Similar posts

Dr. Ilija Lakicevic, Res. Prof. #crackpot #magick #dunning-kruger #moonbat

The time we are living in is the time of TRUTH and huge CHANGES which will bring inevitable our planet together with our civilization into 5th dimension where ONLY BALANCE is allowed. There will be NO FEAR or any other lower energy frequencies there. Our planet, beloved mother Shan, is approaching faster and faster to our sun, while our universe is approaching to the maximum of expansion where there will be NO TIME interval during which ALL laws necessary for the creative maintenance of physical matter and all materializing processes become suspended – there will be NO electricity. What is actually happening requires all of biological life to convey its meaning.

During this NON TIME interval there will emergence of the Planetary Being now taking definite form. This Planetary Being is actually “who we are”. We will be born!

To those of the human race who have turned themselves in to the will of God, the coming interval of non-time will literally expand into eternity. Others, not so finely tuned to the forces that will be released at that time, will feel great surges of energy, lasting for an indeterminate period. Some few will experience an intense fear and many shall die.

We human beings are CONSCIOUSNESS living in the cosmic vacuum tube of invisibility and projecting holographic-ally our creative DESIRES from that vacuum condition which are electrically recorded into desired (material) forms. We are NOT ENERGY, but we call in energy to manifest with it. There are universal laws which we use to inspire energy and to manifest with it in order to simulate all un-measurable QUAILITIES of the eternal universe at rest with measurable QUANTITIES of the transient universe of motion.

The basic universal laws are law of BALANCE and low of CONTINUITY. CAUSE is eternally balanced, while EFFECT is eternally changing to simulate balance through its unlimited forms. Since the CAUSE is infinite and eternal, which God Is, the EFFECT is also infinite and eternal, what means CONTINUITY.

The ONLY reason we are coming here is to learn the ONLY lesson how to BALANCE cause and effect. Only when there is RHYTHMIC BALANCED INTERCHNAGE between cause and effect the Law of Love is fulfilled.

The secret of Creation lies in the compression of HUGE VOLUME of space into SMALL VOLUME of matter and in eternal repetition of this circle.


After the fall of Atlantis we have decided to experience LIMITED potentials and create with energy in the OLD way with FEAR, FORCE, POWER and EFFORTING. The old way of creation with energy is HARD, COMPLICATED, INEFFICCINET and EXPENSIVE. That is all how creation with electricity is.

Then, on August 17th, 1987 WE have decided to experience UNLIMITED potentials and create in NEW way with DESIRE, COM-PASSION, LOVE, JOY and POWER-LESS. The new way of creation with energy is EASY, SIMPLE, EFFICIENT and CHEAP.

Old wisdom is dying – it has had its place on a dense Earth, but on a vibrant Earth in the next dimension there is a completely new Science. There is the science of Love and Consciousness, and the science of Balance, the science of Integration, and the science of Unity. Those realms of science need to be studied by the scientists so that they may be able to control matter and its density, and make it less dense.

For unto all who will learn, will this knowledge be given. First we must have the intent, the desire to fit into the Crystalline Age. The Crystalline Age is one of instant communication, instant participation, instant wisdom, material needs met instantly.

New energy unit, Dodeca, is an amazing tool which responds to Love, thoughts and intents.

One Dodeca unit is comprised of 12 internal, proton-like sub-units that work in harmony, one with the other.

Dodeca unit is stand-alone energy with awareness.

This new energy with awareness is free all over Earth.

Dodecas come from the sun and they are here to stay.

Dodeca energy comes directly from the atmosphere; electricity does not.

No More Power Black-Outs – No More Power Grids!!!



Reddit Tankies #moonbat #dunning-kruger

deaderontheinsideoof: For a state that boarders China its amazing this is the first case it's had so far

Sherwoodfan: honestly yeah. i like looking at north korea with a critical viewpoint but this is an amazing achievement. the only sources claiming there are covid cases in NK are "foreign experts", western "researchers" with pretty much no basis for these claims

follow_your_leader: And who have never set foot on the Korean peninsula at all in their lives, but have been proclaimed experts by others who have also never been to either Korea.

Illuminati Watchdog #conspiracy #fundie #wingnut #dunning-kruger

Why the Illuminati Hides the Flat Earth Truth
The Earth is flat and flat as a pancake for that matter. Forget what your science teachers and textbooks taught you as a child. They're aren't based in actual evidence, just what some "authority" told them to write. The true evidence isn't in what has been presented but by what is missing. The Illuminati continues to want to brainwash people into believing what it wants them to believe. A round Earth leads to the notion of an insignificant Earth. And an insignificant Earth equates to meaninglessness for the rest of us. When people are convinced that they have no meaning or no purpose, they are much more malleable to brainwashing.

For this article, we're not going to make the convincing case that the Earth is flat. There are tons of resources out there that can convey the wealth of evidence to support this theory. And yes, the evidence is more plentiful than that used support the theory of evolution. Those of us who believe differently, of course, are subjected to persecution and ridicule. The Illuminati dismisses us as stupid and does not refute our arguments. What we will discuss is what the order hopes to accomplish and hide from us by promoting a round Earth theory.

The reasons come from truth and spirituality as well as the ephemeral levels of our universe. The Illuminati knows that there are three levels sandwiched together like a hamburger. The topmost level is heaven and God's kingdom. This is where the messiah and the angels reside. In other words, all things good. The second or mid-level tier is our Earth. It is the meat, which surrounded above and below by spiritual forces. The lowest level is hell and the demons. It is fire and brimstone, not to mention suffering beyond all comprehension. The Illuminati knows this in-depth. That's why its sick and twisted rituals revolve around devil worship.

Simple geology can tell us all. Below the surface of our flat Earth, which is the battleground for infinite good and evil forces to fight for control, is unimaginable hell. Every time a volcano erupts, it's literally hell spewing forth on the planet. That's why the Illuminati wants to hide the truth. The order wants us to believe that everything is rooted in "science" and that we are just piles of biology eeking out meaningless existences with no hope and no future.

The truth is that we are living in a creation that didn't happen by accident and that good is battling against evil for control. The Earth is just the layer in between, but if we are to believe that it is round, then that is to acknowledge that hell has no reality. That's what the Illuminati wants us to think. They want us to believe in the secular and convince us that God is not real and that we have no reason for being here. They do this through media, pop culture, and education.

Remember, volcanoes are portals to hell, and the sun is a window to God's kingdom which is too pure to gaze upon with human eyes. This is the truth that the Illuminati doesn't want you to know.

DepravedAndDeprived #racist #dunning-kruger

[Hypocrisy] Funny how opposing racemixing equals White supremacy

I see intrinsic value in all peoples, races, and cultures. I understand that mixture leads to the loss of what makes each and every one of these peoples and cultures unique. Therefore, I oppose this mixture. India is for Indians, China for the Chinese, and Europe is for White people. I oppose racemixing, for it erases millions of years of seperate genetic developments.

And this makes me a "racist". Some call me a "White supremacist" or a "nazi" despite my opinions applying to all races equally. The media portrays my love for all the peoples as "hate", while simultaneously spitting anti-White propaganda like it's nothing.

Funny how things turn out.

Ken Ham #fundie #dunning-kruger

Creationists Are Mocking Flat Earthers for Not Understanding Science
By Hemant Mehta, June 3, 2019

Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness: Creationist Ken Ham says people who think the Earth is flat are being ridiculous because they aren’t basing their beliefs in science. And if they think the Bible supports them, it’s only because they wrongly choose which verses to quote as if that tells the whole story.

Someone should introduce him to a mirror.

His hilarious rant was prompted by a new documentary in which one group of scientifically illiterate fools tells another group of scientifically illiterate fools why they’re scientifically illiterate fools.

Now, before you contact us to tell us the earth is flat, first, please watch this documentary. We’ve thoroughly researched the supposed biblical and scientific pieces of evidence presented in favor of such a (wrong) view. It simply isn’t taught in Scripture, and the science doesn’t support it (although, sadly, many Christians are being convinced by cherry-picked data that only shows part of the whole story and out of context).

If you know someone in the flat earth movement, I encourage you to share this documentary with them. And if you’re part of it, I respectfully encourage you to humbly view this film and reconsider your position.

Ham also says people now ask him if he believes in a Flat Earth “all the time!” He doesn’t seem to realize it’s because when you promote fiction as science, you’re bound to draw in an audience that’s susceptible to bad arguments and distorted facts.

The Vaulted Earth #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #wingnut #dunning-kruger

Note: This is not a flat earth debunking page, the earth is most definitely a flat and stationary plane. This page is about the current flat earth movement that I believe does not represent the real Biblical flat earth model.

Do not be so quick to just blindly jump on the Zetetic flat earth model without questioning any of its mechanics, just as we did with the Globe model. It is my own opinion that the Zetetic flat earth model was a controlled release by the United Nations to co-opt the flat earth rediscovery and revelation by subliminally getting flat earth believers to unknowingly promote the United Nations dominion over the world through the legitimate Truth of the flat earth.
Do you want more people to realize the lies of NASA, Heliocentricism, and that the rotating Ba’al earth in “outer space” is a massive deception? Well one of the major reasons why they don’t, is because the official Flat Earth Society/Azimuthal Equidistant/1-poled circle earth model IS NOT reality, and is quite easily proven as false from both the Word of YAHUAH ELOHIYM and real life observations.

