he's weird and unpopular and he has a different lifestyle that other people find creepy.

CO-HOST: No, he is an accessory to the rape of children. That is a felony and a serious one at that.

CARLSON: What do you mean an accessory? He's like got some weird religious cult where he thinks it's OK to, you know, marry underaged girls, but he didn't do it. Why wouldn't the guy who actually did it, who had sex with an underaged girl, he should be the one who's doing life.


Wait until he finds out about Charles Manson!

And then he said:

I should make the -- you know what, I should make the laws around here, and Michael Vick would have been executed, and Warren Jeffs would be out on the street.

For the record, of his own 78 wives, 12 were 16 when Jeffs married them, and another 12 were 15 or under. So not only was Carlson's defense of Jeffs "twisted," he was also incredibly factually wrong about what Jeffs was accused of doing.

Of course, Carlson's defense of Jeffs isn't that far off from what other conservatives have said in the past about rape. Notably, Todd Akin tried to argue that there was a difference between "grey rape" and "legitimate rape," while claiming that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate" rape.

These weren't the only horrific statements Carlson made on the program. He also defended a teacher sleeping with a 13-year-old male student by saying that the teacher was actually doing a "service" by raping a child, so that the girls in his class wouldn't have to have sex with them.

So my point is that teacher's like this, not necessarily this one in particular, but they are doing a service to all 13-year-old girls by taking the pressure off. They are a pressure relief valve, like the kind you have on your furnace.

Again, child rape is bad. It's not up for discussion.

Carlson also laughed gleefully at the idea of abusing women, called Martha Stewart's daughter "cunty" and offered to give her the "spanking" she deserves (Carlson notably flipped out over Samantha Bee using the word "cunt" to describe Ivanka Trump, saying that he didn't know any man who would ever dare use that word because of how degrading it is), he compared women to dogs and called them "primitive," he repeatedly accused Hillary Clinton of wanting to cut off all of the penises in the world, and claimed that there is "no Canadian woman" anyone would pay to sleep with.

Will Carlson face the same fate Milo Yiannopoulos faced after he defended child rape? That's doubtful. The fact is, none of this is any worse than what he says on a daily basis on his show. He says terrible things all the time, and that is why he is so beloved by so many terrible, terrible people. It's not surprising that he is standing by his statements, or that people like Erick Erickson think the real crime is unearthing the things he said many years ago in the first place, suggesting that defending child rape as an adult man is just some kind of youthful indiscretion that isn't worth being concerned over.

After all, what would you expect from the party that elected President Grab Em By The Pussy?

David Schippers #conspiracy worldnetdaily.com

Responding to the Obama administration's attempt to justify a controversial "right-wing extremism" report by citing Timothy McVeigh, a counter-terrorism group has posted a video statement by a prominent Democrat investigator who contends the Oklahoma City bomb plot was hatched not by right-wingers but by Islamic jihadists.

David Schippers, the chief counsel for the 1998 impeachment trial of President Clinton, probed the bombing with investigative reporter Jayna Davis, author of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing", by WND Books. Davis asserts McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the lone conspirators but part of a greater scheme involving Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq. The explosion April 19, 1995, at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured another 684.

In the video, released by America's Truth Forum, Schippers says there's "no question the Oklahoma City bombing was a part of a state-sponsored attack on the heartland of the United States."

"I have been asked about the Oklahoma bombing and whether there was any kind of federal cover-up. The simple and direct answer is yes," he said. "Unquestionably, a federal cover-up beginning in 1995 and continuing to today."

Kevin MacDonald #racist caesartort.blogspot.com

[Chechar quotes white nationalist author Kevin MacDonald on Jews]

TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[...]

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

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

The Anti-Gnostic #conspiracy anti-gnostic.blogspot.it

The Great Mesopotamian War

It's lasted twenty-four years; arguably an entire century.

For the fifth time in my adult life, the US will engage in combat operations in the Middle East. We are doing this because the corrupt meatballs who rule the Arabian peninsula are terrified, and because the jihadists will be coming home, this time with live-fire experience. As the lonely voices of Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer have pointed out for two decades, we invite the world, so we must invade the world. ISIS is not actually a threat to the US per se. It is a threat to the US government's open borders policy, because a few instances of jihadists setting off IED's in shopping malls and the US Congress, under threat of complete electoral eviction, will be adopting the immigration policy of Israel. Therefore, ISIS must be destroyed.

I also suspect this is actually a pretext to bomb Damascus and its resident Assad family into the dirt, as long desired by the Saud and Thani clans.

Also in play are the semi-conscious motivations of President Peace Prize, who I think would love nothing more than to honor the memory of his father as an openly devout Sunni Muslim

image

image

What are we up to now--four proposed wars on this guy's watch? If the Nobel committee were so desperate for a tall, articulate, African head of state who stopped bloodshed, I'd nominate Paul Kagame.

image


In what number of possible realities is this latest intervention supposed to work out? I doubt Americans have the stomach for another decade of young infantrymen patrolling crowded Middle Eastern cities surrounded by people who hate them. So I'm guessing the plan is to bomb the shit out of the place and hope we can pay enough rival Syrians and Iraqis to supply the boots on the ground. (They haven't stepped up so far, so I tend to doubt it.) The infrastructure of the region will be totally destroyed, and it will take about a week of footage of Syrian and Iraqi children hunting for rats and begging cameramen for food before the foreign aid starts rolling in. There will be more refugees, more corruption, more seething resentment. In sum, more of every bad thing we can imagine and no way out.

UPDATE: Malcolm Pollack weighs in. Malcolm links in turn to another assessment, wherein the authors put a great deal of stock in the supposed soothing balm of pluralistic democracy.* Stable countries are formed around market-dominant majorities. Multiculturalism is actually premised on the opposite: the ethnic or creedal majority is required to accommodate itself to the minority. Ruling minorities are overthrown, as we see in Syria or Iraq, or the multicultural polity devolves into its constituent nations, as with Rome, Austro-Hungary, the Soviet Union and Britain.

* - This sentence is a correction. Malcolm shares my view of Western liberal democracy. Wise man, that Malcolm. And doubtless, stunningly handsome.

The Rev. William H. Grimes #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Sermon 14: Not of the World
By The Rev. William H. Grimes
Romans 12:2 says "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." I am taking a break from the "Debunked" series in order to provide a clear and necessary message.
Last Friday, sinful seductress Taylor Swift released her sixth wicked studio album called reputation. Liberal transvestite loving corporation Target heavily promoted it, as I saw in my local store on Friday. Wicked sinful picture books that are full of pornographic images were being sold as well as immodest clothing promoting the evil pop star. These wicked things were gobbled up by those who are secular, including the "Christians" who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestants, or weak sauce "Evangelicals!" Probably some other wicked apostates like Jews, Muslims, and Mormons in there too! True Christians like Independent Fundamentalist Baptists find this sinful content repugnant and a direct violation of the Word! You cannot serve two masters! YOU CAN ONLY WORSHIP GOD, OR YOU CAN ONLY WORSHIP TAYLOR SWIFT! Choose wisely, because your eternal fate depends upon it!
There is one song so egregious that Swift's mother left the room and her manager plugged his ears. Yes, it was that bad! The song is called "Dress" and the vile lyrics are as follows:
"All of this silence and patience, pining and anticipation My hands are shaking from holding back from you (ah, ah, ah) All of this silence and patience, pining and desperately waiting My hands are shaking from all this (ha, ha, ha, ha)
Say my name and everything just stops I don't want you like a best friend Only bought this dress so you could take it off, take it off (ha, ha, ha) Carve your name into my bedpost Cause I don't want you like a best friend Only bought this dress so you could take it off, take it off (ha, ha, ha)"
So, what does this tell us about the morality of the sinful and wicked Swift? Romans 14:13-23 says " Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
That passage is clear as crystal, plain as day, but Swift heedeth not!!!!!! Matthew 4:7 says "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." IF YOU BUY THIS ALBUM AND LISTEN TO IT, YOU ARE INDEED TEMPTING THE LORD THY GOD AS TAYLOR SWIFT TEMPTS WEAK AND FEEBLE MEN BY MAKING THEM TURN INTO VULTURES EAGER TO GET THEIR NEXT FIX OF SEXUAL IMMORALIITY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SAY AMEN IN THE HOUSE OF THE LIVING GOD!
Look, brothers in Christ, it is not worth eternal damnation! Sure, sex was the result of the fall as recorded in Genesis 3, but any sin can be overcome with meditative prayer and daily reading of the Word of God! Women might not be able to overcome their worldly fleshly desires, but MEN IN CHRIST OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO! OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS SKIMPY DRESS IS IMMODEST, AND IT IS ONLY BOUGHT TO BE TAKEN OFF! IF YOU LISTEN TO THIS VILE ALBUM, YOU ARE BENT ON YOUR OWN DESTRUCTION AND WILL END UP IN THE LAKE OF FIRE UNLESS YOU GET THE ALBUM OUT OF YOUR HOUSE AND BURN IT AND TURN BEFORE YOU BURN YOURSELF! SWIFT IS QUITE IMMODEST AND YOU WILL SUFFER GREATLY IF YOU DO NOT SAVE YOUR SOUL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! TAYLOR SWIFT AND HER FLESHLY SINFUL BODY AND HER TRASHY LYRICS AND SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE ARE NOT WORTH ETERNAL HELLFIRE! ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO IT, BROTHER! God's people said AMEN!

Leonard Sisyphus Mann #fundie consentinghumans.wordpress.com

Though most paedophile-child relationships are chaste there is a significant proportion in which the child wishes for, and consents to, intimacy.

One of the fallacious uses of language common in the popular discourse round this issue is to talk about paedophiles wanting, or having, ‘Sex’ with children. To most non-paedophiles ‘sex’ means ‘intercourse’ and so by a leap of logic the public thinks of paedophiles as wanting to have intercourse with children. This is wrong. What the typical paedophiles think of as ‘sex’ differs from what adult teleiophiles consider as ‘sex’.

The most important difference is that any form of penetration cannot have the same place it has in adult-adult relationships: the typical paedophile would not wish to do anything that the child would not enjoy, be hurt by or that would betray the trust and friendship shared by the adult and child.

Rather than the adult imposing his desires on the child it is very much about allowing the child to determine what takes place and responding to the child’s interest, – much as an adult playing football with a 7-year old adapts his mode of play to ensure that the experience is enjoyable and constructive for the child so does a caring paedophile.

Essentially what most ‘turns on’ a paedophile is a happy, relaxed child who is herself turned-on and enjoying herself – forcing or manipulating a child would be repugnant to the normal paedophile.

‘Sexual’ activities, if they occur at all, range from playful sensuality (tickling, kissing and stroking…) to acts that would be classed as ‘foreplay’ in the context of adult-adult sex.

Simon Revere Mouer III #fundie transcend7.com

Homosexuality in and of itself is a Social Pathology because of the prevalence of pedophilia within the homosexual community, especially male homosexuality.
Homosexuality and Pedophilia

Pedophilia is the primary social mechanism for transferring homosexual behavior from one generation to the next. Pedophilia among homosexuals is the hidden, and often unspoken by-product of a society soft on homosexual expression. It is too often under-reported and unreported. While heterosexual pedophilia garners the liberal media attention, the far more prevalent problem of homosexual pedophilia, especially male on male, is too often ignored by that same media.

Homosexuality and Religion

All major established religions frown on homosexuality. In some religions, homosexual acts carried a death penalty. Religious prohibitions against homosexuality today is faith-based, but in the far history of the religion, the original prophets very likely observed the very decadent sexual promiscuity and homosexuality pervading now ancient and near-forgotten fallen civilizations, and linked that behavior with the ultimate disintegration of those of decadent and dying societies.

Homosexuality and Morality

Morality isn’t just faith-based, and doesn’t just belong to churches and religion, but to all of society. A choice which best serve the greater community is moral. A choice which harms the greater community is immoral. Homosexuality is harmful to the greater community by negatively affecting the health and well-being of individuals and groups within the society.

Homosexuality and Medical Health

Young and vulnerable members of the society are recruited by older homosexuals for risky sexual activity that more readily transmits diseases, reduces the victim’s self-esteem, and perverts sexual orientation. It has the end result of accelerating the development of pathogens’ resistance to antibiotics because of the prophylactic use of antibiotics by homosexuals to self medicate the many diseases they pick up because of extremely promiscuous behavior, especially among males.

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Misguided homophiles and homosexuals try to mitigate the shame, debasement, and depravity of homosexual behavior by aggressively labeling themselves as "gay" and opponents as ‘homophobic." There is nothing gay and happy about homosexual acts, especially on the recruit. And if the homosexual looks deeply back into their past for that defining moment or series of encounters with an older homosexual who first recruited them, they will relive the shame and self-loathing that it brought them.

Homosexual predation by older homosexuals among the young is especially aggressive. Young people are often forced to perform homosexual acts. If they resist they might be killed. If they comply, they are then admonished to be quiet about it, and fed propaganda that they are inherently "gay" and should willingly "join in" the "fun." It is a very disorienting time for those young recruits, and the suicide rate is very high among such young persons thus recruited.

Homosexuality and Social Institutions

Homosexuals consciously target social institutions, especially those which house children or young people, to gain access to the young and vulnerable within. It is not without deviant motivation that homosexuals seek membership and access to the Boy Scouts of America and other such youth organizations.

Homosexuals should be banned from any and all contact with our youth, including schools, governmental organizations that oversee the health and welfare of children and youth, and private groups and youth organizations such as the boy scouts and girl scouts.

Homosexuality and Politics

Political states (countries or nations) are social organisms, very analogous to living organisms. Counter-productive elements within social organisms are equivalent to viruses and other pathogens within an animal or plant.

Internal defense mechanisms are necessary to identify, neutralize and remove such disruptive elements. Failure of the government to control and eliminate disruptive and harmful elements within will result in reduced performance of the social organism, and even its termination. These are all part of the evolutionary scheme of things, and why some cultures are more successful than others.

Personal freedom of the individual can only go so far before it becomes disruptive to the social organism. Homosexuals should never be given the right to approach and recruit youngsters and children for homosexual activity.

Life isn't about the individual -- it is about the culture in which the individual is an element of. While we may in our fantasies tout the lone hero fighting evil, in reality it is the social organism fighting disruptive elements internal and external.

Homosexuals are disruptive and harmful elements within a society, and should be banned from public office, because they tend to adopt policies that condone and promote homosexual behavior.

Resources

The seminal work for the acceleration of antibiotic-resistance diseases is “The Coming Plague” by Laurie Garrett, 1995

The seminal work on homosexuality is “The Sexual Dead End” by Stephen Green, 1992. While homosexual community in Britain managed to shout the work down, and it is no longer in print, nevertheless, it remains a defining expose of the sordid world of homosexuals.

Pamela Geller #fundie wnd.com

"In my own life as a black youth growing up in the segregated South, I understand their frustration with stereotypes. Those in attendance, like most Muslim Americans, are peaceful Muslims and patriotic Americans whose good will is often drowned out by the reprehensible actions of jihadists."

So said presidential candidate Herman Cain, as he apologized for speaking the truth.

He spoke out against Shariah. He said that local people could and should resist the construction of Islamic supremacist mega-mosques. And it's true: It is not an infringement of the freedom of religion to resist a Muslim Brotherhood beachhead in your neighborhood.

…

So we thought Cain knew and understood the jihad threat. But now it turns out that his seemingly strong stance was just knee-jerk political opportunism.

…

What Cain doesn't understand is that his lack of spine and political will and conviction has done more to hurt the counter-jihad movement than had he not said anything at all. Muslims like blacks in the segregated South? Please. Muslims face no discrimination in the United States, and black in the segregated South were not plotting terror attacks and boasting about "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," as a captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document describes its strategy in America.

Who exactly is whispering in his ear? I'd love to know. Who got to him? Obviously, the ADAMS Center connection shows that the Muslim Brotherhood got to him. But it's a good thing we found out how weak he was. Because the only thing Herman Cain had going for him as a candidate was his apparent courage in facing the real enemy within and without. In issuing this apology, he thought he saved his candidacy; in fact, he killed it.

Patrick Scrivener #fundie reformation.org

The biological warfare commonly referred to as the Black Death carried away millions of the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire....This was not the first such devestating pandemic to afflict the Empire. The wrongly named "Justinian's Plague" wiped out almost half of the population between 541 and 750.