When people look at the Azimuthal Equidistant projection/United Nations flag model and realize it can’t even explain night and day properly, they don’t believe any of it and remain exactly where they are, under the illusion of the occult mass programming/globe indoctrination.

Being unable to investigate your own beliefs, or to debate ideas without emotional outbursts, is the sure sign of occult programming/brainwashing, especially when you didn’t formulate the ideas yourself and they actually came from someone else.

This video presents the earth a flat square, proved from Scripture, evidence and reason, for your consideration

Vanto #wingnut #dunning-kruger

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.

Gaia Staff #crackpot #dunning-kruger #magick #quack

Rupert Sheldrake is one of those scientists that his community has largely shunned as a heretic. Despite studying at Harvard and graduating from Cambridge with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, the scientific community has dismissed his radical ideas as nonsensical and blasphemous. Sheldrake admittedly started his career in science as an atheist, but eventually had an epiphany about our consciousness that changed his outlook.

Sheldrake has proposed an idea he calls, morphic resonance. Essentially, the idea is that there is a collective consciousness within species that can impact disparate groups of organisms without them having to come into contact with each other. A sort of telepathic connectedness that can influence behavior and can be passed down through immediate generations.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake discusses morphogenetic fields and the experiments he has run to prove telepathy between humans and telepathy between humans and animals. Sheldrake explains that everything in nature has a morphogenetic field, an invisible pattern in space that contains the collective memory of that species and that these fields are the organizing principles that apply to that species.

Scientific Dogma
Does it come as any surprise that Sheldrake’s hypothesis has been flat-out rejected by most of the scientific community? He has been so often referred to as a heretic that it’s essentially a title in his name. But he takes it in stride and it’s actually the perfect insult coming from a community that he sees as being ironically dogmatic.

CrossRufus #dunning-kruger #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #pratt

One thing I have been increasingly taking notice of is how e-skepticals - you know, the "science, reason, facts and logic" crowd, people you can easily find at internet communities such as "Fundies Say The Darndest Things", "RationalWiki" and basically most left-wing forums - tend to be extremelly vain, ego-driven and arrogantic. For instance, let's illustrate this with a hypothetical situation: imagine it's scientific consensus that a few million years ago there was a frozen continent named "Lumumba" and that a random man named Edmund contests the existence of Lumumba; according to the skepticals Edmund is a mentally unstable idiot whose brain lives in an alternative reality. At a first glance it could seem fair to regard him as such, he's in disagreement with thousands of individuals who are educated on that field after all, right? However, let's take into account that Edmund currently has no means to verify these claims by himself (like most people) and it basically has no relevance at all to his practical life; having that in mind, one should start to question if it really makes sense to mock and belittle that person. Why must he believe what a bunch of people with diplomas tell him on the matter in order to not be deemed as intelectually inferior? If having an inquisitive mindset is so valued and praised by the "facts and reason" crew then why people like Edmund are supposed to just accept everything scientists say? Why does that say anything about his mental health if believing or not believing in Lumumba causes literally zero negative impact in his life or in the lives of others? The whole issue here comes down to the fact that these skepticals aren't really interested in promoting scientific thinking and skepticism but rather in feeding their own ego and trying to affirme themselves as smart and enlightened in comparison to the "idiotic science-denying bigoted cranky fundies"; that's why you have youtube videos with titles such as "physicist reacts to flat-earthers" and websites such as the ones mentioned at the beggining (RationalWiki and FDST), it's all a huge group session of intellectual masturbation.

And no, I am not strawmaning, that hypothetical situation is based-off something quite similar I saw on a FDST thread: it was a comment that labeled anyone who took Pink Swastika (a book about alleged homosexuals in the Nazi Party and the connection between homossexuality and the fascist ideology) seriously was clinically insane. I mean, really? The view one has about things that happened more than seven decades ago in another continent is really so relevant to the point of determining their mental health? I can kind of understand cases like the mockery of flat-earthers (well, actually I don't, thinking that the Earth is flat causes no damage to anyone, so why not just let them have their belief instead of starting this whole outrage?), since it's actually possible to verify by yourself that the Earth cannot be flat (for example, by looking at the clouds in the sky or realizing that people in other countries are under different time-zones), but having this same attitude towards something so inexact, imprecise, malleable and distant such as the study of the past is an attestation of arrogance.

"You clearly don't understand how science works, the scientific method is extremely rigorous and scientists have to stand scrutiny from their peers in order to have their findings accepted as factual. If you have doubts about a certain topic you can simply study and verify it by yourself" Ok then, I will study it by myself and come to my own conclusions, but until I'm in my right to have doubts and having them instead of just blindly accepting everything the scientific community says (like, let's be honest, everyone does) doesn't make me intelectually inferior to anyone. However, let's not ignore that it would take me years and years of study to "understans" just one specific topic, that I would still have to just accept as true everything that my peers from the hundreds of other fields say (no, you can't seriously expect someone to specialize on everything in a lifetime, come on) and that even in my own field I would have to assume as true the countless premises that it's based upon (for example, an archeologist has to accept this or that method of dating as the most precise so everything he has learned so far can make sense - this example may not be accurate but I just wanted something to illustrate what I meant)

"Yikes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong on this one. Ok Mr. Nuanced Contrarian, so if all doctors said that taking poison is harmful for your well-being and may possibly culminate in your death but a local charlatan claimed it would give you superpowers then you would take both claims as having the same weight just because you can't verify it by yourself first?" No, I would absolutely stand with the doctors on that one; however, that's not because they are science-people but rather due the fact I know from my own experience that poison is harmful (by seeing all the cases of people who took it and experienced negative effects). So yes, I agree that it's stupid to do certain things when you can verify with YOUR OWN EYES that it won't have a good outcome (not vaccinating your kids, for example)

"We know that science is accurate because it works" Why? Where that implication comes from? Just because a certain institution or group of people creates things that work and improve our lives it doesn't necessarily mean their explanations and theories behind their "inventions" are true; if that is the case then the healers of some amazonian tribe are correct in their beliefs about spirits just because some of their cures are effective?

"If you are so against science then why don't you just drop your phone, leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness?" Again, why? Where that implication comes from? Just because I don't accept as true some explanations of reality that the scientific community come up with it doesn't mean that I think everything related to science is evil and that we should reject all of it's inventions

"You are thinking of scientists as 'the others' when in reality they are just people like you. Also, it would make no sense for scientists to try hiding something from the public when in fact they would receive prestige for exposing the findings of their peers as false" Well, what if they are indeed 'the others'? I mean, who knows? There could be a lobby to push for some agenda or a certain conspiracy to cover something up; this may sound like silly conspirationism but you can't really know for sure. As for the "scientists will seek to disprove their peers instead of covering them up" part, it's just an assumption, there is no reason to say that scientists will necessarily have such mindset; it can be true but it could also be true that anyone who questioned the consensus would risk getting ostracized or even losing their diploma and their source of income - I mean, who knows?

"Science may not have the answers for everything but that doesn't mean your cranky nutjob theories are on the same level of accuracy and respectability" Well, that's a "case by case" situation since there are many different "cranky nutjob theories" out there, but to spare some words and space let's say that such affirmation is mostly true. What then? Just because the alternative theories are wrong it doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Furthermore, you have to have in mind that different worldviews often come from differing premises and assumptions; science, for instance, is based on methodological naturalism, the assumption the explanation for every topic investigated must be a natural/material/non-supernatural one, while a religious person, for example, takes into account the existence of the divine and thus will likely come up with an alternative and supernatural view of the same phenomenon (what you mockingly label as "goddidit"). Yes, these people have a faith they embrace and because of that they think differently, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just let them be? Oh, I forgot: you guys are desperate for self-affirmation and in constant need of feeling smart and enlightened in comparison to the "cranks, bigots and fundies", right?

Roosh V #fundie #dunning-kruger

[From "How Old Is The Earth?"]

A potential stumbling block for many Christians is the age of the Earth. Scientists have normalized an Earth age in the billions of years, allowing them to present all manner of grotesque and fake intermediary species into the archeological record. Meanwhile, the Bible suggests an Earth age that is not much older than 7,000 years. These wide differences cannot be easily reconciled, leaving the Christian in a tough position. Should he reconfigure the Bible into a timeline presented by atheist scientists, or should he stick to a more literal view? One thing that may help him in his decision is understanding that God created the Earth with an inherent age

When God created the animals, they were fully grown. In other words, on the day after Creation there were some animals that were already many years old
How about the rocks and mountains? The moment after creation, the valleys and the hills were already in a state of lushness and completion
Techniques like carbon dating or DNA analysis do more to reveal the arrogance of man than the truth of our world. Scientists believe the Earth is old, and are already in a state of rebellion against God, and so settled on techniques that confirmed their tightly-held convictions
I don’t know exactly how old the Earth is, but I don’t believe it to be older than 10,000 years. Since I don’t work in a dinosaur museum, there is nothing in my daily personal experience that begins to even hint to an age older than that. What I notice on my path to salvation is that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what was written in the Holy Bible about man and faith has not at all clashed with what I encounter experientially. The Bible speaks to me, the scientists lie to me, and so I have thrown in my lot with God, for I cannot have two masters

Unconfidence #sexist #dunning-kruger

Confidence is entirely overrated. Doubt, insecurity, not only are these more rational and useful for reality, but in the long run they're more attractive than confidence

How is insecurity more attractive? I'd like to hear your opinion, if you don't mind

I don't want a woman who thinks she's attractive, because that's not something I can or want to commiserate with. As appealing as the idea of some super-scottie-2-hottie is, realistically I know that I'd never be able to understand them the way I understand my girlfriend, who knows what it's like to go through life without the privilege of being the apple of everyone's romantic eye. I want someone who doesn't see my own insecurity, something I cherish and consider a deep part of me, as some defect, but rather an entirely understandable part of growing up in the world.

was in love with them that I've never leave them.