The Black Death, that raged from 1347–1351, was a biological weapon used against the Eastern Empire.

Painful BOILS covered the entire body.

75 million men, women and children died.

Such massive mortality rates were not seen until the Spanish Flu of 1918.

Bubonic plague was not the "wrath of God" but an international example of what Satan did to ONE man—Job:

So Satan went out from the presence of JEHOVAH, and struck Job with painful BOILS from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (Job 2:7).

This pestilence drastically reduced the population of the Eastern Empire. It went out of control and also ravaged Western Europe:

Lastly, the depopulation caused by the terrible diseases which visited Europe in the century preceding the Moslem conquest aided greatly in destroying the empire. The prevalence of Black Death or Plague killed in the Balkan peninsula and especially in the towns hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of the population. In 1347 this scourge, probably the most deadly form of epidemic that has ever afflicted humanity, made its appearance in Eastern Europe. The cities of the empire contained large populations crowded together, and their normal population was increased by many fugitives. These crowded cities, with their defective sanitary arrangements and poverty-stricken inhabitants, offered a favourable soil for a rich harvest of death. The disease had followed the coasts from the Black Sea, where, says Cantacuzenus, it had carried off nearly all the inhabitants. At Constantinople it raged during two years, one of its first victims being the eldest son of Cantacuzenus himself. Rich as well as poor succumbed to it. What proportion of the inhabitants of the city died it is impossible to say, but, judging by what is known of its effect elsewhere, we should probably not be wrong in suggesting that half the people perished. But its ravages were not confined to the towns, and from one end of the Balkan peninsula to the other it swept the country in repeated visitations and probably carried off nearly the same proportion of inhabitants. Cantacuzenus, in a vivid description of the disease, adds that the saddest feature about it was the feeling of hopelessness and despair which it left behind. (Pears, The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks, pp. 189-190).

Naturally, the Turks were not affected by it

[...]

Old Rome is still trying to end the East-West Schism!!

Old Rome is still trying to end the East-West Schism by using Belarus as an ecumenical bridge to the Third Rome—Moscow.

On April 27, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI and Alexander Lukashenko had a meeting at the Vatican to discuss a union between the Third Rome and Old Rome!!

Belarus is only 400 kilometers from Moscow and ideally situated for a NATO Crusaders invasion of that country.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child prostitution should be legal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy truthernews.wordpress.com

SWITZERLAND, Zurich — Based on breaking news and events, it appears that the Obama administration (at the behest of the CIA in Switzerland) is preparing to execute a wave of Greyhound-related terror attacks in the Unites States, namely in Texas during JADE HELM 15 which concludes on September 15, 2015.

Coincidentally, it was just revealed on July 24, 2015, that Greyhound has launched a new bus service from Mexico to Texas (see below). The service appears to have been specifically created in order to transport ISIS-inspired terrorists from Mexico to the Lone Star state in order to execute Greyhound-related attacks.

Greyhound-related terror attacks, should they transpire, will likely consist of gun-related assaults, beheadings and/or suicide bombings on Greyhound buses or at Greyhound bus station. Said attack will predictably be scapegoated onto state-sponsored Islamic terror groups (e.g., Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.).

The notion that the CIA is plotting Greyhound-related terror attacks was first identified back on February 23, 2013, when new TSA terror screenings were instituted at Greyhound stations across America. Similar to airports, the new policy incorporates the TSA into the travel process so that they can control any subsequent terror investigation.

Since the progenitors of terror want to ensure that Greyhound bus-related terror attacks are caught on camera, it was revealed on February 23, 2013, that Greyhound has deployed video cameras across their entire fleet. The installation of camera ensures that the attacks can be seen on the internet and broadcast on TV, exponentially compounding the terror factor of the attack.

Roughly 19-months later on September 22, 2014, it was revealed that Greyhound has introduced a new onboard Wi-Fi platform. Since the attacks will likely feature a hostage situation followed by beheadings and suicide attacks, Greyhound passengers will be able to broadcast the entire attack live on the internet as it happens, drawing in hundreds of millions of viewers in the process.

In order to provide a motive for an Islamic-related terror attack on American buses, it was reported back on September 30, 2014, that anti-jihad bus ads were pulled in New York City after a request from family of James Foley (see photo below). The CIA-spawned publicity stunt was evidently designed to garner international media attention to both buses and “jihad” just prior to a wave of deadly “revenge” attacks on Greyhound buses.

Greyhound Service from Mexico to Texas
In what appears to be pre-Greyhound terror logistics, it was reported on July 24, 2015, that Greyhound has launched a daily bus service from Texas to Mexico. According to reports, Greyhound is the first U.S.-based intercity bus company to offer the service within Mexico. The company will operate about 20 daily runs from Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Laredo to Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey. Consequently, 20 buses from Mexico will travel north to Texas, likely bringing with a number of ISIS-inspired terrorists. To celebrate the new service, Greyhound will reportedly offer promotional fares of $1 or 25 pesos, making anyone, terrorists included, able to afford the ride from Mexico to Texas.

ISIS Texas

ISIS Terror Attacks in Texas
In order to create the necessary narrative for ISIS-related terror attack in Texas during JADE HELM 15, it was reported back on April 14, 2015, that Mexican authorities confirmed that an ISIS terrorist camp is only a few miles away from Texas. Less than a month later on May 3, 2015, an ISIS-related attack was executed on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas. The notion of ISIS-related attacks during JADE HELM 15 was ominously foreshadowed by Daily Show host John Stewart on May 4, 2015, when he stated, “So Texas, it appears that you are on the verge of being taken over by ISIS or the United States of America. So you have a choice to make”. Stewart’s words are rather curious considering that he previously stated that “the United States government already controls Texas”. Three days later on May 6, 2015, the Star published a report entitled “Texas Invasion? U.S. Army Fights ‘Jade Helm’ Conspiracy Theories” which quoted Robert Goldberg, a professor of history at the University of Utah, who stated that JADE HELM 15 may feature “foreign sleepers lying in wait for activation”. The words “foreign sleepers” is evidently a reference to sleeper cells, most likely related to the state-sponsored terror group known as ISIS. In an LA Times report from May 8, 2015, entitled “Operation Jade Helm 15: Military Training Exercise or Martial Law?”, it was reported that “the Army is preparing to wage a ‘holy war’ along the southern Arizona border”, most likely jihadists in nature. Ten days later on May 18, 2015, the New Yorker published a report entitled “Unclear Dangers” which quoted Texas Representative Louie Gohmert who stated that Texas was labeled “hostile” in JADE HELM 15 because it might “be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border”. Less than a week later on May 24, 2015, actor and Texan Chuck Norris wrote an op-ed in which he stated that “I do believe, in addition to the largest domestic military training, it is also a display of power (near the southern border) intended for deterrence of enemies like ISIS and other terrorists, who the FBI have already said are present in all 50 states”. Less than 2-weeks later on July 4, 2015, the Washington Post published a report which questioned “whether the Army was bringing in Islamic State fighters”. Lastly, in a Russia Today report from July 14, 2015, it was revealed that JADE HELM 15 “simulates operations against Islamic State”, confirming, albeit in a de facto manner, that the U.S. military will drill for ISIS-related terror attacks. Needless to say, these reports, taken collectively, suggest that ISIS-related terror attacks are planned during JADE HELM 15.

Greyhound Bus Terror Timeline
Prior to a high-profile Greyhound bus-related terror attack, the American public must be psychologically prepared to accept that this is in fact possible. Fraudulent headlines and fabricated events are a slick way of convincing people that yes, it can happen. As evidenced, Greyhound-related terror is beginning to trend which suggests that a state-sponsored attack on Greyhound-related entities is imminent.

Greyhound Terror Timeline:

1. October 4, 2001: 6 Killed in Greyhound Crash in Tennessee After Passenger Slits Driver’s Throat
2. October 2, 2002: Greyhound bus crashes after driver attacked, 2 riders killed
3. July 31, 2008: Man beheaded on Greyhound bus in Canada
4. March 28, 2012: Shocking Video: Greyhound Bus Bursts Into Flames outside Sacramento
5. December 6, 2013: Man stabs woman on Greyhound bus in Baltimore
6. January 23, 2014: Greyhound bus crashes after attack by hallucinating rider
7. June 20, 2014: Passenger Attacks Greyhound Bus Driver at 70mph
8. July 24, 2015: California man sentenced to 13 years in 2014 Greyhound bus crash in Arizona
9. July 23, 2015: Greyhound faces wrongful death lawsuit in 2008 Colusa crash
10. July 30, 2015: Mother with dead baby on Greyhound Bus charged with murder

[Does not purport to be a complete list of Greyhound attacks]

Lord2ndHokage and oispa #racist reddit.com

[Comments under "Has diversity failed?"]

@Lord2ndHokage

Clearly it has. There isn't one country on earth that's better off as a result of increased diversity. The European social democracies were utopias, now the safety nets are running dry and crime is going up. It's a tragedy really.

Reply from oispa:

You will have to forgive me because I am a skeptic of humanity. There are no Utopias; however, Western Europe before the revolutions and before diversity was the best that humanity has ever had it, and the most productive segment of humanity with the greatest degree of genius. That is what attracted the parasites to it, like international financiers, Mongols, Muslims, scheming Eastern Europeans, wops, and Jews.

Islamists #fundie ibtimes.co.uk

Supporters of the Islamic State (Isis) have reportedly hailed Donald Trump's historic victory in the 2016 US presidential race, saying it marks the beginning of the fall of the country.

While several political leaders from across the globe joined in welcoming the Republican to the White House, the jihadists too cheered for the new president-elect.

They took to social media at the prospect of a Trump presidency, with one user writing: "9/11 was the beginning of the renaissance of the Muslim nation. 11/9 will be the beginning of the fall of the Satan (America) of this age". A screenshot of the message was shared by Rukmini Callimachi, a New York Times journalist focusing on IS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda.

"The real winner in the American elections is the policy of Sheikh Usama Bin Laadin," the user added.

Pointing out how Trump had won despite being "openly racist" towards Muslims and other minority groups, a user named Khorasani said the majority of the Americans had similar views and "mindset".

"This shows the true colours of the Americans and how corrupt they all are with no moral values whatsoever," Khorasani said.

"Trump's victory is a hard slap to those promoting the efficiency of democratic systems," The Independent cited Hamza al-Karibi, a spokesperson for the al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian jihadist group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, as saying to his Twitter followers. "Starting today, we won't need media releases clarifying the West's machinations. All we need to do is retweet what Trump says".

Pro-al-Qaeda supporters too cheered Trump's victory as signalling a decline of the US. The al-Maqalaat Twitter account said Trump would "make the US Enemy No. 1 again" in the Middle East.

"Trump will serve as the perfect straw man for the next four years, like Bush did before him," Washington Post quoted it as saying.

Another al-Qaeda-linked ideologue, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who has over 56,000 followers on Twitter, declared that Trump's term "may be the beginning of America's disintegration and the era of its breakup".

"Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump," said the IS-affiliated al-Minbar Jihadi Media network. It was one of several jihadi forums to post its comments soon after the results of the US elections were declared.

THE SIMPLE TRUTH #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Paris Charlie Hebdo attack HOAX for dummies: Basic Questions that you'll never hear

All it takes to get "Paris Charlie Hebdo attack", Jan 7: Basic Questions that you'll never hear

For a start:
1. Why would they now strike a satirical newspaper instead of the government or the military?
Reminder: unlike 2011 there are now thousands of french mercenaries fighting and air bombing the population in former french colonies.
Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, Niger: an area larger than ALL of Europe, "ruled" by illuminazi puppets dressed as islamists (sharia law).

2, Why does this happen one day after "France says ready to strike extremists on Libya border"?
Reminder: Dec 2014: Libya's patriotic government launches an offensive against the ISIS terrorists that NATO covertly finances and sends to Libya.

All staged with actors, same as EVERY false flag since Germany school shooting 2009
The "dead" will now be given new identities
For people aware of who the illuminati are, facts that immediately prove it. For a start:
If Charlie Hevdo wasn't an illuminati tool it would have been finished long ago.

Web of Disinfo
As always the stage was previously set to convince the questioning audience that "it was indeed real and the evil jews did it".
For a start:
- "this same week France votes to recognise Palestine".
- "Israel vents their fury with France after parliament votes to recognise Palestine as a state".

Notes
AP - France has now launched a military operation against Islamic extremists in five of its former colonies in the Sahel region, with 3,000 troops, 200 armored vehicles and six fighter jets in Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Mali.
[link to www.hometownstations.com]

AP - The [patriotic] Tobruk government says [NATO member] Turkey backs Islamist militias.
[link to www.hometownstations.com]

Jan 5, 2015 - "France says ready to strike extremists on Libya border"
[link to news.yahoo.com]

BASICS
For what is now going on in Libya, start here and see BASICS in that page:
Jan 5, 2014 - Patriotic government bombs [covert NATO] greek vessel transporting terrorists dressed as jihadists

Rob Muise #fundie onenewsnow.com

In his most recent official statement marking the end of a Muslim holiday, President Obama has raised some concerns that he's not being realistic about the threat Islam poses to America. One voice along that line comes from the American Freedom Law Center.

In his statement Sunday on ending Eid al-Fitr, President Obama thanked the Muslim community for its contributions "to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy." Reacting to that statement, Rob Muise – co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center – tells OneNewsNow the president has apparently ignored Israel's battle against terrorists and Jihadists in other countries targeting innocent civilians, especially Christians.

"It's quite troubling that the president does not recognize that we have a very serious threat across the world and to our nation – a threat posed by Islamic jihadists who support and promote sharia law," he shares.

Muise says the president is apparently ignoring the history of threats as well as the events of September 11, 2001, and the continuing threats against the U.S. The attorney's colleague and co-founder David Yerushalmi did a study on the terrorist threat posed by mosques in America.

"[That study] shows that [in] 80 percent of the U.S. mosques, their imams promote violent jihad against the West," Muise explains. "... Sharia law, which is the foundational law of Islam, is antithetical to our fundamental values and beliefs, particularly the right to free exercise of religion [and] the right to freedom of speech."

[...]

Muise says it's inaccurate to suggest the teachings of Islam are consistent with building the fabric of America. "It's just the opposite," he adds, noting of course that not all Muslims support jihad.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


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

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

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

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

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

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

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

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

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

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

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

hellamomzilla #sexist reddit.com

So, for the past four years, I've been living in fear of people outside of professionals, educators, and the closest of family and friends (the family and friends have been uniformly supportive) while trying to cope with my transidentifying daughter. It has been isolating and painful and I've spoken about her mental health issues and our difficulties getting her treatment without mentioning the trans piece, because of the social climate.

I am politically moderate and independent, but I live in a VERY liberal part of the country and a large number of acquaintances and people in my social circle are very liberal and have posted things on FB and made known their position on the type of people they think don't want to transition their kids or teens or who have issues with allowing anyone to identify as women and all the attendant things we often discuss here. Which is transphobes and bigots and people like that should be the first against the wall, what with their language exactly the same as violence. The opprobrium is rather frightening.

Anyway, long story short, I have THREE daughters and this weekend discovered that my youngest is toying with trans-identifying. And now, as someone who was trying to help my other daughter deal with deeper and more important issues and buy her time for her brain to mature (and who, as a very young legal adult, seems to not be focused on the trans stuff, thankfully), I find myself dealing with this all over.

And, as I was talking to a staff nurse at the psych hospital, how is it that something (teen girls who think they're boys) which was almost completely unheard of when my children were born is suddenly so prevalent that 2/3 of my kids have started thinking this way as teens? How can that be a real, organic thing?
And, while this just solidifies my position that this is socially contagious and a coping strategy for hopelessness and questioning and searching, it also makes me tired.

And I reached out to a couple of people who knew the story about my older daughter and I filled them in on the trans piece. And both of these people assured me that, while they are not (thankfully!) dealing with this issue, they have seen the rise of it as they find it confusing and they think I'm doing a good thing in protecting my kids.

I think it was good I talked to women, and I think it's good I took the risk. They are both good, decent humans and it was good to realize that there are good people who are not immersed in this, but who do see it and who aren't convinced that this is something which should be growing in prevalence. Anyway, so this isn't all about me, has anyone else taken the risk -- mentioned their feelings about pediatric/adolescent transidentifying? Discussed that the transactivist agenda is using kids and teens to propel their control over women and women's spaces?

Paul Dohse #quack paulspassingthoughts.com

“And I might mention the following: her video reeks of an adult putting a subject in cartoonish terms so the great unwashed children of the world can understand it. The motif of the video alone exposes her elitist mentality.”

Folks, the pro/anti-vax controversy is a brutal arena. In the arena of discussion, neither side is taking prisoners. Why is this issue so volatile? Answer: for the same reason present-day politics is volatile.

People in general, want to be free to exercise commonsense. Unfortunately, elitism has a strong tendency to dismiss commonsense based on a person’s cultural status. This goes past a person’s educational status and flirts with the idea that commoners are unable to discern reality itself. In other words, commonsense is rejected as an intrinsic ability within humanity to know things.

On the one hand, elitist presuppositions grounded in Platonist ideology underpinning much of Western thought has little patience with serfs not accepting elitist unction. How strongly do the elitists feel about this? Look at history; no pain of death has been spared those who dare question the ruling class. On the other hand, the common folks have little patience with freedom to apply commonsense being hindered, and the suggestion that intrinsic commonsense is not an epistemological reality.

If a peasant’s child goes into convulsions right after receiving vaccinations, and those peasants who know of it are getting their children taken away for refusing to get their children vaccinated, that’s when pitchforks are used for things other than throwing hay.

The internet is a potent tool for sharing the experiences of people worldwide, and when people see a recurring trend, they take note of it. The internet enables the public at large to connect dots.

Let’s talk about some commonsense stuff regarding medicine. Even though I am only a MAC (state tested medication aide), I can apply some commonsense to what I know about the administration of medicine in nursing facilities. It is evident, in my field, that one size doesn’t fit all. There are these things called, allergic reactions, intolerance, adverse effects, right dose, right time, right drug, right route, and I could state more. A lot of drugs are substitutes for other drugs that target the same medical problem because a medication for the same condition may, well, kill the resident. These standards apply to vitamins, minerals, antibiotics, OTC, and every other kind of drug.

But regarding vaccines, one size fits all? Sorry Doc, I may be a lowly MAC compared to your medical degree, but you are obviously full of it. And, if you and your elitist buddies are behind legislation that abducts children of people who question that logic, I might even state my opinion in stronger terms.

Locally,  a pediatrician  named Nicole Baldwin attempted to debunk concerns about vaccinations with a short video on Tik Tock. The blowback was significant enough to make her the latest martyr in efforts to calm the great unwashed herd of commoners. Her great struggle was reported on CBS This Morning, a bastion of liberal elitist wisdom. Curiously, the same kind of red herrings, straw men, and doublespeak are used in political venues against those who dare believe in man’s ability to self-rule.

For example, “There is no link between vaccines and Autism.” First, the so-called “antivaxx” crowd is not saying Autism is the only issue or it is Autism per se, but Autism-like symptoms and other symptoms such as convulsions. Secondly, there are no links between the two; so what? There are no direct biological or physiological links between allergic reactions to medications and unique physiology of the individual. For the most part, adverse and allergic reactions to medicines can only be determined by observation. This is why MACs are not allowed to give the first dose of a medication, but are responsible for observing the resident for a period of time after the administration of the drug by an RN or LPN.

Here is my point: the dialogue used by the medical community in this debate is disingenuous and endowed with truth as authority. It’s the same verbiage and deceptive forms of communication used by elitists in the political realm. And it’s like the police saying a traffic accident never occurred because there is no direct link between a cause for the accident and the mangled car with the injured driver inside. Furthermore, the injured person sitting in the car wasn’t necessarily injured by the accident. Really? Even though harm is taking place at the time of some vaccinations, the two are unrelated. A person begins choking while eating a sandwich, but the sandwich is dismissed as the cause. It’s nonsense.

And I might mention the following: her video reeks of an adult putting a subject in cartoonish terms so the great unwashed children of the world can understand it. The motif of the video alone exposes her elitist mentality.

I will summarize and conclude this post with the comment I left on her FaceBook page:

As a STNA and MAC attending nursing school I find the medical community’s collectivist attitude towards this problem very sad. The experience of many parents tells us that something is going wrong with a small percentage of children who get vaccinated. When parents experience their children suddenly becoming cognitively disabled or going into convulsions within hours of receiving vaccines, you can bet they are going to be skeptical of vaccines.

And by the way, 46% of parents are not skeptical of vaccines because they are uneducated serfs, they are skeptical because of what parents are experiencing, and that is what they are finding on the internet, NOT the mere beliefs of dumb hillbillies. I find the attitude that a few children are expendable for the collective good of most children detestable [viz, “The benefits outweigh the risks.” I suppose, if it isn’t your child!].

EVERY child matters. Again, the notion that the internet is a conduit for misinformation by the great unwashed and uneducated is an excuse for not addressing what is actually happening.

What people are experiencing is the issue, not superstition. I think it a little arrogant to tell people their experiences are invalid because of research. I am no doctor, but you only need to be an STNA to know doctors are wrong often and don’t know everything. Trust me, I have many firsthand testimonies.

paul

Fading Light #racist stormfront.org

Re: Specific genetic explanation for what's wrong with Jews

Whatever it is, I really do think it's genetic. They display a condition that, when it occurs in Whites, was classically referred to by the term "psychopathy"--or the completely lack of a normal conscience. "Psychopath" used to be a clinical term.

The point, however, is that it seems prevalent in virtually every Jew on the planet. Our unique and peculiar obsession with compassion, fairness, sharing, and self-deprecation both confuses and amuses them. They don't understand it, and all they can think of is how they can exploit it. So that is their primary weapon against the weaker-minded of our race: appeal to compassion.

Sadly, some of our adults and most of our inexperienced young people cannot tell a REASONED appeal for compassion from an exploitative sob story. And this is what we get from the leftists in general and the Jews in particular all the time:

"Boo-hoo-hoo! I've been injured by a mean fact!"

"Boo-hoo-hoo! The White people give their own race more rights in the nations they built that they give us invaders!"

"Boo-hoo-hoo! Those filthy antisemitichomophobicracistNazis called me a name!"

Gina Miller #fundie renewamerica.com

Teen's suicide shows tragic folly of "transgender" delusion

On Sunday, December 28th, a mentally ill Ohio teenager committed suicide by stepping in front of a semi-trailer on an interstate, selfishly forcing the driver to run him down. The driver, who was minding his own business, will now have to live with this horror the rest of his life. How do I know the kid was mentally ill? I know, because 17-year-old Joshua Alcorn believed he was a girl trapped in a boy's body and had apparently labored under this tragic, "transgender" delusion since he was a little boy. In his suicide note, he blamed his Christian parents for not supporting and encouraging him in his fantasy. Instead, they did the best they knew how in getting him psychiatric help and telling him the truth that he could never be a girl.

[...]

According to one study from 2010, over forty percent of "transgender" people have attempted suicide. Proponents of "transgenderism" explain this high figure by mistakenly blaming society's disapproval for "causing" these people to attempt suicide. That's not it. Anyone in open rebellion against God's design for human sexuality will suffer for it, and suicidal tendencies are just one of the many ill effects.

"Transgenderism" is a deeply disturbing mental and spiritual sickness. Any person who believes he is the opposite sex has serious problems, and society's rightful disapproval is the least of them. Not everyone will like to hear this, but demon possession certainly plays a part in homosexuality and "transgenderism." In the Bible, we see that demon possession was commonly understood to be prevalent, but the knowledge of it has been largely lost or buried today, as if our "modern" culture is too "smart" to give credence to the reality of spiritual forces at work in people today, just as they were then.

We often read that some who are homosexual or "transgender" have believed this since they were children. Demons do not spare children any more than adults. [...] How many of these cases today are demon-related? I don't know, but it is certainly a factor.

mainlander #sexist #pedo #quack incels.co

[Serious] The reasons agecucks are against adults dating teens have absolutely nothing to do with (alleged) increased pregnancy risks

1= male teens having sex with them can make them pregnant just the same and agecucks are not against it
2= women in their late 30s and especially 40s getting pregnant have even much, much more increased possible complications (especially for the baby) and they don't care
3= they use data from shithole countries so of course the number of women who died from childbirth is noticeable in those places
4= they pretend to be devout Catholics now and that sex is only for reproduction when we all know it definitely isn't especially on this day and age. If the problem was only that, it would be ok in their book to kiss or to have non-vaginal sex with teens as an adult

Agecuckoldry (teens can date each other but adults can't date them) is 0% about reason and logic and 100% about emotions. Lookism-based prejudice, jealousy, envy, misandry, you name it.

(I won't link the IT thread that inspired me to write this because I already did one thread on IT today and I'm aware Serge doesn't want us to do it).

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

Cleric Mizanur Rahman #fundie google.com.au

A British hate preacher backed the Paris massacres just hours after the bloody events unfolded and told his followers ‘Britain is the enemy of Islam’.

Cleric Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, defended the brutal murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices, saying ‘insulting Islam…they can’t expect a different result.’

Experts have warned the sermon, which backed the jihadists who killed 17 people over three days in the French capital, could incite further killings.

Speaking to an audience in London which was streamed online to thousands of his followers, Rahman praised Al Qaeda and said ‘Britain is the enemy of Islam.’

Sam Westrop, director of counter-extremism group Stand for Peace told the Sunday Mirror: ‘His kind of rhetoric is not an echo of Islamist terror and extremism – it is a driving force behind it.

‘It is truly reprehensible for him to speak like this, especially so soon after Paris.’

His speech on Friday night came to light after reporters from the Sunday Mirror gained access to an online live stream - they then notified the Metropolitan Police.

The newspaper reported that in the video Rahman claimed France was carrying out 'ethnic cleansing', and told his followers what happened in France was 'war.'

He said: 'These cartoons is part of their own war, is part of the psychological warfare...you know what happens when you insult Mohammed.'

Ted Cruz #fundie amp.businessinsider.com

Ted Cruz forcefully blasted Democrats in a strong Sunday statement on the deadly terrorist attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, earlier Sunday morning.

"The next few days will be sadly predictable," the Texas senator said in the statement. "Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats - from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton - will refuse to utter the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.'"

"They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe," the Republican, who made an unsuccessful bid at his party's presidential nomination, continued. "And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans."

Cruz said "enough is enough" and called for Democrats and Republicans to join forces, "abandon political correctness," and defeat jihadists.

He later addressed Democrats who are pro-LGBT rights:

For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians.

ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation.

If you're a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.

Fifty people were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando after a gunman, identified by law-enforcement as 29-year-old Omar Saddiqui Mateen, opened fire inside the club during the early-morning hours on Sunday.

jrcthegodlessheathen #racist jrcthegodlessheathen.tumblr.com

Pants Up, Don’t Loot!

“Hands up, don’t shoot!” More like “Pants up, don’t loot!” No, that’s not racist in any way. If you want people to stop looking at you and calling you niggers, stop acting like niggers. When I use that word, I’m talking about everyone of every race, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, religion, etc. Stereotypes are grounded in reality, so the way to get rid of the negative ones are to stop perpetuating them. Get an education, read books, pay some bills and taxes, stay out of the system, be politically and socially active, be charitable, keep an open mind and heart. Being a violent, irrational, collectivist moron just feeds the negativity. That’s not to say I prescribe to the nonviolence principle, because sometimes violence is necessary, but the less we have to practice it against each other, the better we are. That’s the simple truth! It starts with individuals putting the onus on themselves to erase the hatred built by the collective. It would be naive and Utopian to think that bigotry would be entirely eradicated from the hearts of mankind, but the mitigation and minimizing of suffering is something that is of utmost importance to the growth and evolution of this failing species of scat we know as humankind.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy truthernews.wordpress.com

SWITZERLAND, Zurich — Based on breaking news and events, it’s highly likely that the Obama administration (at the behest of the CIA in Switzerland) will execute a wave of domestic terror attacks in the South in the aftermath of the Confederate flag being removed from the Capitol of South Carolina on July 10, 2015.

Exactly what type of state-sponsored domestic terror attacks are planned for South Carolina and the greater South is not known, but gun-related massacres, conventional bombings, and a coup-like attack on the South Carolina State House in Columbia, South Carolina are expected.

Professional terrorists (i.e., Special Forces) will likely pose as Confederate soldiers, KKK Members, Neo-Nazis, racists, and/or skin heads during made-for-TV terror attacks. Needless to say, the said attacks will be used by the CIA to spark a civil war in America, namely over the flag and the right to bear arms.

The removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol is the fallout from the Charleston Church Shooting which has all the earmarks of state-sponsored terrorism (e.g., manifesto, medicated shooter, etc.). In other words, it appears that the shooting was executed in part to spark a civil war.

Photos of alleged shooter Dylann Roof posing with a Confederate flag were likely taken by Roof’s handlers in order to brand the attack and create a national movement to remove the flag. Said movement has now climaxed with the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina Capitol.

However, since the official state flag of Mississippi still bears a Confederate flag, it can be deduced that the removal of flag from the South Carolina State House is only being executed for political purposes, namely to provide a timely motive for revenge-like attacks by so-called domestic terrorists.

In other words, the flag of Mississippi (i.e., an official flag of the U.S. government) still bears a Confederate flag while the Confederate flag at the South Carolina State House is not even an official flag of the government of South Carolina. In other words, the polarizing Confederate flag is here to stay.

It is imperative to note that the Charleston Church Shooting provided the necessary cover for the execution of South Carolina Senator Clementa Pinckney on June 17, 2015. Consequently, all the CIA-run media will focus on is the patsy Roof and the Confederate flag, both of which are distractions.

In order to draw unprecedented media publicity to the Confederate flag and the state of South Carolina just prior to a wave of domestic false-flag terror attacks, it was reported back on June 25, 2015, that a South Carolina police officer was fired for posing in rebel flag underwear.

In order to psychologically prepare the American population for state-sponsored terror attacks that will be scapegoated onto domestic terrorists, it was reported on June 24, 2015, that right-wing terrorists are twice as likely to kill Americans than Muslim jihadists.

The goal of the Obama administration is to somehow merge bearded Islamic terrorists with those who fly the Confederate Rebel Flag and root for the Ole Miss Rebels in the American South (i.e., individuals which look likely they belong on the hit television show Duck Dynasty).

That way, the U.S. government can pretend that can’t tell the difference between Islamic terrorists, domestic terrorists, and the general population. This will ultimately allow Obama to eradicate all of his political opposition with autonomous drones, a preview of which was witnessed back on November 30, 2013, when Paul Walker was assassinated via drone strike in Los Angeles.

https://truthernews.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/confederate-flag.jpg

Sharpe #racist niggermania.net

The other day, my girlfriend and I, along with another friend of ours, were watching a Hollywood TV movie. It was quite a good film, but at one point, my girlfriend remarked on the disproportionate number of niggers that had been cast.

All three of us are NM’s, though the other two don’t “do” forums, so they’re not members on here. After the film finished, we continued chatting about the unbalanced portrayal of nogs in film and on TV generally.

We came to the following conclusions about casting:

Main hero and/or heroine.
Still likely to be human, as most US and British films are aimed at an English-speaking human audience. The makers want their viewers to be able to identify with the characters. For that reason, there are not many films made in these countries that feature Asian or Oriental leads; not that there would be anything wrong in principle with that. Productions from Asia, China, etc., naturally favour a cast of their own race. Nothing wrong with that either.

Hero/heroine’s best friend or trusty sidekick.
This is where the misrepresentation comes in. The UK population comprises about 8% Asian and only 3% nigger.

In the USA, you have a much lower percentage of Asians, but a large percentage of people of European or Hispanic descent. You also have the native Americans, though these are very much a minority, at 1.6%.

You also have a higher proportion of niggers, at around 14%.

So, statistically, you would expect the best friend character to be either British or possibly Asian, in the case of the UK, or white US, Hispanic or European, in the USA. Yet this character is almost certain to be a nigger.

There are many examples, such as the James Bond films, in which Bond’s CIA ally, Felix Leiter changed colour at some point from white to black (he was definitely white in the books) and “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” in which the hero, Arthur Dent’s friend, Ford Prefect, is a nigger. Again, he was a white Englishman in the book and original TV series.

The trusted authority figure; this could be a cop, lawyer, doctor etc.
Nigger.

Subsidiary characters, who have a minor role in the plot.
Between about 25 and 50% nigger, though in the film that we watched, it was quite noticeably higher. This figure is out of all proportion to the percentage of nigs in both US and UK society.