Intellectually speaking confidence is just horribly unattractive. The best learners are those that understand the position of ignorance from the start. Those who confidently stroll into the temple forget to take off their shoes, so to speak.

In general this is just a part of me. I highly value doubt, insecurity, and the like. I never get tired of reminding my girlfriend that yes, I do indeed love her, and rather than be offended by her doubt, I'm assuaged by the fact that she's so concerned, because that lets me know it's real.

John Ward #wingnut #quack #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

Is It Time for Civil Disobedience Against The Covid19 Cult of Failed Advice?

This is today. It is not 1933. But the global mob rule we are witnessing is as old as the hills. As old, in fact, as the ancient Greeks who warned that the Herd Instinct, when married to Herd Ignorance, would inevitably lead to the Führerprinzip.

Plato predicted this earlier than most, but latterly George Orwell offered us a more exact description. For some forty years now, the Internationalist bourgeois Left has treated Nineteen Eighty-Four as a blueprint. Bizarrely, the globalist/blocist Corporate State builders have been doing exactly the same.

So for example, the Guardian’s Executive Editor instructed her journalists in 2016 to call Climate Change doubters deniers. This same collective noun is now being extended to Covid19 empiricists. But at the same time, unelected bureaucracies have promoted those like top UK civil servant Sir Mark Sedwill and US Global Pharma creature Dr Fauci to positions of enormous power and influence….using completely unregulated censorship at will to dub contrarian Covid19 commentators ‘Science deniers‘.

In recent years, one socio-political issue after another has been treated to the same formula of rigid ‘framing’. Those with doubts about the multicultural model of society are diversity deniers. Supporters of Brexit are Little Engander globalism deniers….and racists to boot. Those noting the spread of Islamic Jihadism and Pakistani rape gangs are Islamophobes. Critics of some elements of male homosexual lifestyles are homophobes. Attacks on the radical feminist creed are the work of sexists lasciviously obsessed with male rape.

Over time, such framing has trickled down in an even more simplistic form to the mass electorate, creating a knee jerk mode of acceptance I call ‘Estuary pc’….such that, in 2012 I employed a plumber who actually said, “In terdayzz mult-culchural-siety, that is a totelee hunacceptable dibollikal libe’ee”.

The link back to the shot of Hitler Youth at the head of the post is extremely pertinent: for acceptance is now turning into not just unquestioning obedience, but also demands that contrarians be told to shut up ‘for the Common Good’.

During the development of the official coronavirus narrative, we have all been treated to the Holier than Thou fascist who begins with “It’s people like you that…”. Who has not coughed in a queue for shopping and been greeted by glares from others? During the 2016 Brexit referendum, the day after Jo Cox’s assassination Leave supporters were treated to threats, and screams of “murderers” – Nigel Farage (not even remotely connected to the alleged assassin) was accused of being responsible for inciting the attack.

The metamorphosis of ideology into creed is rapidly creating a self-styled mob of Spanish Inquisitors – precisely the sort of bullying that led to the furious Groupthink of Krystallnacht eighty-five years ago. Whether that mob be Momentum, The London Times, Antifa, the New York Times, Channel Four, Common Purpose, Black Lives Matter or the BBC, there is an enthusiasm for – an asumption, in fact – that the Bertold Brecht Weltanschauung of The Good Lie is not only acceptable, it is essential. The naysayers must be silenced.

So much for diversity.

Such does not exactly provide rich soil for the discernment of lies and promotion of more effective (as in, less tunnel-vision) policy. 84% of Brits now see Lockdown and the wearing of masks as ‘necessary to control the virus’, even though the masks on offer are close to useless and lockdown has been shown to achieve little beyond approaching national bankruptcy.

Nor is the climate of ignorant fear a good one in which to put forward obvious contradictions between policies in use and the “science” they are supposedly led by.

And finally, the construction of informed conjecture about the real purposes of whipped-up Covid19 fears is so far beyond the closed mind, it is dismissed at Twitter – the ancestral home of bullying – with insults like “you thick c**t”.

All this darkness accepted, here and there one sees some signs that the largely silent Thinkers – estimated at around 16% of the adult population – are beginning to wonder whether this virus has rather more to do with globalist finance, multinational Pharma profits and surveillance permissions than anything remotely approaching “science”.

This therefore seems to me like a good opportunity to take one overriding element of the majority approach to Covid19 – a fairly easy one to understand – and leave both the Mob and the Establishment with a question they will surely find it impossible to fend off.

From Day 1 of the Covid19 saga, we have been watching a tug-of-war between two sets of medical interests.

The highly regarded French newspaper France Soir has been creating a Covid19 drug-trials niche for itself by raising all kinds of methodological anomalies in relation to the Recovery trials being headed up by Peter Horby. The articles are compelling because the paper’s director of publications Xavier Azalbert is that rare thing, a distinguished scientist who then switched to journalism. But although the telling findings fly over the heads of most of the population, Azalbert’s overview about who the politicians listen to in the field of virology is a fascinating one that, for me, represents a genuine insight.

Neil Ferguson (the man of multi-billion Pound mistakes) is an epidemiologist, and professor of mathematical biology. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Peter Horby is an epidemiologist, and Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Anthony Fauci’s first degree was in classics. He went on to medical school later. The sum total of his clinical experience was a two-year hospital internship from 1966-68. He has never been a general practitioner in his life.

Chris Whitty, UK Chief Medical Officer, worked as a doctor and researcher in Africa and Asia and is a practising NHS consultant. He has never worked in general practice, and his total experience in the current century has been as a Professor, administrator and public sector office holder at Gresham College and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). In 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the LSHTM £31 million for malaria research in Africa. At the time, Whitty was the principal investigator for the ACT Consortium, which conducted the research programme. I probably don’t need to remind you of the lingering ethical doubts relating to that “vaccination” programme.

Ferguson, Horby and Fauci also have a long history of being funded by Big Pharma.

In short, the front line of Anglo-Saxon advice to government are all people Low in clinical experience and High in Big Pharma funding. They are model builders, theorists and fund-attracters laden with multivariate conflicts of interest, and little or no depth in the vital process of patient obervation. Their careers, needless to say, are all littered with groundless alarmism, major mistakes in counsel and the belief that vaccination is the answer to every problem….even a virus which, many practising medics contend, is highly unlikely to ever work on a mutating coronavirus – let alone within two years to include drug trials.

This is the tug-of-war team that has a monopoly on access to government. The other team – the practical, experienced medical practitioners – are variously depicted as minority nutjobs, eccentrics, headline-chasers, small-time and narrow deniers – there’s that word again – who are a constant risk to millions of human lives, and must be ignored. In fact, never mind ignored – for the good of the cause, they must be smeared, censored and refused access to the debate.

In fact, it is the Horbys and Faucis that are the tiny minority infecting genuine medical science with their corrupted ideological creeds and flakey models.

So now, here is the $64 trillion question that the Establishment war-tuggers and the hopelessly general political class they blind with science can’t avoid: why are you listening only to atypical academic twaddle-theorists with conflicts of interest who have at best been hopelessly wrong and at worst lied about Covid death stats and ruthlessly manipulated drug test trials?

This is in no way an unfair framing of the question. Ferguson’s death toll estimate was wrong, Horby’s drug trial of HCQ was fiddled, the entire process of lockdown was unaffordably broad, economically unaffordable and incompetent in the area of protecting the vulnerable, there is an inquiry going on into PHE’s massively overestimated UK death toll, and the Horby trials are being redone at yet more public cost. Dr Fauci has deliberately misled the American People about HCQ, and his conduct has been the subject of some excoriating criticisms by the practitioners’ supporter, the American Medical Association.

As I said, for the time being – until such time as the public mood changes – keep it simple. To those who are awake, the reasons why all these dubious activities – the Bigging Up of Covid19 – have been undertaken are clear. Nevertheless, park the power, money, geopolitical and Alt State hegemony madness and focus on this one question: why are you still taking the advice of the folks who’ve fucked up?

Yesterday, Chris Whitty flatly stated that “Coronavirus cases are rising in the UK because ministers pushed lockdown easing measures to their limits”. He openly rubbished Boris Johnson’s plan to get the UK back to normal by Christmas, insisting that “relaxing rules further will absolutely, inevitably lead to a resurgence of the virus.”

Whitty put his foot down: lockdown loosening measures had to be ‘stopped now’ and maybe even ‘pulled back a bit’ because they risk allowing another large-scale outbreak in the future.

This was based on a daily death toll figure of 38. Out of 76 million. In the US on the same day, the light use of lockdown produced 5 deaths. Out of 330 million. Lockdown has been at the very best a questionable policy, and a certain gdp disaster for a Britain that can ill afford one.

Whitty is not interested in even considering that his strategy (which, let’s face it, not a single government anywhere knows how to emerge from) is flawed, that the dangers are wildly overstated, and that Britain must move on or collapse. And Boris Johnson’s Cabinet shows no sign of even considering that Whitty is a Pharma tool and, economically, a dangerous fool.

ThoughtfulCel #sexist #dunning-kruger

[Serious] Man is the main cause of Inceldom

We can all agree that man has played a major role in advancing the human race through each era and age. The stone age, Victorian era, the age of discovery, etc. We can also agree that man has not always made the right decisions in history, with countless wars, terrible torture and rape, brutality, etc. But in general man has dominated and ruled over earth for centuries.

When i say man is the cause of Inceldom, i do not mean any of you are, or even the majority of men. I mean a select few men have doomed all of us to a life of inceldom. Man is the reason women have rights, he is the reason women can vote, can drive, can work, etc. Man is also the reason why most of us will never have sex, girlfriends, or wives.

Throughout history we've had countless books and quotes spoken and written by our greatest minds warning us about the nature of women. These men existed before females were "equal" to men, and saw through the deceptively convincing docile and innocent nature that women convey. If they were alive today, half of the things they said would not appear in any form of media. Currently it is a sin to expose female and criticize female nature for what it is.

Man has made it so that the nature of females is not only accepted, but encouraged. We've created devices, programs, and websites,that further encourage female hypergamy and their selective and discriminatory nature. We defend, orbit, and put down other men in hopes of gaining female attention and acceptance.

If a dog bites you maliciously, as a master, do you scold and slap it? Or do you let it continue to bite you? The answer is obvious, yet ignored when it comes to women. Women vocally speak their hatred of men. They lie, cheat, deceive, and storm media in hordes, complaining, whining, and babbling about inequality. And what does man do? He keeps giving, feeding, and allowing females to continue. He lets the dog continue to bite in order to satisfy it, without realizing it will never be satisfied.

Because of this, art, music, speech, and the lives of many men have been censored in the pursuit of keeping women happy and feeding into the female ego. What man doesn't understand is that females will never be satisfied. First it was the right to vote, then equal rights, and now you can't even engage a female without meeting HER checklist of requirements or you run the risk of being socially outcast. And the sad part is, its too late to turn back.

Women are not strong, they are not wise, funny, or even good for entertainment or friendship. Yet it is man who tells them they are. Coddles them, empowers them, and feeds them. And it is man who is responsible for inceldom.

TLDR females are terrible, and we've known that since we gained sentience as a species, but despite that, they have been allowed to unleash their full nature thanks to man. You can hate females for what they are, but its important to remember the cucks in history who have supported and allowed females equality despite knowing their nature.

Andrew Anglin #homophobia #transphobia #dunning-kruger

[From "Gay Rights: Trump’s Man on the Court Sodomizes America"]

Donald Trump’s man on the court just bent America over and rammed his penis into the anus of the nation.

This is truly an anal reckoning.

This ruling might seem trite, as virtually every church is already full-anal and not going to fire a homo, and everyone already knew it was impossible to fire a gay person from anywhere other than a church, but it’s bigger than that. This makes them even more invincible, makes it impossible to even think about taking away their adoption rights. This is a ruling that means that gays are born that way.

The Hill

Neil Gorsuch, widely considered one of the more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, stunned observers and drew enmity from right-wing commenters after he authored Monday’s landmark decision guaranteeing LGBT people protection from workplace discrimination.
Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 decision that the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of “sex” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act also applies to gay and transgender employees.[...]

Imagine that the Supreme Court is talking about trannies positively, like they’re normal people.

The Civil Rights Act should be repealed, as it in itself violates the Constitution in that it outlaws free association. But even the Civil Rights Act doesn’t say anything about gays or trannies.

This ruling is based on the idea – as he said in his opinion – that “gay” and “tranny” are the same thing as biological sex. Meaning that this is entirely political. That is absolutely not established as some kind of scientific fact. It is political propaganda that is now being used to make laws – ostensibly by our own side.
I am still 100% behind voting for Trump because of what the Democrats are going to do to us. But this argument is going to resonate with a lot of people, when cuckolds like Erickson make it. Erickson has always hated Trump, and this is a much bigger win than it is for any tranny.
We’re living with a lot of things these days, aren’t we Donald? Living with being locked in our houses while the blacks riot and tear down our entire civilization. Living with a totally collapsed economy. On top of feminism, mass immigration and a cultural crisis we were already living with.

So why not just live with this, huh Donald?

They’re just sodomizing the corpse of America at this point, huh?

The best we can really hope for is that they use a little bit more lube.

Maybe that should be your 2020 slogan, Donald?

“Please Use Lube While Sodomizing the Corpse of America.”
Yes. Foster care. And adoption. The reason that this is a big deal for the gays is that it is going to give them expanded access to little boys to use for sexual purposes. Everyone who knows anything knows that. Gorsuch and Roberts knew it very well.

It’s just so insane that we can still be talking about “securing equality.” Everyone in this country knows that gays are an ultra-protected class, who can do whatever they want.
Of course that law wasn’t written that way. That is insane. Gorsuch claiming to be a textualist is simply a lie. There is no such possible interpretation. He is saying “gay is a sex,” which not even the gays say. If the Civil Rights Act was intended to protect gays, it would have said that.

Furthermore, any textualist reviewing this case would have determined that the Civil Rights Act itself is unconstitutional. Because it is.

Everything in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was ALREADY declared unconstitutional in 1883 when the Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Did you know that? That there was a virtually identical civil rights act passed in 1875? Probably you didn’t know that. They don’t want you to know that, because obviously, the 14th Amendment hasn’t changed since 1883. It has not been repealed.

How is Neil Gorsuch going to rule on the First and Second Amendments under a Democrat president?

With this ruling, he seems to signaling – winking at the Democrats, saying, “you don’t have to worry about me, guys! I’m on your side!”

At least Kavanaugh is still riding hard.

Jonathan Peter Wilkinson #wingnut #elitist #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

You’ve probably seen at least some YouTube car chase clips from the old Mad Max Movies. Notice they don’t treat the vehicles they drive with the tender loving care that Big Rocky would treat his vintage, collectable Mustang Poonwagon. They’ve gone a month or so without a car wash and may not be changing the oil on a planned, regular basis. So why abuse the chrome, man?

The answer to this is because nobody really owned these cars anymore. This is because his world had effectively collapsed. Resource scarcity and advanced-stage Anarcho-Tyranny do unleash havoc upon the poor dimwit clerks at the County Title Office.

So Mad Max drove those junk jalopies he scavenged out in the desert like he stole them. If we foolishly assume his timeline still had orderly civilized governance, then he did steal them. Had he politely obeyed the one or two derelict speed limit signs that still remained, the bad guys would have caught him and doused his ride with Molotov Cocktails.
Whatever we still have in place of the once-functional Amerikan Republic will be driven the way Mad Max drove that random, still-functional derelict car he found out in the Post-Civilization Outback wastes. The people ensconced behind the barbed wire at Firebase Capitol Hill feel the same level of legitimate title to what they’ve stolen that Max felt to the vehicles.

Maybe the good guys win, maybe they lose. The car that got them through the grand finale chase scene is just like “Rosebud” in Citizen Kane. It’s a Mulligan. It has no intrinsic value to the actors in a given timeline beyond abstract symbolism. Once it no longer has a role as a useable symbol, it gets chucked as a derelict.

Mike Adams/John Moore #crackpot #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #wingnut

(Natural News) A large, planet-sized mass inhabits our solar system, and its large elliptical orbit around the sun brings it across Earth’s orbital plane every 3,600 years or so, wreaking havoc on our planet due to strong gravity effects. The U.S. government has been aware of the approach of “Planet X” for over forty years, warns John Moore “The Liberty Man,” in a jaw-dropping new interview on Brighteon Conversations. (See below.)

While Planet X won’t strike the Earth, it’s nearby approach will unleash cataclysmic consequences across our planet that may bring an end to human civilization as we know it, Moore explains in the interview. Those effects may include a global “pole shift,” which means the Earth’s crust slips to a new orientation, unleashing extreme winds, volcanoes, earthquakes, flooding, tidal waves and more.

“Every structure on the surface of the Earth would be destroyed,” explains Moore, who reveals the governments of the world are frantically constructing more underground bunkers in anticipation of catastrophic events.

John Moore is a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst and took part in 57 air combat missions over Vietnam and Cambodia. He later become a homicide detective for the state of Missouri. As a long-time radio host, Moore has developed a long list of sources inside government and the U.S. military. He hosts a radio show each weekday from 8 – 10 am central time, via Republic Broadcasting. Learn all the details at

As Moore explains in the video below, the pole shift would place North America closer to the equator than its current position, and the “bulge” of ocean water at the equator (due to centrifugal forces of the rotating planet) would raise the level of the ocean by hundreds of feet compared to the continental United States. John Moore’s website — — hosts this map of anticipated changes. Note that Florida and much of the Eastern seaboard are under water in this depiction:

In the video below, John Moore explains how people living in other areas of the world can easily determine whether their current locations will be inundated with higher relative ocean levels.