The villain.
Human. Always. Under no circumstances whatsoever, will a nigger be portrayed in a negative way. If the action takes place in a corporate boardroom, you can expect the 25 - 50% nigger population that I described above… unless the board is that of an evil corporation bent on environmental destruction, suppression of human rights, etc., in which case, there will not be a nigger in sight.

Clearly, the reason for this massive misrepresentation is to maintain a PC agenda, and try to install a general acceptance of the nigger as being just another type of human. Future historians will probably wonder why we, in the 21st century, went to so much trouble to do so. As do I.

Ray Novosel #fundie samliquidation.com

The simple facts are that after the death of Solomon, the Kingdom of Israel was divided into two kingdoms. The Northern Kingdom - composed of ten (10) tribes, with the capital at Samaria, called "Israel," and the Southern Kingdom - composed of only two (2) tribes (Judah & Benjamin), with the capital at Jerusalem, called "Judah." Both of these Kingdoms went into Captivity to Babylon within a few short years of each other, due to Israel’s sins of pride and rebellion. Contrary to what most teach and believe, the following Biblical giants were never "Jews."

* ABRAHAM - was a Hebrew (racial)
* ISSAC - was a Hebrew
* JACOB - was a Hebrew
* MOSES - was a Levite (tribal)
* PAUL – was a Benjaminite and BECAME a devout and religious JEW BY CHOICE!
* JESUS – was/is The Son of God, a strict adherent of His own Law, but never a JEW!

SAUL THE PHARISEE/JEW

Saul was a racial Israelite, a Roman citizen - born in Tarsus and studied the “Traditions of the Elders/Fathers” (Gal 1:14) under the Pharisee, Gemaliel, in Jerusalem in his youth and became the “golden haired boy” of the controlling Jewish establishment. At this time, prior to his conversion, Saul was a vicious, Babylonian Talmudic Pharisaic Antichrist that persecuted the followers of “The Way” to their deaths, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison whenever the opportunity arose. Paul wrote: "You have heard of my earlier CAREER in Judaism - how furiously I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it; and how in devotion to Judaism I out-stripped many men of may own age among my people, being far more zealous than they for the tradition of my forefathers" (Gal 1:13, 14, Weymouth Translation)

Clearly while in Judaism, Saul persecuted Christians due to his intense hatred for believers, because of his total commitment to the fraternity holding to the “traditions of the fathers.” Paul at that time, was a Jew BY RELIGION ONLY!

Please carefully read it again, “And profited in the Jews' RELIGION above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” (Gal 1:14 KJV)

When Paul became a Christian, HE CEASED BEING A “JEW” as such, simply because Pharisaism (Judaism, Jewry) TOTALLY CONTRADICTED EVERYTHING he now stood for as an Apostle of Christ.

In fact, this very system of religious/cultish legalism called "Jewry" was something of which even Jesus Himself would NOT walk. This is so incredibly important to understand!!! “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would NOT WALK IN JEWRY, BECAUSE THE JEWS SOUGHT TO KILL HIM.” (John 7:1) These "Jews" that were determined to KILL Christ were the cozy, religious (freemasonic) establishment of the Scribes and Pharisees that held considerable political power during the time of the brutal Roman occupation of Palestine, where Jesus openly condemned their status-seeking and carnal, ego-centric attitudes.

Despite the occupation, the Babylonian Talmudic Pharisees were given near total autonomy in dealing with all so-called “religious” matters, where after the death of Herod the Great, Judea was reduced to a Roman province under a procurator. It was under the fifth procurator, Pontius Pilate, that Jesus Christ was crucified, by order of the Pharisees of whom the Sanhedrin were the supreme ruling/decision-making body. It was these JEWS who ordered the death of Christ. The “Jews" referred to, meant the high priests, the Sanhedrin, the scribes and the Pharisees, all of whom earned the scorn of our Lord because of the total abuse of their authority. The religious establishment saw The Lord Jesus as a threat to their power base because he was becoming popular with the people, who had several times sought to make him their king.

Hence the term "Jew" refers to the followers of this Pharisaic system of religionised law based on men’s traditions and upon generations of subjective interpretations of God’s Law/Word that ultimately became "Talmudic Judaism.” It was and still is, a powerful, influential and liberal religious sect where only a select and privileged few were invited to join. "Judaism denotes the Jewish faith in its extravagant form of blind attachment to rites and traditions, and national exclusiveness. This must have been prevalent in the time of Christ, because of His constant exposure of their formalism and self-assumption, and because in John's Gospel 'the Jews' is used as synonymous with opposers of Christ and His teachings." (The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, (1901), p. 999).

ISRAEL - THE JEWS AND GENEALOGY

When asked the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?" the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) answered thus:

"The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion.”

Notice here that the Jews themselves clearly imply that the term "Israelite" and "Jew" are separate and distinct and where Jews have no relation whatsoever with the Biblical Noahatic bloodline. In fact, under the heading "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew," in the 1980 Jewish Almanac, is the following incredible admission:

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew".

A JEW IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN ISRAELITE!

Today, to trace anyone's descent to ancient Palestine would be a genealogical impossibility. The Jewish racial myth flows from the fact that the words ‘Hebrew,’ ‘Israelite,’ ‘Jew,’ ‘Judaism,’ and the ‘Jewish people’ have been used synonymously to suggest a historic continuity, but this is a gross misuse. The descriptive name Judaism was never heard by the Hebrews or Israelites; it appears only within modern Christianity. The English abbreviation, 'Jew,’ is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for 'Judahite' or 'Judean,’ which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, according to Reporting Guidelines for the Australian Press Council, General Press Release No. 49 (issued June 1982) with reference to the word "Race" as applied to Jews.

“The Press Council wishes to alert editors to a common mistake. There is no "Jewish race". Judaism is not a race but a religion. There are Caucasian Jews, Mongolian Jews, Oriental Jews, Semitic Jews and so on - terms defining both racial origin and religion. The Council asks all editors and sub-editors to watch for this error . . . .”

During Christ’s lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. This very important FACT is supported by sound theology, suppressed historical truth and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves as "Jews". Their ancestors never set-foot anywhere near Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their true "homeland", and were known as Chazars, or Turkish Mongols. Banned author Douglas Reed, in his superbly researched classic, “Controversy of Zion,” writes:

"No authority, Judaist or other, would support the claim to blood decent from Judah for the so-called Jews of today." In fact, the Palestinians would have more claim to the racial description, 'Semite', than any within modern Jewry who are of Eastern-European stock and trace their lineage back to the ancient Asiatic kingdom of the Chazar”.

Herschel #sexist #racist psychologytoday.com

Women are held to much, much lower standards than men. They are basically children trying to compete with adults. It's not just in PE class, it's in every facet of life. Women can get away with acting like children these days so they do. They're just incredibly bitchy and pretentious. I hope you all continue to live your miserable lives with your disgusting cats. Soon, you will realize who the good guys were. It was the white men, but your envy did not allow you to see that, so now the world is turning into a shithole of non-whites.

Also, your whole attitude is just disgusting as well. You can always tell when it's a woman talking on the internet. You can tell because their level of self-esteem is about 100x higher than it should be. "How dare he suggest that women are more childish than men. I bet he couldn't come up with a single example. And, if he does, I'll gaslight him."

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu #conspiracy globalresearch.ca

If ISIS is not a Sunni militia, then who are they working for?

Who employed them to wreck havoc in the Middle East?

Why is it that the US government and its NATO allies cannot seriously fight ISIS in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Levant? ISIS is US-made monster! ISIS Caliphate is never an Islamic Caliphate.

It is a “U.S.-made Caliphate” that does not have any binding authority whatsoever over worldwide Muslims.

It is known truth that CIA constantly backs-up and supports all known so-called jihadist groups from the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, to even Jemaa Islamiyya and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, and the Boko Haram of Nigeria.

That is why US will never seriously fight these monsters it created.

US is the invisible director of all international terrorism groups so that these monsters can commit crimes mercilessly and with impunity against humanity. These monsters are made alive and sustained by American dollars and ably, yet subtly directed by the master of the puppetry: US invisible hegemonic hand!

NATO is in unholy partnership with the CIA operators who are currently training, arming, funding and equipping thousands of ISIS combatants from Europe to overthrow secular and socialist Syria as part of the CIA ploy called “Arab Spring”—which is nothing but a covert ideological operation to to conquer the Middle East and Central Asia, its oil reserves, its pipeline corridors as part of an imperial agenda. (On The Trans-Afghan pipeline see Michel Chossudovsky, “America’s War on Terrorism”, chapter 5, pp. 65-91).

Therefore, who is supporting this ISIS militia, who is equipping them, who is funding them so heftily?

For what purpose are they doing these despicable acts? If they are truly Islamic fighters bent on fighting for the rights of Islam and the Muslims, then why do they bomb Sunni Muslim mosques, Sufi Muslim shrines and Shi’ite Muslim prayer halls of their co-religionists?

Is this about establishing a war scenario in the Middle East so that the global weaponry business of the US military industrial complex is at its best and profitable business as usual?

These are relevant questions for our sober reflection.

Ben Shapiro #fundie breitbart.com

[Regarding a decision to force a school to let a transgender student change in the girls' locker room]

The student is not female. But never mind that: the subjective opinion of a mentally ill person now governs a student body of some 12,000.

So here, in a nutshell, is the government’s new policy with regard to sex and sexuality among youngsters:

If you’re a boy who shows a picture of your penis to a girl in your class, you have likely violated both federal child pornography laws as well as local sexual harassment laws. If this happens consistently in your school, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re a boy who says he’s a girl, the girl must be placed in position to see your penis and testicles. If the school does not allow this, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re an adult who sexually touches a child with the consent of the child, you have committed a crime, since children are incapable of consent.
If you’re an adult who gives a child hormone therapy or surgery to prevent normal development of the genitals, with the consent of the child, you are a hero.

If this all makes sense to you, you should be working for the federal Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

This is what happens when a society loses its moral moorings. In its quest to destroy God, the left unhitched its wagon from eternal truths and, instead, decided to substitute its own idea of utopia. To reach that utopia – freedom from social expectations and standards – objectivity itself had to be destroyed, so as to avoid blame. Objective truth lost all meaning; only subjectivity mattered. Science became the enemy, since it establishes provable truths; it had to be quashed and quelled. Language became the enemy, since definitions exclude people and things not covered by those definitions; it had to be perverted and hijacked.

And so we now live through the looking glass, waiting for the next philosophically incoherent ruling from our masters of time and space. Or mistresses. Or whatever.

Tom Carder #fundie capalert.com

WARNING! This analysis is blunt. South Park is a vulgar and vile movie. Any commentary will inherently border vulgar as well.

South Park is an incredibly dangerous movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel ....... INCREDIBLY dangerous! Some of the scenes in South Park reminded me so much of the image of demons screeching and dancing around a boiling cauldron as Satan gleefully looks on from the background as the demons pitch soul after soul after soul into the burning cauldron.

Satan is portrayed as the homosexual lover of Saddam Hussein and is portrayed as a sensitive, loving and caring being though the One who cast him into Hell clearly tells the Truth about him: that Satan's only interests are to steal, kill and destroy [John 10:10]. Hussein waves his disembodied male member around. And it was not a cardboard drawing like most other images of the movie -- it was of photographic resolution. The most foul of the foul words was clearly spoken by the children at least 131 times and many other times in a muffled or garbled way as well as in rapid uncountable succession in song [Col. 3:8]. The three/four letter word vocabulary was used at least 119 times, also mostly by children. God's name in vain was used 11 times without the four letter expletive and 6 times with it [Deut 5:11]. And many times the child characters were saying things like "What's the big deal" (about the foul language). "Suck my --", "Let's ([homo]sexual intercourse)", and repeated questions about a female private organ were but a very few of the vulgar expressions used by the kids.

Angels were portrayed as females - nude, very nude. God was called many vulgar and hateful names. Satan was glorified. Jesus was equated with sexual anatomy. A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his flatulence, then another kid tried to beat out the flames with a stick concerned about the stick catching fire. Body parts dripping with blood were ripped from a child by a surgeon who expressed flippant, shallow concern. The dead child was then seen with an exploded chest. The dead child, after being rejected from Heaven (by nude female angels) and cast into Hell (which is a violation of Scripture in and of itself), was then presented as a ghost trying to influence the other kids. An all-male chorus line wore pink bikini briefs. Homosexual acts were described. Decomposing burned bodies were cast as live occupants of Hell. "Big brother" electronic shock control of a child was used to prevent his use of foul language (each time he cussed he was shocked -- he used this shock later to defeat Hussein by shouting every known and several unknown foul words). A man committed suicide by jumping out of a window. And throughout the movie was script to promote licentious belittlement of wholesome life and entertainment: rationale to lessen even further the threshold of acceptance. [Rom. 16:17 - 18]

These are but a very few of the examples of ignominy in this sinematic cyanide. And the kids in the audience loved it, almost as much as the adults with them. Many of the children seemed to be laughing because their fathers expected them to laugh, looking up at their fathers, laughing nervously and loudly just so dad would know they were laughing along with him, not likely knowing at what it was they were laughing half the time. As long as dad was laughing. That was reason enough. May God have mercy on us. [Luke 17:2]

That is all I will say about the content this extraordinarily vulgar, vile, and repugnant movie. Other examples are just too vulgar and vile to even try to describe without being as vulgar and vile. Please note that the final score of 29 is not the lowest of scores earned by the movies we have analyzed, but this movie has earned the most severe CAP Influence Density (ID) of over 800 movies: a CAP ID of 10.65! Natural Born Killers (R) earned a CAP Influence Density of 7.46! Most R-rated movies earn CAP IDs between 1.00 and 3.00. A child cannot escape being influenced by "entertainment" such as this.

And you cannot imagine the depths of the influence of this sort of entertainment! In the months that followed our posting of this analysis report we received thousands of emails from adolescents who have seen this movie and spoke just like it. With the same or more severe level of contempt for wholesome and righteous ethics. I would post examples of their email here but most of them would look like "You --- ---, ---. You are a --- and a ---. Go --- ---. And see who cares about your --- ---, you --- --- sorry --- --- --- ---. --- my ---. And Satan's, too, you --- uncle ---- donkey ---." Just like South "Puke": BLU. And some people actually believe movies do not influence kids.

forgiveness heals #fundie rr-bb.com

I have a heavy heart today for my son. I visited him yesterday and he started babbling off the cool-aid speeches and how wonderful everything was going to be and utopia and blah blah blah . . . and I suddenly felt sick. This is a very intelligent young man that usually is babbling about what he learned in church last Sunday. I feel like if things go crazy and the non coolaid drinkers are singled out maybe my son will turn against me . .. turn me in. I suddenly feel leary of my own child. It's not a good feeling and I wish it would go away.

I feel like I need to contact one of those people that rescue adult children from cults and un-brainwash them.

Umar Haque #fundie theguardian.com

A dangerous extremist who attempted to build an army of child jihadists by radicalising pupils has been convicted of a range of terrorist offences. Umar Haque, 25, taught an Islamic studies class despite the fact he had no teaching qualifications and was employed as an administrator. He was allowed to supervise classes of 11- to 14-year-olds on his own, during which he re-enacted attacks on police officers and showed students videos of beheadings.

Police fear Haque attempted to radicalise at least 110 children, some of whom he was in contact with at the Ripple Road mosque in Barking, east London. Thirty-five of those children are receiving long-term support. Haque also worked at the £3,000-a-year Lantern of Knowledge Islamic school, where he was again allowed access alone to children under the pretence of teaching Islamic Studies when he was in fact employed as an administrator.

Jurors were told he attempted to radicalise children at the school but were unable to agree on a count of disseminating a terrorist document which related to his time at the school. Haque was convicted by a jury at the Old Bailey on Friday of a range of offences, including plotting terrorist attacks and collecting information useful for terrorism. He had previously admitted four charges of collecting information useful for terrorism, and one count of disseminating a terrorist document, in relation to his attempts to radicalise children at the mosque. He was acquitted of conspiring to possess firearms.

Two other men, Abuthaher Mamun, 19, and Muhammad Abid, 27, were convicted for their roles in helping him. A fourth defendant, Nadeem Patel, 26, who had previously pleaded guilty to possessing a handgun, was acquitted of plotting with Haque. After he was found guilty, Haque shouted “I want to say something”, but was dragged out of the dock by officers. The judge, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, said he would be sentenced later.