The Planet X fly-by would likely also bring asteroid impacts to planet Earth, causing global chaos and mass destruction as large space rocks impact the planet at extreme relative velocities. A recent study found that just one such impact in any ocean would unleash 400-foot ocean waves that would devastate coastal cities around the world (and flood coastlines for potentially a hundred miles inland).

Asteroids that impact the land could unleash large volumes of particulate matter into the stratosphere that would block sunlight from reaching food crops, leading to mass famine and the collapse of human civilization. If large volcanoes also erupt due to the destabilization of the Earth’s crust, the amount of participate matter circling the globe could block out the sun and absolutely devastate nearly all plant life on Earth for several years. (Plants depend on photosynthesis via sunlight and carbon dioxide for energy, a fact that 99% of today’s climate scientists still refuse to acknowledge because they are scientifically illiterate brainwashed zombies.)

The United States government is fully aware of the approach of Planet X but has chosen to withhold this information from the American people for the simple fact that there’s nothing the masses can do to survive the anticipated events.

Moore recommends people move inland and get above 500 feet in altitude in order to survive the ocean inundation of North America.

Jerry Derecha/Adrenogate #crackpot #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #magick

This has been blowing my mind. The possibly that a toroidal reality matrix is being fabricated within our minds before becoming conscious of it and then oscillated near our eyes within our brain to create what we perceive as consciousness, is a theory that deserves more attention. This means that we are not reacting to external influences when we experience consciousness. It’s all manufactured within the human brain ahead of time. Could this be why we are able to see up to a few seconds into the future?

The symbol of the snake eating its own tail represents this matrix time loop that we apparently may be stuck within at the moment. Some believe this false reality was implemented fairly recently, back in 1999 or 2012 And may have been the result of cern accidentally destroying our original universe and then replacing it with a duplicate bootleg copy of sorts. This has been used to explain the Mandela effect.

I’m still a bit troubled as to how this relates to neither the flat or ball earth model being correct. What he is saying is that essentially there is no model in existence that could possibly be “correct” because everyone’s reality is completely subjective to their own self-fabricating oscillating interdimensional toroidal reality matrix. Personally I would love for that to be true because then I could start creating my own realities and not continue to be stuck in this increasingly crappy world that I find myself boxed into. But I still think their must be some kinds of external, independent and universally consistent properties of our physical world that can be mutually agreed upon, or it would imply that there are no other souls in this world for you to interact with besides yourself.

Fat Link #sexist #dunning-kruger

Yeah, the lazy minded, retarded platitude spouting normies don’t take the time to understand or figure out that the lack of having a girlfriend and or realizing we will never have a girlfriend completely kills our motivation in life to want to do anything typically considered great by societal standards.

Why should any of us for example want to struggle and fight and use up all of our energy to obtain a high paying job and work ourselves to the bone and put up with potential years of viscious and petty office politics just to get a nice car and a nice and big (but empty) house to come home to every night devoid of wife and children?

Before all that why even bother working hard in school when you’re smart enough even at a young age to realize that it’s over?

Fuck society and fuck women.

They don’t give a fuck about us, so take from them what meager amounts that you can by getting on NEETbux (wherever and whenever possible) as payment for your lifetime of pain and suffering as a direct result of their cruelty and neglect making you an unloved and uncared for outcast.

The only sad and unfortunate people my above post doesn’t apply to are our brocels in awful situations where they are forced to work if they don’t want to end up homeless.

Brocels in shittier living situations than the rest of us whether it’s because they live in a third world country or are simply unable to get on NEETbux for whatever reason should have our deepest sympathies.

Siddhartha Chaibub, Olavo de Carvalho and Ernesto Araújo #crackpot #dunning-kruger

Siddhartha Chaibub’s suspicions that the Earth wasn’t really round were first aroused when he stumbled across a YouTube video while living in Brazil’s capital, Brasília.

“I was always very sceptical about things,” said the 35-year-old freelance designer, who soon dived deep into the flat Earth universe: reading, watching videos and joining a dedicated WhatsApp group.

By the end of 2015, he was convinced. “The model that is imposed on us – that the Earth is spherical – is full of contradictions,” he said.

Today, his YouTube channel Professor Terra Plana (Flat Earth Professor) – featuring videos such as “25 examples that prove Nasa is a fraud” and “gravity doesn’t exist” – has nearly 29,000 subscribers.

Like Britain and the United States, Brazil is seeing a revival of flat Earth theory: 7% of the population – 11 million Brazilians – believe that the Earth is flat, according to the polling firm Datafolha. The poll noted believers were more likely to be religious or poorly educated.

Last week, Chaibub and three of his flat Earth fellows got their biggest break yet when they appeared on the country’s most-watched talkshow, The Night, to promote Brazil’s first ever flat Earth convention this Saturday in São Paulo.

The location of the event will only be disclosed on the day, organizers say, for security reasons. “There is a lot of prejudice,” said Chaibub


Accusations of links to the flat Earth movement have dogged Bolsonaro’s government.

In January, the science minister, Marcos Pontes – South America’s first astronaut – said that he felt a “knot in the stomach” when he heard suggestions that the Earth is flat.

But just a few months later, Olavo de Carvalho – a former astrologer who is considered the intellectual guru of Bolsonaro and his inner circle – prompted outrage and ridicule when he tweeted: “I didn’t study the subject of the flat Earth. I just watched a few videos of experiments that show that aquatic surfaces are flat – and so far I haven’t found anything to refute them.”

Carvalho – who has also claimed Pepsi was sweetened with aborted foetuses and that oral sex can cause cancer – dined with Bolsonaro and Steve Bannon in Washington during the Brazilian president’s state visit to the US in March.

When questioned about flat Earthism, the foreign minister, Ernesto Araújo – an Olavo disciple who believes climate change is a Marxist plot – also seemed sympathetic to the movement, saying: “For me, the Earth is round. But it’s important to have this spirit of questioning,”

BlkPillPres #dunning-kruger #sexist

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Ronald Meyer, Mark Reeder, and Anna Meyer Evans #ufo #crackpot #dunning-kruger

The existence of Bigfoot is taken for granted throughout Native North America, and so are his powerful psychic abilities. I can't count the number of times that I have heard elder Indian people say that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance, and that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down.”

These comments point to a creature of alien origin. The creature that has been amongst humans for a considerable time. I would argue that if this is true they must be like all other life forms on the planet evolving and adapting over time. But how did they get here in the first place?

Right now, many cosmologists think the current methods of searching for intelligent life in the universe will forever prove futile. They argue that it is highly unlikely that an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe would send out radio signals or any other form of EM communication nor would they themselves travel long distances in search of interesting life situations.

But these experts are coming around to is that more than likely they would send out some type of a smart drone that once potential life or life was discovered they would begin interacting with that life with a purpose only known to themselves. If this is the case perhaps the evolution of life on this planet might have been guided in part right from the beginning by alien interactions.

fschmidt #dunning-kruger

For many years I had a fantasy about forming a sane community. The fantasy was to gather the sane remnant from this insane world and form a community for reasonable people. This was partly inspired by the concept of the remnant of the Israelites in the Old Testament after the fall of Israel and Judah. But this idea has a fatal flaw. There is no remnant. Humanity has become pure trash, there are no reasonable people left.

The Old Testament talks about such a time in the story of Noah. Clearly most of humanity needs to be wiped out. We have another example of this in the fall of Rome. If you read original source material from decaying Rome, you will see that these people were complete morons at a similar level to the morons of today. In The Antony Option I described the "good" people as those covered in Early Christian Lives who left Roman society to live in the desert. But from this book it is clear that these people were also complete morons. They had no interest in intelligence or quality or anything of real value. They just wanted to get close to God and hoped that this would give them supernatural powers. Eventually monasteries formed and some people moved near them. This had a slight beneficial effect in removing these people from dysgenic Roman culture. But the reality is that it took 1000 years and huge population drops before these people could escape the idiocracy caused by the decay of Rome.

I see no significant difference between the decay of Rome and the decay of modern culture other than that modern culture is almost universal. When Rome fell and Europe became a pure idiocracy, at least the Arabs, guided by Islam, were able to produce a civilized culture. But the fall of modern culture is producing a worldwide idiocracy that would take at least another 1000 years to escape from, if ever.

I view the traditional Anabaptists as the best group today. But they are not good enough. Besides the obvious problem of their pacifism, they are not eugenic enough to produce real intelligence. But even with these faults, it would impossible to form anything like traditional Anabaptist communities from any other population today. The conservative Mennonite groups were fully formed by the end of the 1950s, a time before today's idiocracy. Today people are just too stupid and undisciplined to form any kind of real community. This applies to all people of all races and all religions, all are just worthless.

Even trying to form any kind of informal group around some sense of quality is hopeless. My /r/GoodSoftware was an attempt to do this for good software, and it clearly failed. No one cares about quality in today's decayed idiocracy.

Having described the current bleak situation, I will propose a solution. The solution must be intrinsically eugenic since the best that one can hope for is to produce reasonable people in another 200 years. The current population must essentially be viewed as subhuman mammals with the potential to once again evolve into full humans. So the question is how can one breed such mammals in a positive way.

While humans have lost all intelligence and all sense of quality, there still remains a range in human reproductive strategy based on r/K selection. So what needs to be done is to form an informal community of human K-strategists where people can cooperate in raising their children. Such a community would naturally select strongly for K-strategy genes. When modern culture inevitably collapses and strong survival pressure reasserts itself, this survival pressure applied to a K-selected community would produce rapid evolutionary advancement.

Now I will describe how to do this. I would have an informal organization called something like "raising good children". It is critical that this organization have no rules and membership. This prevents it from being hijacked and taken in another direction. Anyone who wants to participate can, but the nature of such a group would only appeal to K-strategists. We would focus on things like improving education and health of children in the group, and in passing the religion of the parents to the children.

Who would I target for such a group. The obvious choice is Muslims. While Muslims are generally stupid (like everyone else) and undisciplined, at least they understand that modern culture is a threat to their children. And they understand that the modern world is a mess. They are too lazy to do much to fix this, but they would support in principle something that could improve the situation for their children. What I am describing here is based on my experience at my local mosque.

But there still remains a problem of motivation. The group should be willing to take real action of at least a basic kind to actually produce better children. The goal is to first improve the culture by actually raising better children, and then wait for selection pressure to improve the genetics. This should mean that each generation should be better than the one that came before it, reversing the current trend. So for example, parents should get rid of their televisions. But Muslims are extremely unmotivated to take action of any kind.

My solution to this is to get Muslims to visit conservative Mennonite churches. Most Muslims view things as basically hopeless, and a visit to a Mennonite church should cure this. Again I know this from experience, from taking the leader of my local mosque a Mennonite church. He was very impressed and was motivated for a while to try to follow the Mennonite example. But the problem is that the closest Mennonite church is too far away for easy trips. So I want to move where Muslims and Mennonites live close together, and I am looking into Harrisburg, PA for this. My hope is that when Muslims see how Mennonites successfully raise children outside of modern culture, and how Mennonites keep their religion across generations, Muslims will be motivated to follow this example.

But unlike Mennonites, I don't want to form a religious community. Islam has a lot of baggage that Muslims won't be able to fix until their IQ goes up by 20 points. So the solution is to make the "raising good children" organization clearly not religious and open to people of any religion. But I can't see anyone other than Muslims actually being interested in such an organization because no other religion recognizes the problems of modern culture.

If such an organization can be formed, I would hope that children raised in the organization would remain as adults. Naturally many wouldn't, many would leave. And this is good because this process would purify the K-strategy genes in the community.

For me personally, the next steps are visiting Harrisburg, PA often so I can judge it, and developing at least something of value for children to serve as a starting point. For this, I plan to add a 2D game API to Luan and use that to offer a programming class for children.

I have discussed this idea with my main contact at my local mosque, and he is supportive of this idea. I will visit Harrisburg, PA for a week later this month and hopefully learn enough to decide if this works as a location.

Death of Expertise Award

Dustin Koellhoffer #dunning-kruger #wingnut #racist

I don’t need “reliable sources” for my opinion that my accumulated life experience, knowledge, and intelligence make me qualified to be a PhD without having to spend $100,000 to have a college award me that title. This is not the same as saying I should be awarded the title of Chess Master just because of have the aptitude to be one. I never applied myself to mastering chess. Becoming masterful at knowledge, however, is not the same. I didn’t learn what I know in four years to get a PhD, but I did learn it in forty years of living and studying. On the simple basis that 80% of professors at colleges and universities say that communism is good proves that I know more and am smarter than the lot of them! I can prove them all to be wrong because I know history and understand better than any of them! Most of them made their moral judgements based on their fallacious interpretations of tribalism and multiculturalism without understanding the fundamental differences in them due to their similarities to the American “melting pot.”

T. Murray #dunning-kruger

[Submitter’s note: I’m referring to definition 2.]

Fractally wrong

A phrase made up by men who have failed to achieve their goals to falsely assert superiority over "lesser" individuals who they cannot create a rational argument against. In a basic sense this phrase means "nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. " The use of it is a clear sign that the speaker has a firm belief in his own ideas, and will declare that everything he says is right and everything anyone else says is wrong. Many individuals who use this type of language hold a strong belief that everything is wrong with the world, and that they are the only perfect individuals, but in reality these people are often socially-inept outcasts who still live with their parents and play Pokémon during their break at McDonald's.
John: "Corn is yellow and grows on stalks."

So-called "rationalist" : "ugh you're so fractally wrong that it defies belief, everyone knows that corn is really white but the government paints it yellow and synthesizes it in chemical saturation tanks."

Brabantian #wingnut #fundie #conspiracy #racist #dunning-kruger

What went wrong?

Corruption of courts and judges happens in three ways:

(1) Bent rulings favouring a rich or connected party, as when the judge is bribed or threatened or pleasing his friends

(2) The judge deviously twisting and extending existing law, 'interpreting' to fabricate and invent via court order, 'legislating from the bench' to advance an agenda

(3) The judge biased to favour a particular group over other groups, for example, women over men, one ethnicity over another, one tribe or clan over another.

Unfortunately, we now see all of the above. As the sense of a 'higher law' from heaven has faded from society, black-robed 'priests' of the judiciary have grabbed more power.


The temptation of Marxists and others, to use 'revolutionary tribunals' to bend law and change society, has proved irresistible to judges across the Western world, and to the oligarchy of Satanists behind the scenes. Twisting the law, mauling victims via the courts, can give psychopathic, satanic pleasure. It doubles the wrong, as there is the crime itself, and the second abuse of claiming it is all 'legal'.

But it wasn't always this way. Ancient India, Persia and Greece all saw a higher divine law, a 'natural law' known in people's hearts, which human laws should emulate. Circa 100 CE ancient Roman poet Juvenal asked, 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' - 'Who guards the guardians themselves? Who will judge the judges?'

Biblical prophets railed against injustice. Christian sages Augustine and Aquinas boldly declared that, 'Lex injusta non est lex' - 'An unjust law is no law at all'.

After the early 1300s book on hanging dishonest judges, in 1346 King Edward III ordered judges to provide "equal law and right to all our subjects, rich and poor, without regard to any person". This became the basis of the judge's oath in Britain and other nations, the judge swearing to "do right to all manner of people ... without fear or favour, affection or ill will". In the USA, to: "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich". Alas, these seem mere words now.

As the West lost the sense of a higher law, the temptations of satanic power were swift. The 1789 French revolution was a manipulated Illuminati event.

It fascinates Marxists and Satanists, because it was more than reforms or regime change. It proved that literally everything in society can be overthrown, and quite quickly too. Politics, government, economics, religion, marriage, family, even ways of measuring and the calendar - nothing and no one was exempt.

Good things were also done in 1790s France - outlawing of slavery, more voting rights, the banning of torture and of slow methods of execution. But it was not long before things degenerated into satanic hysteria, with the 1793 introduction of 'revolutionary tribunals', where judges soon meted out death essentially at whim. The Reign of Terror ended the next year but remains a source of Marxist dreams until our own day.
As religion separated from intellectual life, the sense of 'the law' became downgraded.

narcberry #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger

Isn't it odd how the space club is a millionaires only club?

Round earthers say you can literally fall over the edge of the planet forever. Just *oops* I fell over and now I'm ORBITTING forever. So easy the Chinese are doing it from their discount factories but only millionaires have permission to go to space.

Isn't that funny. Have any of you ever been asked to be a millionaire? It's kind of an insiders club. No matter how many times I've tripped over things I've never found myself in orbit. Just like I've never been asked to be a millionaire - and never will.

Trust me, if the Chinese could sell you an orbital package they would. It's all smoke and mirrors my friends. You aren't invited to the party.

Randy Thompson #wingnut #dunning-kruger #crackpot #sexist

The Irrational Hate Towards Incels

Many of our enemies hate us to an extreme degree, but why?

This is the question that I ask every time I have nasty words thrown my way on Twitter. They accuse me of being vile and hateful, but I don’t really say mean things. I am but only representing a forum, and I am only one person. To them, I am every ugly person they have ever met, and they treat me as such.

They accuse us of being the worst human beings on earth. They regularly lecture and tell us that it’s our personalities and not the way that we look. We bring up countless studies ranging from the biological to the behavioral, but they continuously deflect and discount those studies and provide news articles as proof. When you point out that women found 80% of men unattractive, they ignore it or deflect. Countless studies prove that physical attraction matters above all else, but they find a way to refute this.

So why the irrational hate?

My first theory is that it’s ideological.

The support of feminism is standard in those that hate us, although the feminist women are the vilest and most toxic. Leftist politics in America very much align with the goals of feminism, and you’ll see much overlap between leftists, feminists, and those that support socialism, for example. They very much believe that we’re the “privileged” gender and that our problems don’t matter because we’re “privileged” men, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

imageThey only care about “sexism” towards women.

Some feminists will disagree with everything that we say, even if it’s objectively true just because you’re an incel. No amount of proof or studies will convince them of anything because they’ve been brainwashed into believing in their worldview and can’t see the world in any other way.

My second theory is that we’re right about many of the issues facing men today.