The schools watchdog, Ofsted, is facing questions over how it was able to rate the Lantern of Knowledge school as “outstanding” after an inspection held at a time when Haque was allegedly preaching hate to the children. In response to the conviction it said that Haque’s activities were a matter of deep regret and said it was “hampered by limitations on our powers” to inspect out-of-school settings. “His plan was to build an army of children,” said commander Dean Haydon, the head of counter-terrorism at Scotland Yard. “He had shown them graphic terrorist videos of barbarity – beheading videos and serious injuries mostly in terrorist attacks overseas.

“He had instructed children not to say anything in relation to not telling their teachers or their parents. We had a wall of silence. “He tried to prepare the children for martyrdom by making them role-play terrorist attacks in London. Part of that re-enactment including attacking police officers.” Haque was employed at Lantern of Knowledge from September 2015 to September 2016 as an administrator but also carried out duties as a classroom assistant. He allegedly used his laptop in the school to project on to a whiteboard images of guns, knives, beheadings and passports being burned, the court heard.

In late 2016 and early 2017, Haque was involved in the running of evening classes in a madrasa, based in a large marquee attached to the mosque in Ripple Road. He told the boys aged about 12 to 14 he had established contact with Isis and showed them a series of videos projected on to the wall inside the marquee, ensuring the doors were closed. The horrifying images included blood, wounds, and people falling from buildings. In one film, the exhumation of a boy was shown. Haque told the children the child’s body had deteriorated because he had been beaten after death when he was unable to answer questions put to him by angels.

In the madrasa, Haque had the children doing push-ups, races and grappling in order to train them. There were sessions of role-playing during which the children would be divided into the police and attackers. There were demonstrations of how to sever a head. After the Westminster Bridge attack by Khalid Masood last March, Haque used the atrocity as inspiration for the role-playing.

He said he intended to teach the children to drive as they got older so he could carry out multiple attacks across London. He forced them take an oath not to tell their parents, friends or teachers. He aimed to recruit 300 jihadists, it is claimed. The 35 children in long-term support were “paralysed in fear” by Haque, Haydon said. “He threatened them if they were to talk. It doesn’t appear that any of those children raised the alarm.” Six children gave evidence in court. The trial was shown video of a police interview with a child, who said: “He is teaching us terrorism, like how to fight.”

The boy said: “He has been training us, kind of. Apparently fighting is good. If you fight for the sake of Allah, on judgment day when you get judged for your good deeds and bad deeds, fighting is good.” In November 2015, Ofsted inspectors visited the Lantern of Knowledge school, two months after Haque started working there. In their report, they said: “The strong sense of community, harmony and respect within the school reflects the school ethos and aims of leaders and governors to develop well-rounded citizens. “The spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is outstanding. They have an excellent understanding of the world around them and make a positive contribution to their community.”

In April 2016, Haque was stopped at Heathrow airport as he attempted to board a flight to Istanbul – a well-trodden route to Syria for aspiring Isis recruits. As a result of the stop and searches conducted of his phone, in May 2016 he had his passport revoked and police started investigating him. In May, he and three others were arrested and charged with attack planning. Further charges related to attempting to radicalise children were filed a few months later. Haque had a long-term plan to launch terrorist attacks on a wide range of possible targets including the Queen’s Guard, parliament and media organisations.

Last June, Ofsted made an emergency inspection at the Lantern of Knowledge school in response to concerns about safeguarding children. On this occasion, the inspectors found it had not met regulatory requirements. After an announced inspection in December, Ofsted dramatically reduced all the ratings from “outstanding” to “requires improvement”. The report said: “Leaders do not ensure that training about risk assessments and procedures to support pupils’ welfare are applied consistently enough during some routine activities.” The Charity Commission is investigating the Ripple Road mosque. Ofsted’s chief operating officer, Matthew Coffey, said it was a matter of “deep regret” that Haque was able to work with children.

“Ofsted is committed to protecting children from harm, including radicalisation,” he added. “However, our ability to do so is hampered by limitations on our powers. We have no ability to inspect out-of-school settings, such as madrassas, and we believe greater powers in this area could help keep children safe in the future. “We know the government is keen to address these matters and welcome their commitment to closer working.”

MacArthur Parks #fundie pccboard.com

I don't control Jim Dobson's calendar. However, why would you want to meet with Cal Thomas if he's going to write a defeatist book that goes against what you believe?

I respect Thomas too. However, writing good stuff about Ted Kennedy and teaming with a liberal to write another book about today's toxic political environment is not the best way to go.

It's not about legislating morality. It's about mobilizing Christians to do their duty.

If every one of the 40 to 50 million born again Christians in this nation voted, and voted correctly, our nation would be a different place. It would not be a utopia because that won't happen until Jesus comes back, but you could leave your doors unlocked at night and you would not be afraid to shop at the mall.

Imagine the U.S. Senate with 70 conservative Republican members and even a handful of conservative Democrats. A federal judge makes a bad ruling, and he or she is impeached, disbarred and imprisoned within a week's time.

Imagine liberal college professors who would be fired and blacklisted if they criticize this nation and try to stir up subversion.

Imagine every mosque in this nation with an FBI informant within their ranks. After which, most would be closed.

Imagine liberal churches losing their tax-exempt status if their speakers wax political.

Imagine child pornographers and gang members being hanged in public.

Imagine balancing the budget and paying off the national debt. You would keep a lot more of your money.

Imagine George Soros being deported and Michael Moore being exiled to Saudi Arabia.

All it would take to bring that about is for Christians to do their duty. We could bring this nation's government back to what it used to be. Obviously, it would not change the hearts and minds of most of the public, but it would make for a much better society.

Read Proverbs 29:2.

Vernon Richards #racist #psycho faithfreedom.org

Consequences of Nuking Mecca
By: Vernon Richards, author of ‘Islam Undressed‘

Because a war of attrition heavily favors their ultimate goals, Islamist terrorists have so far not been deterred by large numbers of their young men being killed. Life is cheap to them, even their own, and so they remain unmoved by their losses and still lust for power through murder. Their grass-roots support base, billions of Muslims world-wide, can still be counted on to largely support their efforts, even if only passively. If sufficiently humbled, then at some point the majority of Muslims might yet choose to abandon violence and stop their sons, or at least temporarily withdraw their jihadist forces to established realms of influence (just as the Turkish hordes did after being soundly defeated by the Polish cavalry). But any decision to withdraw will not come by either negotiation or accommodation, but only through abject humiliation and defeat. What form of defeat will suffice to convince Islam to put the Jihad genie back in the bottle is a subject of widespread debate. Pacifists blithely claim more therapy, understanding, and multiculturalism is the way, and will likely continue to spout such nonsense right up until the Halal knife slices their throat. They congratulate themselves for being so open-minded, oblivious that their brains have fallen out. Happily self-blinded by excessive relativism, they can no longer distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, or dark from light.

Those more personally touched by Islamic methods, and with the ability to realize you cannot create sweets from bile, often prefer methods of ‘total war’. Our enemies remain free to plan and perpetrate never-ending acts of total war designed to destroy the very fabric of our society. Failure to respond with even greater destructiveness will only serve to prolong this struggle. In any contest, the first rule of victory is to fight on your own terms and not your opponents. In any violent struggle, victory goes to the most ferocious and skilled. As Patton said, let the other poor bastard die for his country, our objective is to fight and win. We must fight with more energy, more cunning, more intelligence, and more ferocity than the cunning animals seeking our demise. It is simply suicidal to refuse to fight a people and culture who are motivated, mobilized, and pledged to destroy you. The true terrorists, the men and nations brainwashing, supplying, and ordering terrorist attacks, would prefer they remain unmolested. They are quite happy to let us use our police, military, and intelligence to play cat and mouse with their endless supply of terrorist foot-soldiers in this contest stacked against us. In this war, victory will go to the party most effective in convincing the opposing party that surrender is preferable to a continuation of hostilities, and so victory will remain out of reach to us as long as the enablers and handlers remain safe. Muslim survivalists will only force the end to the terrorist activities springing up from amongst them when made to pay a terrible price. One ‘terrible price’ currently under debate is an nuclear attack on Mecca should any 9/11 scale attack (or larger) occur on US soil. I am in favor of such planning in the event of a catastrophic strike against America, because I believe the burden of loss needs to be shifted decidedly to fundamental Muslims themselves (and what they value most) if there is to be any hope of ending all this madness. To yield to Islamists demands and take the option off the table would be strategically stupid. Unfortunately, the only thing an insanity respects is greater insanity.

But as has been pointed out by Robert Spencer, Nuking Mecca could also be seen by Islamists as a weak action and could serve to unify Muslims and increase Jihad. But this is only true if not done properly and the city is left salvageable within a few years. Once devoted Muslims carry out their next major strike on America, the Mecca plan should be carried out without hesitation or warning. No Hiroshima class atomic wimp-weapon will do, only the 1,000 times more powerful hydrogen fusion device will work for this important job. To be done correctly, a grid of 9 of our most powerful Hydrogen bombs (3x3, every 12 miles, the black stone at the center) are set off at the surface to be as dirty as possible, rendering the entire region uninhabitable for the next few decades. The strike is then repeated every 5 years or so if any kind of clean-up is attempted. Medina needs one too, to prevent Arabs from declaring the transference of the holy site to the secondary location, but Mecca needs to be thoroughly ‘glassified’.

Muslims will thereby learn by force-feeding that their hateful God (Allah) cannot protect them and is a figment of their collective imagination, and millions will leave the failed cult. Nothing harms an Arab more than humiliation and defeat. They sincerely believe that their most-powerful Allah has promised to protect and preserve Mecca, and so their false faith in the Pagan deity will crumble with the meteorite in the intense heat and pressure of a fusion fireball. Can a billion Moslems worldwide face radioactive glass 5 times a day and still take it seriously, I don’t think so, or at least not over the long term. Cut off the head and the snake will still squirm for a while, but it will soon stop. In addition, by preventing Muslims from -ever- performing one of the pillars (requirements) of Islam, we block their way to paradise, but thereby actually save them from real hell (Islam is hell-on-earth is this life, and brings only sorrow and torment in the next). When the time comes, by all means, Nuke Mecca, …but do it right. By this act, and this act alone, many intelligent Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, and Asians will stop their foolish ideas of superiority, and so curb their sanctimonious rationales to commit hateful acts of murder, rape, slavery, and violence. Domestic Muslims will need to be controlled for a while, with heavy doses of education and trauma therapy applied. If they can commit to opposing Muhammad and his methods, then in a generation or two Islamic nonsense will not be worshiped by their children. If they can make no such binding commitment, then deportation is in order. As Hiroshima saved more lives than it took 60 years ago, so will thoroughly nuking Islamic sites save more lives than will be taken otherwise, including possibly yours, mine, and your children and my children.

While we all hope such measures are unnecessary, to fail to plan for that eventuality is to plan to fail. If we were to Nuke major cities in Iran and Syria, the root of Islam in Mecca would remain and worldwide faith in Muhammad and his vile methods would be strengthened instead of weakened. Such a weak act would embolden the movement and the gains in destroying America would be perceived as well worth the cost. In the mean time, while we all await for the rumored catastrophe, a concerted effort to supply Persians with the means and weapons to overthrow the Mullahs is urgently needed in Iran. Our Persian allies in this effort need to understand that they will likely die with the Mullahs in the inevitable nuclear storm which will follow should they fail. The Kurds of northern Syria are also salvageable, but there is hardly anything else worth preserving in Syria. As I have been informed by Jordanian and Lebanon Arabs, Syrians are not to be trusted, and for reason.

Roo #fundie stormfront.org

Re: Study: Women don't want to date vegetarian men

I have NEVER in my life seen a vegetarian and thought to myself, "Now THERE is a hunk of man I have to throw myself at immediately because I am in a FEVER that only he can quench!" God damn...

They call us (Americans) "Burgers" for a reason.

Well, according to Heinz Linge, Hitler was a sex symbol who constantly got lingerie sent to the Berghof from German women, it became such a problem they didn't know what to do with it. Linge said at one point boxes of underwear were stacked high in the front hall, when Hitler ordered it to be passed to charities.

Hitler was a vegetarian!

Yeah, lots of famous men have this problem, whether they eat meat or not. They don't even have to be very good-looking (see negro basketball players), they just have to be famous. That's also a natural reaction - as I understand it, although there are very, very, very few rich and/or famous men I'd give a second glance - but it comes from a different psychological source.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

All this study really does is reveal the ignorance of those women, and the disturbing prevalence of the modern "soy-boy" image influencing peoples' minds. I say this because I am downright vegan, yet experience none of these issues.
Then again, I'm not like... them. *shudder*

You may take better care of yourself than soyboys do (and if you do, then that's obviously different), but every male vegetarian I've ever met speaks like a woman, walks on legs thinner than mine (which is saying something, because my legs are skinny), and some have an overall greyish pallor I never see on people who eat moderate amounts of meat.

Men like that can't have healthy children, and they wouldn't raise healthy children. Women not being attracted to that are following their natures, not being ignorant. This is like debating one of those types who think there are 279 genders - it goes against basic biology that even animals inherently understand. Like I said, if you are able to maintain yourself, then that's different, but I'll go out on a limb and say that's not the majority of guys who go vegan/vegetarian by a long shot.

der-himmelstern #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

I've seen many people putting journal entries together to denounce the horrible attacks committed by Jihadists
in the heart of Paris. These are terrible events but one thing that people don't seems to realize is that all of this
mess has been the result of our own governmental weakness and cowardice towards opposition.

I am not simply saying that our current governments are traitors because they let their own people die, when
they clearly knew who they were bringing in. No, I am clearly saying that our current traitor governments have
deliberately sponsored, armed and trained these extremist group in order to have an excuse and justify total war
against the middle-Eastern people. This is all part of the greater Israel project, a well known and documented
messianic plan to please the phantasms of a handful of psychopathic lobbyist Jews!

Let's look at this from a more distant point of view. False flag attacks have been used throughout history.

1) Some of the most renown examples are of course the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, organized and used as an
excuse to drag the neutral people of the U.S.A. into a war which they didn't want, during the first world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

2) Pearl Harbor, where the Jewish controlled government of the U.S.A. openly provoked and dishonored the
Japanese government by freezing their commercial assets, in violation of the international rights. They sponsored
Nationalist China, the enemy of Japan during the war. They basically did everything they could to force this
attack on Pearl Harbor. The day of the attack they literally let the Japanese execute their assault, claiming they
didn't know or thought it were American planes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-0gJMk1cU

3) There was also the Vietnam war which was instigated by Henry Kissinger, yet again a Jewish Zionist elitist psychopath.
He is also a great optimist of the concept of the "New World Order" The excuse was the incident of the Gulf of Tonkin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fJ58MXHZlA

4) The Lavon affair to blame terrorist attacks committed against American and British-owned civilian targets.
This was to justify a full out war against Egypt and permit Israel to grow it's stolen share of lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

5) Another time when the Jews try to blame Egypt was the famous "day Israel attacked America".
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html

6) Of course one of the biggest and most well know false flag attacks of them all is 9/11. I believe more than enough people
have proven this to be an inside job and there is very strong evidence that the Mossad, the Israeli secret services were
behind it. This is a rather good conference made by professionals, showing how strong the evidence is that the U.S.A. set
up this plot. This justified full out war against "terror" upon helpless countries who don't even know us namely, Afghanistan,
Irak, Libya, Lebanon, Syria today, Iran tomorrow and ultimately wipe out the whole of the middle-East in order for Israel to grow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Are the Charlie Hebdo attack and the new Paris attack any different? Do people truly believe that our governments didn't
know what kind of people they were bringing in? This is highly unlikely. As the below deviation shows, it was already known
that we were bringing in "terrorists", some of whom are soldiers from ISIS/Islamic state/Daech. Heaving these information,
our governments should have refused them the access of our lands and yet they did quiet the opposite. They tried their
best to make us feel guilty about a poor little Syrian child who drowned on some unknown shore.

If there is something that we have learned from these false flag attack is that our "democratic" governments will not hesitate
the least to send us all to the slaughter if we refuse to accept their planned wars. They will always use their media
propaganda to manipulate the people towards self-destruction and misery. On question must be asked; Who profits of this
crime? Is it Muslims who benefit from it? Is it the Aryan Europeans? Obviously claiming so is ridiculous. There is only one actor
on the scene who benefits from it, and that is Israel.

The greater Israel project has never been a secret. It was thought by the Zionists who find their roots in Theodor Herzl's
vision of a messianic promised land. They tried to get it by the Ottoman Empire before the first world war. They then made
a pact through the Rothschilds with England which became the Balfour declaration. This led inevitably to the second world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The Jewish Zionists obtained Palestine and started to commit ethnic cleansing against the native population. These Jews
knew that if they don't rapidly grow their country in size they would never be self-sufficient to continue to exist. That is why
they are pushing these war agenda's in Western countries but the problem is that they need a good excuse in order to ruin
our countries through war for their interests. Their tactic is very simple. Subordinate our Aryan European interest by their
own and the only way to do this is by provoking such "terrorist" atrocities upon us. Yesterday they promoted the idea that
multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicism were a great chance for us and today they promote the idea that these same people
who THEY brought over here are the biggest evil of all times? It looks like we are so seriously gullible and manipulable that
we change our minds to whatever new propaganda they throw at us.

...
Today I will be a prophet.
I claim that they first tried to manipulate public opinion with the Charlie Hebdo attack. These Jews saw it didn't work and
now they are simply trying harder and bigger. If this time also, we do not fall into this trap, then I openly prophetize that
there will be yet another, much bigger attack! They will continue until they get the sheep folk to obey their Zionist desires!

The Jewish media has started to make it's disgusting propaganda to brainwash the masses. They try to confuse ISIS terror
with the Palestinian defenses. Do you notice the sentences "Je suis Charlie", "Je suis Juif" ("I am Charlie", "I am Jewish") at
0:46? They are so obviously trying to manipulate us that it becomes insulting to us. They like to play the game where they
pretend to be the same as us when those same people are clearly the ones who brought this upon us! If these migrants are
terrorists then why have these Jews done everything they could to bring them to our lands?!
There is only on possible explanation.

There is only one clear solution that everybody is too afraid to speak of. We must overthrow these governments of traitors
who vow allegiance to a foreign nation, a foreign race, a foreign religion and who works against our own interests.
Then we need to send many of these migrants back from where they came even if they are born here, there is no excuse.
If we had been more self-conscious we would never had let any migrants in and we would not have to live this through.
One day this will have to be done otherwise this will mean the destruction of our people and with it, the destruction of our
civilization, culture and morals. Let's just not be fooled by a simple facade. We must act, yes! But we must not attack the
wrong enemy. Our true enemy isn't thousands of kilometers away in the middle-East! Our true enemy is within our midst.

Well be to you all,
Hail victory,

Der Himmelstern

Suzanne Genz Ianni #wingnut patch.com

During a recent social media debate on Natick's upcoming vote to change terms like "Board of Selectmen" to genderless terms like "Select Board," I was referred by a proponent as a "Redmen Forever tier townie." Aside from the failed attempt at a slight, I would like to thank that resident for bringing some intriguing parallels between the two issues to light.

The Word Police are Back in Massachusetts, particularly Natick. In 2007-2008, the issue was the "Redmen" name, because it was considered "offensive," and politically incorrect. This year, the gendered terms, "Board of Selectmen" and "Chairman" will be voted on in Town Meeting (Warrant Article 39), based on that same basic reasoning.

The parallels between the "Redmen" and "Board of Selectmen" issues are as follows:

When the Word Police first came to Natick, it was part of a nationwide whitewash of Native American Sports mascots, based on the belief that the mascots were a source of disrespect and racist insult to indigenous Americans. It was an extremely emotional time. By 2008, numerous Massachusetts school boards and committees had made the painful decision to swap decades of unifying and energizing tradition with years of indignation and whispered division.

Eleven years later, the Word Police are back. Although Warrant Article 39, specifically, does not elicit nearly the emotionality the "Redmen" issue did, there is a distinct commonality in the attitudes, behaviors, and intense emotional response by opposing sides to debates surrounding PC language regulations.

A rough definition for each of the following terms is required to understand the behavior of all the parties involved: the Word Police, the PC Crowd, and the Silent Majority.

The Word Police: A nationwide political activist movement, which tells us that words have oppressive power, and, therefore, the ability to violate human rights. It names/advocates for victim groups that theoretically suffer oppressive and harmful effects from certain verbiage. It follows that First Amendment freedoms must be forcibly limited to prevent oppression of said victims. It further lists acceptable replacement language, a form of speech conformity, that society must adopt.

The PC Crowd: This group includes the Word Police activists and a portion of people in the community who believe the Word Police, and push for language regulations, because they genuinely believe it's necessary to end cruelty. They are generally intelligent and educated. The majority of youth also gravitate to the PC crowd.

The Silent Majority: These are the people in town, who seldom buy into the claims of the Word Police, unless they believe the arguments are based in facts and common sense. They are reluctant to sacrifice their freedoms and long-held community traditions without a valid reason.

They know that serious issues with gender-based language issues are extremely rare, if they exist at all. The Silent Majority view such anxieties as personal issues, rather than a community responsibility. Members of this mostly Silent Majority are generally thoughtful, kind, intelligent, and educated. But, their dissent is unfairly vilified as ignorant, heartless, inflexible, and rude by members of the very vocal PC crowd.

Unfortunately, the Silent majority is perhaps not "rude" enough. In fact, they are far too polite to people who are steamrolling their freedoms with nasty vengeance. They back down very quickly: "Let someone else fight... I don't have time… I'm not political." An outspoken handful will, but even they eventually get discouraged, making the extra time, and taking all the flack for the do-nothing, lazy majority.

That may seem harsh criticism, but it's nothing compared to how the Word Police and even some of the well-meaning PC crowd in Natick have treated anyone who dissents to PC language change suggestions, past and current.

Many members of the PC Crowd feel justified in verbal attacks, ranging from passive-aggressive to aggressive. They feel they have a moral duty to vilify and silence dissent. Many are convinced that those who disagree with them are bad, lacking in enlightenment and even cognitive skills. Thus, dissenters should be discredited and intimidated into stillness.

Sadly, hostile attitudes are not limited to the PC crowd. They resonate on both sides of the political spectrum in these modern times, primarily due to the lack of one-on-one communication and the constant deluge of overly-biased information which leads to myopic thinking.

In short, neither side should be a side. Communication breakdown through intimidation and name-calling divides and harms communities. Any benefit to the "word victims," who may or may not exist, evaporates, and the entire effort is just not worth the permanent divisive scars left behind on towns, who yearn for greater cohesiveness.

Back to the parallels between the "Redmen" and "Board of Selectmen" name issues:

The "Redmen" tradition had been a part of Natick history for 52 years. "Board of Selectmen" is a 1633 New England term, that centuries later, became an office in Natick's town government. History is important. It tends to unite communities through a sense of mutual pride.

We have been told in both cases, that "Redmen" and "Board of Selectmen" are offensive, obsolete, and hurtful terms. Yet, neither term, in the history of its existence, had a single official complaint recorded.

In 2008, Two local Nipmuc Indians were on the committee that fought to keep the "Redmen" name. These Native Americans should have been seen as an authority on the subject, but their views were ignored.

Today, the vast majority of Natick women have never registered a problem with the name, "Board of Selectmen" and feel that gender-neutral language regulations are unnecessary PC nonsense. Will they be viewed as an authority on this issue, or will they, too, be ignored?

The "Redmen" proponents were labeled heartless, racist, ignorant "townies," too stubborn to make a sacrifice to make the obvious moral choice.

The same strategy and attitudes are being applied by the PC change crowd today. They just swapped out the "racist" label with "intolerant."

None of those negative labels accurately depicted the "Redmen Forever" majority. Nor, do they during this "gender-neutral" language debate.

Yes, the Word Police have become increasingly adept at silencing the majority. But, make no mistake. The anti-PC language crowd are the majority.

A final interesting parallel:

There was significant statewide peer pressure on Natick's School Committee to make the PC name change away from "Redmen," just as there's current political pressure on Natick's town government to follow the lead of 60 other Massachusetts towns, to "morally update" to gender-neutral language. How would it look if Natick didn't do the woke, inclusive, tolerant thing?

Despite a 2/3rds referendum in favor of keeping the "Redmen" name in 2008, was it the right thing to do in the long run? Would Natick be seen as a glaringly racist town of ignorant people that refused to make the change, or as a town that stood strong against a tough PC crowd?

Politically correct language issues are always radioactive. It's always more difficult to vote "no." No one wants to be viewed as intolerant, un-inclusive, and anti-victim. But, elective office is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Every language regulation takes a language freedom away from the people and imposes penalties for nonconformity. There was a time when we all considered such an idea un-American. The Article 39 gender-neutral language regulations, in particular, pose a very slippery slope to future laws that intimidate open speech and punish people for word violations.

Once we limit speech, the free flow of ideas is always the next casualty.

11 years after the "Redmen" name change, national polls indicate that 90% of Native Americans have no problem with Indian mascots used by schools and athletic organizations. The whole debacle was caused by a fad, based on erroneous, exaggerated information.

This unpopular push for gender-neutral language regulations appears very likely based on erroneous and severely exaggerated information as well.

It would be better if Natick and other towns did not go down this PC gender-neutrality rabbit hole.

Isabelle Z. #conspiracy naturalnews.com

The autism epidemic is rising steadily in America, thanks to these three causitive factors

...

Vaccines

As children are being subjected to more and more vaccines, the autism rates are climbing. Vaccines are a smart idea in theory, but there is nothing good to be gained from injecting children with toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury. In 1986, doctors and vaccine manufacturers were indemnified from the legal consequences of vaccine injuries, and the vaccine schedule was promptly increased. As Amy L. Lansky, PhD, of the Waking Times points out, this is also happens to be when the autism rate first really started to take off.

Big Pharma keeps coming up with more and more vaccines to push on our children and adults. They spend a lot of money getting the media and the government to promote them, and spread fears about diseases, while mocking those who refuse to get on board. Children in the late 1950s received seven doses of vaccine antigens. Children today get a whopping 69 doses of vaccine antigens! Are today's kids healthier than the generations before them? It depends on who you ask, but no one can deny that there are certainly a lot more cases of autism!

Electromagnetic radiation

Electromagnetic radiation (EMF) is everywhere these days. We are constantly surrounded by it, thanks to the prevalence of WiFi, cell phones, smart meters, cordless phones and countless other smart home devices. Even worse, some people are starting to wear these devices on their bodies. It is interesting to note that the Amish have a relatively low rate of autism. Why haven't any studies been done to see if this is related to their avoidance of high-tech gadgets?

Chemicals in the food supply

Another factor that has changed dramatically over the years is the quality of our food supply. A number of factors are at play here, but the biggest one is the widespread use of glyphosate on crops, and genetically modified food. MIT researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff points out that the symptoms of glyphosate toxicity are almost an exact match for those of autism. This chemical is absorbed by plants and makes its way into the food system. In addition, it amplifies the toxicity of other chemicals, which means that the dangerous chemicals found in vaccines like aluminum, glutamine and mercury can do a lot more damage than they would otherwise. In addition, aerial spraying to kill mosquitoes was recently linked to a 25 percent increase in autism.

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

vexic929 #fundie comments.deviantart.com

[ You were bullied for being straight? Yeah, that's totally the same thing. >: Just like LGBT teens that are bullied and ostracized, you had no one to turn to in this society that is so against heterosexuals. You must have felt so isolated in an overwhelming homosexual culture that routinely teaches the younger generations to hate straight people for being born the way they are.

Okay seriously no, LGBT teen suicide is a /very serious/ problem that is steadily getting worse. Even if it focused on one group that is being bullied (and is being bullied /hard/), you don't support an end to the bullying of that group? Do you also get pissy when Black History month rolls around? Do you not support it? I mean, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE LATINOS. They're persecuted too. If we're going to follow your logic that EVERY awareness program must include EVERYONE, we should just make it 'Non white history month'. Boycott black history month, it's totes biased. >:< ]


I
was making a point in stating that. It irritates the crap out of me that this day was made for one group of people about a problem that affects EVERYONE. Everyone is bullied at some point in there life for some reason, it doesn't just affect LGBT. No, I don't get mad when Black History month comes around; why? Because it's about something that affected that specific group of people--the abolishment of slavery and the celebration of the accomplishments of people of that ethnicity.

[ I think it has a lot more to do with your general dislike of homosexuality than any good reasonI. :shrug: Would you be opposed to a 'Spirit Day' dedicated to kids committing suicide over racial bullying? What about 'Adopt a Shelter Dog' day? That doesn't include cats, so are you still pissed when all those sweet dogs get adopted? What about Breast Cancer awareness month? There's more than one type of cancer that affects patients. How about anxiety awareness week? There's more than one mental illness.

No one ever said it *just* effects LGBT. But the day was made in response to a string of suicides by LGBT teenagers- it's to honor them and prevent it from happening again. LGBT bullying is a /big fucking deal/ because the children affected by it live in a homophobic society and often, homophobic households. Unlike a straight kid or even a child of a minority race, they usually don't have a support system to turn to because of that; they can't open up to their families because they have to hide who they are. Having a voice- a day- raises a lot of awareness. That is a /good thing/. And there are plenty of anti-bullying programs that cover EVERY aspect of bullying; is it really so bad to have one dedicated to a specific type that happens to be very bad at the moment?

Basically, it's childish to be angry over what is essentially a good thing. Everyone knows bullying is bad, but there are plenty of people that don't realize how much more devastating it can be for LGBT teens due to the inherit isolation that typically comes with their status. This event /helps/ these kids. And it's ridiculously /heartless/ ]

You're willing to listen and are only looking for an argument (as made obvious by your comments on my other deviations). You won't find one here and responding would simply be a waste of my time, have a nice day.

[ Seriously, nice cop out. It seems to me that YOU are the one unwilling to listen and only interested in further entrenching yourself in your narrow-minded views. Are you so against an honest discourse? *Queerly was being nothing but polite and very articulate in outlining her thoughtful, well-reasoned responses.

Spirit week DOES bring awareness to all types of bullying- how could a week dedicated to bringing awareness not? It is simply targeted at awareness for LGBT youthes, a group which uniquely has less support than most others and thus is greatly in need of awareness. I'm sorry, but being bullied/made to feel guilty about being a heterosexual is nowhere NEAR the same thing, unless said heterosexual is immersed in a largely hostile HOMOsexual community. Were you? Did you have no hetero friends or family members to turn to? Were you afraid of even admitting it? Unless I'm horribly mistaken, of course not. ]

Considering you don't know the situation I can forgive you for calling it a "cop-out". On the contrary, she was anything but nice in her comments on my journal and stamps and was only aiming to make me angry and start an argument.

Furthermore, as I have stated numerous times, I don't think any one group should have a day for themselves when it affects everyone. And did you do any research on this subject? For one thing; it's not a week, it's a day. For another, until this year (and on deviantART only this year for that matter) I didn't see any awareness whatsoever on the day for anyone else who was bullied or any other type of bullying--hardly anyone at all acknowledged that (except for those of us who were irritated about it). And being bullied for another reason than being homosexual isn't the same thing? Since when? It hurts just the same and people are scared to turn to other people for help just the same. There's no difference other than the reason behind it. And to keep people from killing themselves? That's what TWLOHA is for (link provided in case you don't know what that is), which I wholeheartedly support because it focuses on how to solve the problem. It's not about one group saying "oh poor us, we're dealing with a problem everyone else deals with but we're more important!" which is pretty much exactly what Spirit Day is.

[ Well, I suppose you're correct that I haven't seen everything she has written to you, so I'll concede that, but I still think that it is a major cop-out to not respond to her last paragraph up there- I'd be very interested in your response to the points she raised which, as far as I'm concerned, are spot on and I couldn't have put it better.

Oh yes it's a day not a week, that does invalidate my stance. Was I also wrong on what it's about? Oh, no. So never mind it invalidates nothing. I'll admit I was reading quickly as I was a bit upset upon finding an individual who opposes something that I view as being very good and beneficial.

Plenty of groups have days/weeks/whatever devoted just to them- so, as *Queerly asked, do you oppose all of them as well? Or do you just oppose this because you also oppose what you see as a sinful "choice"? And I support your religious choices, it's perfectly fine for you to believe what you do, I'm certainly not attacking that, even if I disagree with it. But it shouldn't be affecting your opinion on how to treat LGBTs, on supporting a movement that is benefical for them, gives them help and awareness that they desperately need. Like I said, everyone knows bullying is bad. IT HAS AWARENESS. Not everyone knows however what is happening to LGBT youthes, and worse, in some of the more hostile areas, it is IGNORED.