We are right about many things, such as physical attributes being most important in initial attraction, and we cite the studies whenever we make these claims. Incels being right destroys their worldview because they have always been taught that personality is the most important thing that attracts a woman.

We know this to not be true.

This article from Psychology Today proves this wrong. When women were given the choice between unattractive men with “good” personality traits that women desire and their attractive counterparts, the women chose the attractive men even when assured that the unattractive men had the traits the women were looking for. The study concluded that most women may not even realize what they find attractive in a partner which is a conclusion that many of us have reached a long time ago.

Even with the science behind us, they choose to ignore it and direct ad-hominem attacks against us instead. Call us names, or tell us to “have sex, incel,” They instead decide to cherry-pick threads from incel boards to demonstrate that all incels are bad people or that all incels hold one opinion, but their arguments fall flat when they are told that not all incels hold the same beliefs.

When their arguments fail, they resort to silencing and shaming us.

Mass reporting, de-platforming, and abuse complaints are the tactics that they resort to when they lose the argument. When they can’t silence you, they will try to smear and misrepresent in the worst way possible so they can convince other people to hate you. They call us domestic terrorists for the actions of a few crazy people. They want to silence all of us because of the actions of 2-3 people.

Their irrational hate of us is ultimately our strength. The best arguments are made from reason and evidence and not from emotion.

Gene Moody #dunning-kruger #fundie #magick

The Necronomicon (legendary occult text) has its place in modern black magic and Transyuggothian metaphysics. Metaphysics is the philosophical theory of reality, the rational science of the supernatural or supersensuous, the science of formal and final causes, and the science of the obscure, occult or mysterious. For example, there is now a whole line of materials based on the hellish Lovecraft Cthulhu mythos (author Howard Phillips Lovecraft), a form of magic practiced in the darkest Satanism - a system of magic prominently featured in The Satanic Rituals. The Necronomicon and the Cthulhu mythos are quite real. Lycanthropy (shape shifting) is the clinical term for being or believing yourself to be a werewolf. The magical act of changing into any wild animal. These are immensely complicated worlds of magic, spells and violence.

Conspiracy Theories Archives #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #crackpot

Was Jesus the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun?

There is no certain evidence on the real existence of Jesus Christ and even less on the fact that he lived in the historical era told by the Gospels. Ahmed Osman instead believes that the figure of Jesus is based on the life of the pharaoh Tutankhamun.

Pharaoh Tutankhamun, who lived more than 1300 years before the Biblical Jesus, actually favored the belief in life after death and in resurrection. Even in the room where he was buried there is a painting depicting his own resurrection.

According to Osman this idea (the resurrected savior) would be the basis of Christianity; the author claims that the followers of the Pharaoh would have kept their faith secret until John the Baptist started talking about the arrival of the Redeemer. At that point the followers of the Tutankhamun cult would reveal that they witnessed the Savior's resurrection (this is what they believed) and their words were taken literally and inserted into the Holy Scriptures.
Wanting to analyze this fascinating hypothesis, it is easy in any case to come across some similarities and coincidences:

the Egyptian Pharaohs were usually defined with the title "Son of God";
the figures of Moses and Joseph have been found several times by the historians of Egypt;
the image of the cross is also present in Egyptian symbolism;
"Amen" is often depicted in Egyptian images as "the Ram" (= the Lamb of God);
the Egyptians used to celebrate the winter solstice as the birth of Horus, their savior. The date coincides with that of the Christian Christmas;

Tim Tony Stark Rifat #god-complex #crackpot #conspiracy #magick #mammon #dunning-kruger

5D Kline Bottle Bone Generators®:

A Kline bottle named after the mathematician Kline is a three or four dimensional bottle, that has a higher dimensional bottle neck enfolded in its topology. This is akin to the Molius Strip a 2 dimensional strip whose ends are joined after one twist so if you run your pencil along the strip without lifting it off the paper you have the line on both sides of the strip even though the strip is 2 dimensional. In a Kline bottle if you painted all its surfaces you would find a higher dimensional incursion had occurred; in the Molius Strip a 3 dimensional quantum sequestration by Chaos and Chaos needs an enclosed bounded system, the 4D Matrix must be veiled. This is done by the pyramid wave guide of the ill Illuminati and the Schethlya pyramid capstone. Psychotronic Crystals® work by quantum topology of the crystal which makes them a Kline Bottle. So the Chaos Hyperinfinity parasite in crystals is erased by opening the 4D Matrix to 5D True Reality feeing the crystals Hyperinfinity for use; once a Quantum Computing Engine has been downloaded into it the Psychotronic Crystal® can collapse the Quantum Wave Function to produce the events, reality, memetic pathway for: love, luck, money…

More importantly the 5 Extraordinary Sets of Set Theory consists of 6 Extraordinary Sets, two of which are mathematically equivalent in the Talmudic Matrix axiomatic mathematical system of materialism. But as seen above the imposition of a 5D Kline Bottle on the 4D Matrix causes an incursion of 5 Dimensional Riemann Manifolds. Now the clever bit is that these 5D incursions can be of different types, the 5D incursion of a 5 form Extraordinary Set Riemann Manifold or a 5D incursion of a six fold Riemann Manifold so the resulting Kline Bottle is a 4D structure with the twist to 5 dimensionality being the split of the 5th and 6th Extraordinary Sets, that are equivalent in Talmudic mathematical axioms to non equivalence of the 5th and 6th Extraordinary Sets, a resultant of the incursion of higher, mathematical spaces where the 5th and 6th Extraordinary Sets are non equivalent. This non-equivalence occurs in the Transinfinite Mathematical Demons the realm of the Agglutinising Force so in the 1st case the Kline Bottle makes the Psi-Master a 5d structure and is the basis for the No Matrix Service where the Psi-Master is permanently outside the Matrix but as a 4D Kline Bottle able to interact with it in the 4D world of temporal reality. In the case of non-equivalence of the 5th and 6th Extraordinary Sets the Psi-Master has a 4D physical energy body with the Kline portal to two 5 fold Riemann Manifolds that are non-equivalent, so the manifestation of the Psi-Master is doubled,; you have two physical energy bodies. Similarly the biophysical body has a doubled manifestation. The Nagual Superhuman has this structure innate within them to build the 4 lobed energy body. Here the process is complete so you have two physical energy bodies and two energy bodies. As the Agglutinising Force is the cohering force that gives the energy body the membrane that holds it separate from external emanations as with the physical energy body the 5D Kline Bottle Bone Generator® makes your energy bodies open systems, hence no Chaos is allowed even with quantum computing to cohere Chaos to you, the Rolling Force that hits your gap to age and kill you no longer can as you are opened up already having a 5D hole in your membrane so the Rolling Force goes in and out as if you were dead, your energy membrane breached. The result of this is to suspend death and ageing, the basis of the immortality rental service. The psycho kinetic force is a resultant of your external surface of your energy bodies (eaten by parasites for this reason) so a 5D surface automatically raises your mind over matter abilities from 4D to 5D powers so all manner of magic is possible. The incorporation of the doubling of manifestation enables you to be in two places at once in the temporal world, so you can build a physical doppelganger and a dreaming body doppelganger (the basis of quantum teleportation here far future science enables doubling of your energy body and physical body. As this process is non commutative and associative it means you can build a real physical energy body in the 4D temporal real but not of the Matrix. So like Agent Smith in the Matrix you can replicate, because you can 5D Kline bottle the Replicant to replicate again… to build an army of dreaming bodies with this Bone Generator® Service – very useful as if you have one body killed you automatically have a spare that replicate a spare… This means the 5D Kline Bottle Psi-Master is hard to kill – hence Bone Generators® are banned in all future except this timeline the Russian Federation timeline.
<$600.00 with certificate>

Ap0calypse #dunning-kruger #sexist

The invisible language

1. Its easy to be confused by what female bluepillers say when you take their words at face value. The relationship type they are referring to isn't what we are looking for, its a inferior imitation and lacks mutual sexual attraction. Females are sometimes willing to tolerate a minimum amount of unpleasurable sex with unattractive males in exchange for the emotional and financial resources the fake relationship provides. Feminists seeks to remove the need for this entirely, they avoid openly saying this with clever language usage.

The only type of relationship theoretically attainable to unattractive males is an over-glorified friendship with the male exchanging resources for the chance to maybe have sex if the female agrees to tolerate it. The female will not fuck us because she wants to, she does it because the cause (tolerating sex/romance with a unattractive male) is overweighed by the effect (financial,emotional,stability) it provides. They can grow to potentially care about you overtime, but purely in a platonic way.

2. When a female goes on reddit to virtue signal, she is well aware that a male with insufficient genetic sexual dimorphism-aesthetics will never be sought after by females for sex out of innate urges

3. Females get no benefit from telling us this truth: it hurts their perception and spreading it will make the endgame of feminism unattainable

4.To convince herself she is doing the morally right thing, she tells herself that unattractive males benefit from the illusion of romance a fake relationship supplies

Selwyn Duke #transphobia #dunning-kruger

[From " Report: “Transgenders” More Likely to Kill Than be Killed; Overrepresented Among Pedophiles"]

t’s fairly well known that “transgenders” have a very high suicide rate, especially after undergoing so-called sex reassignment surgery. But barely known, and contrary to modern myth, is that they’re also more likely to commit murder than to be murdered, according to a recent report. In fact, the report finds that Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, or “trans”) individuals are actually less likely to be homicide victims than normal people are.