Bullying of LGBT is different. How man times do I have to say this? It doesn't "hurt the same"- perhaps it might appear that way to you, if you are lucky enough to live in an area where LGBTs aren't living in constant fear- but let me tell you, that is not the norm. What makes bullying of LGBTS so different is that they are being bullied in a society where they cannot just turn to the adults for help- a society at large that is hostile and often teaches others to hate them. Which is what makes it different from, say, racial bullying, where those children at least have family to turn to and no one says 'you shouldn't have chosen to be black, put some on dye your skin!'

You know what I did when I was bullied? I talked to my mom, my friends, once even the teacher and guidance counseler.

Do you know what *Queerly did when she was bullied? Withdraw in to herself, far too afraid for her safety in her conservative southern community to go to the teacher, and too sick at heart to be able to admit her true issues to her parents out of fear of rejection/hurting them/making them question their beliefs.

To sum it up, I would like to ask what *Queerly asked before she was blocked:
Would you be opposed to a 'Spirit Day' dedicated to kids committing suicide over racial bullying? What about 'Adopt a Shelter Dog' day? That doesn't include cats, so are you still pissed when all those sweet dogs get adopted? What about Breast Cancer awareness month? There's more than one type of cancer that affects patients. How about anxiety awareness week? There's more than one mental illness.

Like I said, groups getting needed awareness isn't a new thing.

I'm not trying to upset you or argue with you for no reason, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs. However, I am as well and I will try and implore you to stop fighting something that is a good thing. While I myself have seen plenty of LGBT awareness movements, if you yourself have not, then that proves that they need the day, or week, or whatever it is that they're given in whatever way, more than ever.

There are lots of issues in the world. No day or week or movement could cover them all. In this case, this day covers LGBT bullying. I ask again, what the heck is so bad with that?? ]

And this is why I don't think you or Queerly were even listening, I have stated my reasons very clearly NUMEROUS times, including in my responses to both you and her and you continue to ignore them. Since you won't listen to me when I straight out reply with my answers maybe you should try reading some of the other comments, the artist's comments, etcetera which all state what I have said a thousand times. I'm getting pretty sick of being asked the same questions over and over and then not even being listened to when I answer. And before replying I would like to ask you to please do your research--there is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that sets LGBT bullying apart from other types of bullying other than media coverage and extensive whining. They all have different degrees of severity, the only difference is--like with most minorities--when they are targeted they have the media freaking out and jumping to conclusions.

Here are some interesting statistics: 1 in every 4 kids from elementary to high school is bullied; only 30% of those are bullied because of their sexual orientation. Over 50% of students who were bullied were bullied because of their physical appearance. Only 4% of bullying cases end with adult intervention, 11% of bullying cases end with peer intervention, and 85% of bullying cases have absolutely no intervention--regardless of the reasons behind the bullying.

And, as I stated before, the degree of severity varies with each case, there is nothing to show that an LGBT kid suffers more or less than any other kid who is bullied (unless, of course, you look at one of the extremely biased websites that completely ignores the statistics of a child who isn't LGBT being bullied--unfortunately there are many out there, the majority of which can't seem to even keep a standardized statistic). If you still insist that this day is needed might I recommend you also create a day for every other child who is bullied for whatever reason; go on, make a day for those who are bullied because they are overweight, skinny, tall, short, heterosexual, smart, stupid, non-athletic, mentally-disabled, physically-disabled, "nerdy", poor, rich, black, hispanic, white, asian, unpopular, has a speech impediment, has frizzy hair, has stick-straight hair, doesn't have a boyfriend/girlfriend, stands up for another child who is bullied...need I say more?

[ You truly don't believe that growing up in a society that is hostile towards you and in which you generally are too afraid to speak out doesn't differentiate LGBT bullying from, to use your list, "overweight, skinny, tall, short, heterosexual, smart, stupid, non-athletic, mentally-disabled, physically-disabled, "nerdy", poor, rich, black, hispanic, white, asian, unpopular, has a speech impediment, has frizzy hair, has stick-straight hair, doesn't have a boyfriend/girlfriend, stands up for another child who is bullied"?

If your answer is yes, then I suppose our conversation is at an end because you are correct, we are simply talking in circles. But if you believe that LGBT kids are just whining about their issues as exacerbated by the media... I'm sorry, but I would say that people like you are the reason awareness movements are needed.

Also if you're going to use statistics, please include source links. ]

If you haven't noticed, most people are the exact opposite of hostile towards them nowadays (kids don't necessarily count, children can be very cruel about everything). Such people are actually pretty much glorified (see LGBT celebrities and politicians) now. I've noticed more people being hostile towards me and several of my non-LGBT friends for having a different opinion on homosexuality than I have seen or heard of any sort of hostility towards my LGBT friends (not simply in the area I live in, I have many friends from other countries, states, and cities).

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that horrible stuff doesn't happen to LGBT kids and that they're only whining (although they [not all of them] tend to do a heck of a lot of it; as do most minorities), I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't ONLY happen to them so it doesn't make sense and is unfair to create a day just for them, regardless of how much awareness it raises.

There were mountains of sources most of which have been long since lost I'm afraid but a quick Google search of "LGBT bullying statistics" and just "bullying statistics" should bring up the vast majority of them.

Kasey Edwards #fundie brisbanetimes.com.au

Why I won't let any male babysit my children

When our first daughter was born my husband and I made a family rule: no man would ever babysit our children. No exceptions. This includes male relatives and friends and even extracurricular and holiday programs, such as basketball camp, where men can have unrestricted and unsupervised access to children.

Eight years, and another daughter later, we have not wavered on this decision.


Group slumber parties are also out. When there is a group of excited children it is far too easy for one of them to be lured away by a father or older brother without being noticed.

When my daughter goes on play dates I make sure that she will be supervised by a woman at all times. So far she has only slept at one friend's house. Beforehand I spoke to my friend about our rule and clarified that if she's going to pop out to shops for example and intends to leave our daughter in the care of her husband or another man then the sleepover cannot happen.

As you can imagine, this was not an easy conversation to have. To my friend's credit she respected our family policy even though she doesn't have the same rules herself. In subsequent play dates and sleepovers my friend has rearranged logistics so that she can be present at all times.
I am certain that some of my other friends and acquaintances would not react so graciously and would see my request as a direct attack on their husbands and/or their parenting choices. I am dreading the day when I have to have the same conversation with someone who will not be as understanding.Advertisement
Would I prefer to be a more chilled out parent? Absolutely.

Will I change my family policy? Unfortunately no. Child sexual abuse is so prevalent that I won't back down on my no-male-babysitters policy.

To be clear, I'm not saying that all men are sexual predators. Nor do I think that men harbour predatory instincts that lie dormant only to spring forth at the first opportunity.

But child abuse by men is so common that taking precautions to keep my daughters safe is a no-brainer.

According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies the prevalence of child sexual abuse is 1.4-8 per cent for penetrative abuse and 5.7-16 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for boys and 4-12 per cent for penetrative abuse and 13.9-36 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for girls.

To put those figures into context, the "best case" scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.

Yes, women can also abuse, but as the Australian Institute of Family Studies' Who Abuses Children fact sheet makes clear, "Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males."

An Australian Institute of Criminology 2011 paper "Misperceptions about child sex offenders" shows 30.2 per cent of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a male relative, and 13.5 per cent by the father or stepfather. A tiny 0.8 per cent of cases were perpetrated by mothers and stepmothers, and 0.9 per cent of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a female relative. The other categories of perpetrators were family friend (16.3 per cent), an acquaintance or neighbour (15.6 per cent), another known person (15.3 per cent) – without specifying the gender split.

Data from the US National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) showed that males made up 90 per cent of adult child sexual assault perpetrators, while 3.9 per cent of perpetrators were female, with a further 6 per cent classified as "unknown gender".

While we're all terrified by the prospect of strangers abusing our kids and most of us would never let our young child walk around the streets by themselves, the Australian Institute of Criminology paper said that "in the vast majority of cases, children's abusers are known to them".

Children are at far greater risk from relatives, siblings, friends, and other known adults such as priests, teachers and coaches.

The blanket rule against allowing our daughters to be in the care of lone male adults means that we do not have to make a moral assessment of every man. My husband and I do not want to delve into the characters of every man that we know and assess whether or not they are potential sexual predators, so we apply our rule to all men to avoid casting aspersions on people.

We're also not sure if we can trust our judgement. If anything, the statistics suggest that many parents aren't very good at determining which male adults are safe and which are not.

No doubt some people will call me a man hater and, just as we saw with the backlash against Tracey Spicer's article as a couple of years back about not wanting her unaccompanied children sitting next to a man on a plane, people will react as if the protection of children is secondary to men's right not to be offended.

But dismissing this as a hysterical reaction of a misandrist is not only incorrect, it's also missing the point spectacularly. My husband and my decision is based on straightforward risk analysis: a cold, hard, unemotional reading of the statistical data.

When I look at my daughter's class lining up on assembly and think that statistically between one and nine of them are going to be sexually abused before they reach adulthood, I am determined to do everything I can to make sure my daughter is not going to be one of them.

I know it's a hard line, some would say extreme. But I also know that sexual abuse can rob a child of their self-worth and dignity in an instant – and it can take decades for those wounds to heal, if at all.

In this context, potentially hurting peoples' feelings is the price my husband and I are prepared to pay.

Robert Spencer #fundie frontpagemag.com

Barack Obama has excoriated those who would restrict the entry of Muslim migrants as religious bigots. Donald Trump has been reviled as a new Hitler for daring to suggest that there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration until adequate vetting procedures can be devised. Even conservative commentators have in response called for a ban on "Islamists," rather than Muslims, blithely ignoring the salient fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish the one from the other.

And so as Christmas 2015 comes and goes, and 2016 dawns, nothing is much more certain - given the wholesale self-imposed blindness and willful ignorance of our leaders and opinion-makers on both the Left and Right - than that we will become victims of the enemy we have welcomed in our home. To see exactly what form will that take in the coming years and decades, we need only look around the world during this Christmas season: Somalia, Brunei, and Tajikistan have banned Christmas celebrations as "un-Islamic," and Indonesia plans to deploy 150,000 security personnel to make sure that Islamic jihadists don't target Christians in jihad mass murder plots as they celebrate Christmas. We don't hear very much about Christmas in Iraq this year: there are hardly any Christians left there to celebrate it.

But surely none of that can happen here, right? Someone will stop it. Someone will do something. Christmas celebrations banned in the U.S. to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities? Inconceivable! Christmas celebrations threatened with Muslim violence, not because they drew Muhammad or otherwise offended Muslim sensibilities, but simply for the fact of being Christian celebrations? It could never happen here! Christians driven out, or forcibly converted to Islam, or killed? That sort of thing only happens over there. Not in America. The refugees (refugees like the Paris jihadis), they will all be vetted moderates (just like Tashfeen Malik). Anyone who thinks anything could go wrong is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.

Of course. Someone will do something, right? Someone, somewhere, sometime, will have the courage to brave the smears of "racism" and "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" that are certain to come his or her way, and put a stop to all of this before it gets of hand, right? Of course someone will. America is forever. America can't be destroyed. You will become victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home? Nonsense. Don't be racist. Don't be xenophobic. Everything is going to be all right. Let's just eradicate all this right-wing extremism, and everything will be fine, and we will all march together into a bright, beautiful multicultural future. Just like in Mosul. Just like in Somalia, and Tajikistan, and Brunei.

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only questions are whether we can turn it around.

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

Various academics and Tom O’Carroll #fundie telegraph.co.uk

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again. The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.” Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds. Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today. With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”. The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!

The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential. Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.” As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”

Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation. In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts. After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people. Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences. But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular. Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.

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

It is no longer safe to be unpopular today in the United States. The media today bullies fundamental Bible preachers, labeling them as hate-preachers. What the ungodly media does is to stir up the public—inciting hatred and instigating anger—and then when they have stirred public unrest, they film the blasphemy being spoken in hatred against God's men. 1st Kings 21:25, “But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.” Acts 14:2, “But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” The ungodly Zionist-controlled U.S. media (MP3, Unholy Alliance) stir up hatred against pastors and churches who oppose the LGBTQ homosexual agenda!!! I agree with Pastor Anderson on the meaning of LGBTQ (Let God Burn Them Quickly). Oh, you say, that is hate speech! No, that is the inspired Word of God! Psalms 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” The homosexual community are wicked! Homosexuality is a vile sin, just as adultery, fornication, rape, bestiality, polygamy, uncleanliness and all other forms of sexual immorality.

Pastor Anderson has been banned in at least 32 countries thus far. God bless him! Matthew 23:31, “Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” Luke 11:47, “Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.” Luke 11:48, “Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.” Bible preachers have always been rejected and hated by the wicked! If you value your liberty and freedom dear reader, then you ought to embrace, support and love Bible preachers, because apart from faith in the God of the King James Bible, this country is doomed to destruction!!! I dare say that America can be saved, because we have gone too far into apostasy and decadence, to the point that homosexuals are legally getting married and adopting children!

What the media and city of Knoxville are doing to punish Grayson Fritts, evidences how far gone America is today. We are truly now living in the 11th hour of Bible prophecy. For merely expressing his rightful opinion (spoken from his own church pulpit), it has compelled ungodly critics to bring down the roof upon Pastor Fritts. Pastor Grayson has been forced into early retirement, and the ungodly media are boasting that he was fired. What ever happened to the First Amendment? What ever happened to freedom of religion, freedom of press and freedom of speech? If a preacher upholds the Biblical truth that homosexuals are worthy of the death penalty by the government, they want a pound of flesh from that minister. Unfortunately, things are going to get worse. If you haven't watched it yet, please find out what happened to a godly youth pastor in Canada, who called for parents to take a stand against sodomite propaganda being targeted at their children. The pastor was charged and convicted of hate speech...

SPEECHLESS: SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS (increasing violence perpetrated against Christians)

Twisted critics start touting, “Love thy neighbour,” as if rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, kidnappers, homosexuals and other Biblical crimes ought to be ignored by the government. Only a Luciferian government would sanction such evils. Hence, the United States! There was a time long ago when all these moral offenses were punishable crimes. Who gives any human being the right to pick and choose which sins ought to be punished? Who are men to say that homosexuality is or isn't a sin? God says it is! This entire matter boils down to whether or not people have FAITH IN GOD'S WORD. Why do you think the Devil has entered into the Bible publishing racket? Satan wants to obscure the Words of God, to confuse and obliterate, and change the truth of God's Word into a lie (Romans 1:25).

Check this out, how the scum-bucket Rockefellers and Western powers have destroyed Asia, through forced abortion policies, and paying women to get sterilized. It seems that most of the evil things in this world are perpetrated by the Freemasons who control the United States and created modern manmade Israel in 1948. Hell will be hot enough!

Americans in the decades to come, if the Lord tarries, WILL LOSE their freedom of speech. It is already happening across the country. It Is Tragic That Truth-Teller Alex Jones Has Been Banned From YouTube, Facebook And Media. Alex told the truth about Sandy Hook being staged. Alex told the truth about the 9/11 attacks being an INSIDE JOB! Read this: Florida Schools Ban Exposing Zionists. So now in Florida colleges you cannot expose the Masonic Zionists running and ruining our country. By merely slapping a derogatory label of “conspiracy theorists” across any truth-teller, they are instantly deemed a nut. Please watch the documentary titled: SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS! The LGBTQ community wants tolerance, but they won't tolerate the Christian community who refuse to accept the homosexual deathstyle. Being politically correct has replaced being Biblically correct! Homosexuals use the attack strategy of: desensitize, jamming and conversion to promote their ungodly agenda. Little by little, Americans will not be able to say anything negative about homosexuals or the sin of homosexuality in public. Nor will we be able to speak out against the crimes of government, the evils of Zionism, or tell the truth about staged false flag terror attacks (e.g., Sandy Hook). A truly free society is only one in which it is safe to be unpopular.

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

In the days after Wikileaks released the emails, leftists went berserk, claiming that the Russians were behind the hack (with no proof whatsoever), accusing Vladimir Putin of trying to influence the presidential election, and even accusing Donald Trump of being a Manchurian candidate for Moscow. Curiously, none of them have taken note of the multitude of other countries who are also sticking their hands into the American cookie jar, most notably Mexico, whose government has been funding riots at Trump’s rallies.

It’s quite telling that the only country that leftists don’t want influencing the government is a white, traditionalist, Christian one. The left’s anti-Russian hysteria isn’t simply repugnant: it’s a throwback to the anti-communist fervor of the early 1950’s. The difference is that while Joseph McCarthy’s claims that communists had infiltrated the government had validity, the left’s hatred of Russia is rooted entirely in their paranoia and hatred of healthy, prosperous societies.

...

Before and during the Cold War, leftists were in love with Russia. The Soviet Union represented the end goal of leftism: total state control over every aspect life. Because of this—and also because the Soviets extensively funded efforts to infiltrate Western institutions—the American and European left sided with Russia at every opportunity. For example, during World War II, leftists promoted the idea of opening a second front in Europe with the goal of taking pressure off of the Soviet Union, when the militarily smart move would have been to let the Nazis and Soviets destroy each other. The Normandy invasion was completely unnecessary; all it did was enable the U.S.S.R. to colonize much of eastern Europe.

Similarly, in the 1950’s, leftists in the media and government smeared Senator Joseph McCarthy when he courageously pointed out that Soviet agents were deeply embedded in the State Department and other prominent federal agencies. The Venona Papers—a collection of decrypted messages from the Soviet Union’s intelligence agencies released in 1995—later vindicated many of McCarthy’s claims. Later, in the 1980’s, leftists vociferously opposed Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance towards the U.S.S.R., claiming it would lead to war; Ted Kennedy even begged the Russians to intervene in the 1984 presidential election and help defeat Reagan (irony).

The love between the Western left and Russia died when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has transformed itself from a failed socialist state into a patriarchal, traditionalist one, reasserting its place as a world power. Christianity has been revived and takes a central role in Russian life, open homosexuality is frowned upon, and George Soros-funded front groups have been banned from the country. The reason why Russian (and other eastern European) women are known for their femininity and beauty is because these nations resist the moral turpitude of the West.

All this naturally makes Russia an enemy of the degenerate left. Anti-Russian feelings among leftists exploded in 2012, when members of Pussy Riot, a Western-funded leftist agitator group, were arrested after they broke into an Orthodox church and disrupted a mass in process. Leftists began foaming at the mouth a year later when the Russian government formally banned homosexuals from distributing propaganda to minors. When Russia began attacking ISIS last year—and actually made progress towards dismantling the Islamic State—Barack Obama shit a brick and “moderate” Republicans such as John Kasich and Lindsey Graham began speaking of war with Russia.

The left’s fear of Russia is simply their fear of normality, of white heterosexual men taking back what’s theirs. They’re aided by clueless cuckservatives who still think the Cold War is on and Russia is the Red Menace. Additionally, a large number of Russian Jews in the American political establishment, such as neocon Max Boot (a prominent #NeverTrump Republican) and radical lesbian activist Masha Gessen, have spent their careers agitating for more conflict with Russia. (Ilya Sheyman, another Russian Jew, is the head of MoveOn.org, which was behind the riot that shut down Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago last March.)

...

Common Filth and other commentators have quipped in the past that the U.S. will start World War III with Russia over the issue of gay rights, and those predictions are disturbingly close to coming true. The left’s irrational hatred of Russia combined with our constant meddling in their internal affairs (for example, see Ukraine, where we helped instigate an anti-Russian coup right in their backyard) ensure that tensions with Putin will continue to escalate.

This is lunacy. Beyond the fact that Russian society is one that we should aspire to emulate, Russia is a superpower with a nuclear arsenal. Vladimir Putin is not some tinpot potentate of a third-world hellhole; he’s a crafty leader with a strong military and a nation of hundreds of millions behind him. Hillary Clinton will almost assuredly escalate tensions with Russia, possibly bringing us to war, destroying what is left of America with it.

The left hopes to distract Americans’ from the Democrats’ corruption and malfeasance by ginning up a Red Scare 2.0, and we can’t let them get away from it. Leftists’ hatred of Russia, combined with the apocalyptic ramifications of war with Putin, are too significant to ignore.

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?

Martin #fundie premierchristianity.com

(=An Anti Gay vs Pro Gay argument desolves into an Eternal Torment vs Annihilation argument of Hell=)

Martin: Curiously the penalty for all sin is the same:
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
(Ezekiel 18:4 [ESV])
Death is the penalty for any sin.
You reject the fact that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Ah well, if all those souls are going to die, then they won’t be living on in hell to suffer everlasting torment, will they? So that’s some consolation.
You assert that homosexuality is simply sexual sin merely to justify yourself. I reject the “fact” that homosexuality is simply sexual sin, because it isn’t a fact but simply nonsense.

Martin: Death for the soul of a sinner means an eternity of torment. Keep pretending while you can, one day you'll have to admit you're wrong.

Guglielmo Marinaro: Death does not mean an eternity of torment – except perhaps once again in your Martinian Newspeak lexicon – and an attempt to read such a concept into that verse from Ezekiel is eisegesis par excellence.
You may keep on repeating your ignorant nonsense till kingdom come, and I will continue to recognize it as ignorant nonsense, nothing more. As you have yourself recently observed, it is tedious to have to repeat the same thing over and over again, but – who knows? – God may use it to enlighten you and get you to repudiate your errors.

Martin: Curious then that Jesus speaks of two options, eternal life and eternal punishment:
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
(Matthew 25:46 [ESV])

Guglielmo Marinaro: Quite apart from uncertainty regarding the meaning of the Greek word “aionios”, which has been translated in English Bibles by the word “eternal” or “everlasting”, but which does not necessarily mean “of endless duration” – in the Greek Septuagint it is applied, for example, to things which have long since come to an end, e.g. the Aaronic priesthood (Numbers 25:13) and the gates of the Temple at Jerusalem (Psalm 24:7, 9) – it is interesting that Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal LIFE”, which seems clearly to imply that those who go to “eternal punishment” will NOT live on for ever.
This is confirmed by Jesus’s admonition, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28)

Martin: So you're saying that eternal life doesn't last for ever? I think you'd be hard pressed to maintain that.
As for Matthew 10, it is notable that the same word is not used for the act of one who is able to kill the body but not the soul and the one who is able to destroy both body and soul.

Guglielmo Marinaro : No, I am not saying that eternal life does not last for ever, nor am I implying that. But if the belief that it does has no stronger basis than the use of a Greek word which is applied in the Septuagint to a priesthood which no longer exists and to the doors of a temple which was razed to the ground centuries ago, it rests on a pretty precarious foundation.
Something which has been destroyed no longer exists. If anything, “destroy” bears an even stronger connotation of annihilation than “kill”. The verse in Matthew 10 which speaks of the destruction of both soul and body can, like so many biblical texts, be pulled around in Procrustean fashion to bring it into apparent conformity with preformed dogma, but as the New Testament scholar Kim Papaioannou observes, “It appears that the attempt to understand the meaning of ?p???sa? in Matthew 10:28 as something other than ‘destruction’ in its most obvious meaning is based more on theological considerations than linguistic evidence.” He adds that this conclusion is supported by a survey of the usage of the different forms of that verb in the Synoptic Gospels, elsewhere in the New Testament and in the Septuagint.

Martin: The same word is used of eternal life as to eternal punishment, so if one is not to experience eternal punishment neither will anyone experience eternal life. It matters not what a man who thinks he has invented a whole new understanding of the Bible says

Guglielmo Marinaro: And the very same adjective (a??????) is used of the Aaronic priesthood, which no longer exists, and of the doors of the Temple at Jerusalem, which was razed to the ground centuries ago.

Martin: And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written. Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.
The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.

Guglielmo Marinaro: “And the Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before the New Testament was written.”
So what? It is the same Greek adjective, and the Septuagint was good enough for Paul, since it was the version from which he habitually quoted in his epistles.
“Nor is it inspired, the translators were capable of error.”
As were the original biblical writers, and as were all the translators who have produced every translation of the Bible ever made, from the Vulgate to the NIV.
“The punishment and life clearly last for the same length of time.”
Clearly to you perhaps, but clearly not clearly to everyone else.

Martin: You didn't realise languages change over time?
The original biblical writers were caused by God to write as they did, their writing is without error for it is breathed out by God.
When the same word is used of two things in the same sentence it is clear to everyone that the same meaning is given to the two instances. Everyone except you apparently.

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

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

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

Relevant Terminology

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

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

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

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

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

Sue Bohlin looks a common myths concerning homosexual behavior that are prevalent in our society. These myths prevent us from looking at homosexuality with a biblical worldview and from dealing with this sin in a loving and consistent manner.

In this essay we’ll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas’ excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement.{1} While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn’t just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.

10% of the Population Is Homosexual.

In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average “Joe College” student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual “civil rights” movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}

Kinsey’s figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it’s valid. It’s not.

People Are Born Gay.

Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data’s not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene “linkage” studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn’t have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay’s famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn’t sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn’t know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn’t make it a normal condition.

Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we’re born with something doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s not true that “God makes some people gay.” All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.

What’s Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?

There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention, like being “best friends” with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God’s plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.

Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really “best friend” status, and that does not require legal protection.

Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine “family” any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.

The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won’t make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very “other” beings–the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn’t work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.

Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.

Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn’t specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?

This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John’s gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don’t record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.

We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God’s created intent for human sexuality: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). God’s plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.

The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay theologians argue that the term “abomination” is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.

Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh’s people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today doesn’t mean none of it does.

The argument that the word “abomination” is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn’t hold water.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}

Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.

Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1). The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don’t believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the “Judge not” verse.

When Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another’s sin. There’s no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn’t necessarily judging.

Imagine I’m speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, “You broke the speed limit back there, ma’am.” Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: “Hey, you’re judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'” The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He’s not judging my character, he’s comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It’s not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That’s judging.

The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

Romans 1:26-27 says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it’s not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.

But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between “true” homosexuals and “false” ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn’t the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men “inflamed with lust” for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.

Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.

I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of “internalized homophobia” and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.

San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report’s numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that’s over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, “I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”{16}

The report’s conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}

Gibson didn’t use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson’s report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: “The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.”{18}

That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it’s not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it’s wrong and harmful behavior.

Larry Cook #conspiracy stopmandatoryvaccination.com

Vaccination bills have been introduced all across the country seeking to end our ability to opt-out of the vaccination program through the use of personal and/or religious belief exemptions in order to attend public or private school. We are told in mainstream media and by the pharmaceutical industry through their representative politicians that we have a health crises, that vaccines are safe, that vaccines are required, and that we must get vaccinated or we and/or our children will suffer severe consequences.

However, we are being lied to about vaccine need, vaccine safety and vaccination efficacy. Mainstream media is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry via billions of advertising dollars so you won’t get the truth from them; and many politicians are paid off through campaign contributions, so you won’t hear them bucking the system. So what we really have going on here is an edict created by the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC to increase the vaccination rate beyond its already super high rate and to do that by proposing and passing laws which would not allow us to opt-out of their vaccination programs. And how do you pass laws that are unpopular? Simple: you manufacture a problem so that everyone will go for the proposed solution, and since it is manufactured, lies will be used to persuade everyone to go along with the plan.

We don’t have a communicable disease public health crises or low vaccination rates. And in fact, even if we did, we still don’t need vaccines to “prevent” those “diseases” – death from disease had already been virtually eliminated by the time most vaccines had arrived on the market; so really then, what we actually need to be focusing on here is death from disease, not getting the disease. Consider this: many of the people who wound up with measles at Disneyland had been vaccinated, and neither they nor those who were unvaccinated, died. So, is there a problem? No, not at all – it is a manufactured problem.

Medical professionals, experts and parents have done extensive research, and after doing their own investigation they have concluded that it is better to vaccinate selectively, or on a different schedule, or even not at all. What you will find is that unvaccinated children are far more healthy, robust and even smarter than their vaccinated peers. Read through our vaccine free section to learn more about why we can live without vaccines and why unvaccinated children and adults are not a threat to society.

Children and people are healthy in spite of being vaccinated, not because of vaccination! Vaccines are filled with poison. The manufacturer vaccine inserts offer laundry lists of known adverse reactions – many of which are permanent, life threatening, or just plain horrible. In reality, vaccines should be labeled as hazardous products. If you are concerned about your safety and that of your children, then look beyond what you hear in the media, because you will surely not hear the truth there. Read a book, or two, or three, and then decide for yourself what to think. There are a bunch of them on the left column (What About Immunizations is highly recommended). Alternatively, just take a look at Vaccine Dangers and review the highlights. Or, review a few of my interviews with parents who share their stories of vaccine injury and then come to your conclusions.

Let’s not forget that adults are under attack as well: for example, in California there is a bill that would mandate vaccination for all daycare workers: SB-792. Don’t even for one-second think it will stop there! Teachers and schools will be next, and plenty more professions will be incorporated into the vaccination program, slowly but surely. The goal is regular and total vaccination of the entire population. It’s all spelled out in the National Adult Immunization Plan.

Jason R. Harvey #racist amren.com

Race in the French Foreign Legion

My journey to race realism is a long and winding one. I was born in the coastal town of Bangor, North Wales, and grew up near Snowdonia National Park. It’s a region defined by its natural beauty: forests, lakes, lush green fields, and of course: the spectacular view of Mount Snowdon’s perennially snow covered peak. It is also a very white region. I can’t remember ever seeing a “person of color” when I lived there.

Our family was eventually forced to move south, to England, in order to find work. It was there that I first encountered other races, mostly South Asians. In school, whites and Asians barely interacted at all. The Asians weren’t mean, and us whites did not hate them — the two groups were simply indifferent to each other. At the time, there was no forced socializing or “awareness raising.” In my teens, I lacked guidance and role models, and fell in with the wrong crowd. This led me to commit a crime that landed me in prison for six months at the age of 16. It was there that I learned about “black culture.” It was amazing to see just how many blacks there were in prison, given their tiny share of the national population.

The first thing I noticed about blacks was how tribal they are. They seemed to instinctively recognize each other as members of an extended family, and would always take the side of a fellow black over a non-black. Unfortunately, I caught the attention of a 28-year old Nigerian, who had lied about his age to get into the much laxer young offenders institute. Our disparity in age and strength gave me little chance of beating him in any physical confrontation, so I got robbed and beat up a few times. This seemed to be par for the course for the British prison system’s white minority.

Once I was released from prison, I amended my thuggish ways and became determined to make something of myself. So, I set off for France with the aim of enlisting in the French Foreign Legion (FFL), as I thought the military would make a man out of me. Little did I know that this part of my life would force me to confront the reality of race once again.

The FFL has members from all over the world, and although the French government would have you believe the ranks are unified in a colorblind adopted “French-ness,” this is not the case. Without a doubt, the FFL is the most racially tense environment I have ever been in. During working hours, everyone must speak French. The penalty for getting caught speaking anything else is a beating, followed by hours of scrubbing, and then having to write a report about your behavior in flawless French. But once the officers who doled out these punishments were out of sight, everyone would fracture off into what were known colloquially as ‘“mafias” — cliques centered around a shared race or nationality — and speak in their mother tongue.

Racial and national heritage were dividing lines in every aspect of life in the FFL. The base in Aubagne, near Marseille, was Arab and everyone knew that Americans, Englishmen, and most especially, Jews were treated horribly there. I entered the parachute regiment (2REP), which was roughly 70 percent Russian. The rest consisted mostly of Eastern Europeans with a spattering of Westerners and sundries. The Russian influence was so strong that sometimes (when the officers were not around) orders were given in Russian, and you would have to ask a “comrade” to translate for you. The mere mention of the 2REP was enough to send shivers down the spines of non-whites. Early on, I noticed black officers warning newcomers to stay away from the 2REP at all costs — they all took that advice. Race matters in the French Foreign Legion, and it matters outside of it.

The FFL is somewhere between a microcosm of, and a warning to, the West. Many people believe that if we simply force people to integrate and punish those who don’t get with the program, we will soon all join hands to sing and dance in harmony. All society needs to do is deny racial differences, and in a generation or two — once the old white people are dead — we will experience the ecstatic bliss of a “post-racial” utopia. This is a fantasy that goes against human nature in much the same way communism does.

Forcing people of different races together in an attempt to make them forget their identities and feel as though we are all just members of the human race is doomed to failure. This strategy most often does the opposite: it wakes people up to the stark reality of innate differences. The people behind this agenda will only ever create a never ending “cold war” between the races. And that’s true in and out of the FFL.