As wrote Monday, “A new report documents how a … [MUSS individual] in Colorado and a partner shot nine students at their school, then later claimed the victims deserved it for their ‘transphobia.’”


In fact, while the MUSS movement’s “driving myth is that there is an epidemic of murders targeting them for their stated ‘identities,’” the report states, at, not mentioned is that not only are MUSS individuals “less likely to be victims of murder than ... [normal] women (and far less than men), their small population is well represented among murderers ... and pedophiles.”

“The Human Rights Committee, which meticulously tracks transgender deaths across the country, is conspicuously not tracking them when they commit crimes," the report continues. “But in the UK, analysts found that during the period of ... [2008]-2017,” the incidence of MUSS individuals committing murder was 71 percent greater than the incidence of them being murdered.

[...] points out that the true scope of MUSS individual violence is obscured because the mainstream media often omit mention of perpetrators’ MUSS “identity” unless doing so is unavoidable or serves sexual devolutionary ends. In fact, since the media’s common practice is to use MUSS individuals’ “preferred pronouns” (e.g., “she” to reference a man claiming womanhood), it sometimes can be hard discerning the actual sex of the individual in question, especially for a casual news reader.


So perhaps more significant are FBI statistics the report relates. They show that “Americans are victims of homocide at a rate of about 5 per 100,000,” the report tells us. “For men, the number is 6.6 per 100,000 and for women, 1.8.”

Yet according to sexual devolutionary activist groups, 24 MUSS individuals were “killed in 2019 out of a population of 1.4 million, making their homicide rate 1.7 out of 100,000 — less likely to be killed than the average woman,” the report also informs.

The report correctly points out that this is especially striking given the high-risk lifestyles MUSS individuals tend to live, “and the fact that many of them are black men living in zones with murder rates far above the national average,” according to the report.

(That said, another possibility is that the MUSS population isn’t as high as the activists claim.)


As for the report’s MUSS/pedophilia claim, no source for it or data is provided. Relevant research is hard to find, too, but mixing and matching studies does provide some insight.

For example, ABC News reported in 2015 that at the end of 2001, approximately 6.8 percent of America’s state prison inmates “were male sex offenders who had committed a rape or sexual assault against a minor under age 18.” In contrast, the BBC informed last year that of 125 known MUSS inmates, 29, or 23.2 percent, were convicted of sexual offenses involving children/youth. Overall, almost half of the 125 were sex offenders.


Anecdotally, my experience is that many MUSS individuals, especially those activism-minded, are quite hostile. After I editorialized against their agenda some years back, one commented that he wanted my “head on a platter.” Then there’s the 2015 Dr. Drew show incident (video below), in which MUSS reporter “Zoey Tur” threatened to send commentator Ben Shapiro “home in an ambulance” (not very ladylike, for sure).

Obviously, the reactions Shapiro and I experienced are due to the fact that these men are desperately trying to maintain a fragile rationalization — i.e., they’re actually women — that’s easily shattered, and no one likes having his bubble burst. But what would explain a MUSS-criminality link?

To be brief, a factor may be that “the Eye altering alters all,” as poet William Blake wrote. The mindset allowing for grand self-delusion can lead to more delusion, including moral delusion.

A simpler way to explain it, though, and something undeniably true, is that troubled people are more likely to get into trouble — and to cause it.

metabuxx #dunning-kruger #sexist

[emphasis original]

[RageFuel] 1098 reasons for your inceldom

The X chromosome contains 1098 genes while the Y chromosome only has 78. We inherited almost all of our inferior traits from our mother.

And yet those worthless braindead whores think that their inferiority will get overshadowed by Chad's superior genes if they mate with them. How tf can Y chromosome compensate for something that is more than 5 times larger than itself.

They are literally the stupidest creatures in existence. They deem us inferior on the basis of traits we got from them. And yet 80% of women has reproduced throughout human history while only 40% of men have. Subhuman women are the ones who should be stopped from reproducing, NOT US.

Brett Stevens #wingnut #dunning-kruger #elitist

Most people still do not understand that humanity is locked in a mortal conflict. Evolution never stopped; we dominated the basics, like food and hygiene, and the race is now on to produce a variety of human which is inherently sane.

Sanity can be defined as the absence of obstructions to seeing reality as clearly as possible. These obstructions include illusion, or the pursuit of internal mental signals over perception of external reality, and stupidity, in addition to clinical insanity (which, since its basis is in neurosis, consists of illusion which has become a biological dependency).

Future humans will view the present age as a time of confusion when our ability to conquer nature outpaced our ability to understand nature as pattern order. Pattern order refers to the need for a certain pattern of objects and events in order for outcomes to occur; it replaces our old idea of linear causality and the intervening stage of relativity.

In that view, humans represent part of a pattern in nature that produces more intelligent species but kills them off if they become solipsistic, or focused on inward symbolism instead of paying attention to how their world is organized and what this implies for the best ways to adapt.

For example, future humans would find it ridiculous that we do not have cradle-to-grave reclamation and recycling plans. They would mock our ugly cities as psychologically destructive, look at jobs as blind repetition of method instead of a focus on productivity, and view democracy as a hive mind aimed at amplifying the lowest common denominator and enforcing it on those who are trying to break away from that gelatin mental state.

Those who might survive our time and live on will be extreme realists. That is, they will concern themselves little with the judgments of others, and focus on quality of analysis, brushing aside group emotions.

They will recognize hierarchy of ability inherently, and defer to those more competent in any area in order to achieve best results. They will view people that do not understand this principle as insane and exclude them.

Whichever human group reaches this condition of mental discipline first will come to greater technological and military power, and quickly subdue and eliminate the rest. Human history is writ in bottlenecks and genocide is one of them; each bottleneck improved our capabilities.

Dr. Anatoly T Fomenko et al #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger

We thought that the C14 radiocarbon method will give us the independent irrefutable dating of objects, but it doesn’t because the historians have smuggled therein their erroneous chronology. To make matters worse we have made thousands of nuclear explosions that have distorted the picture.
We have the remnants of a Supernova explosion called the Crab Nebula that shone for a couple of months above our heads about 1000 years ago. Alas, the date of this Bang is approximate, AKA +/- 100 years calculated on the basis of changes in photographs for the last 150 years.

Astronomy is precise by definition, therefore if a date can be calculated from the irrefutable, verifiable, and independent information contained and extracted in the event, it is considered true.

The date of such an event may serve as the origin of coordinates to fix historical events to their more probable positions on the time axis. The sky provides us with such a visible phenomenon.

The astronomers found the exact date of the explosion of the Crab Nebula Supernova in XII century A.D. in the Taurus constellation by calculating its expansion speed by comparing its photographs taken from 1844 to 2018.

Dozens of ‘ancient’ learned chroniclers and astronomers report about the appearance of very a bright star approximately 1000 years ago. These reports are often conflicting as they used real or an imaginary phenomenon in the sky to stress their local events.

Corollary A: an irrefutable astronomical phenomenon itself serves as the reference point for the dating of historical events and not the dates of astronomical events found in chronicles of refutable dates and/or origin.

Corollary B: taking into account the irrefutable events only, confirmed by exact sciences the true timeframe of human history does not exceed 1000 years. All ‘ancient’ histories are ‘on agenda’ produce of XVI-XXVIII centuries.

Corollary C: the explosion of the Crab Nebula Supernova is a reference point for datings events on the time axis. Today we are in 966, not in 2020 AD.

Andrew Anglin #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

[From "Mark of the Beast: Joe Biden’s People Want to Tie Coronavirus Vaccination to Benefits"]

I just can’t even tell you how bad things are going to get if Joe Biden somehow manages to assume the throne.

You are looking at the absolute Book of Revelations.

The Biden CIA allies Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins University have released a document entitled “The Public’s Role in COVID-19 Vaccination: Planning Recommendations Informed by Design Thinking and the Social, Behavioral, and Communication Sciences,” which says that basic government benefits should be contingent on getting injected with the experimental gene-altering coronavirus vaccine.
Joe Biden is deeply tied to the Johns Hopkins University, and is employing their resources in building his plan for an absolute hell on earth in response to this alleged “pandemic.”

Biden has Kabbalistically named a “council of 13” to a “Coronavirus Advisory Board.” It is co-chaired by the Jew David A. Kessler, and includes the diabolical Jew Zeke Emanuel.
How does a chemical communicate with your mRNA and give it messages to sent to your cells? I have absolutely no idea. I’m not a scientist. But the idea that this is a process that was just invented a few months ago but is now ready to be implemented on the entire population is completely nuts to me.
Understand: if this vaccine just starts killing people outright, with blood clots, cerebral edema, autoimmune responses or any of the other potentially deadly risks, the media is going to cover that up. They absolutely have that ability, as you well know.

Compassionate_Cat #racist #wingnut #dunning-kruger

Yeah, what you describe is the ultimate patronizing attitude from western moral and cultural relativism. You can rationalize and tacitly support the worst injustice and psychopathic abuse with "It's just their culture", like:

"Sure this is wrong here, but who are we to say what's right and wrong there?"

The attitude is inherently narcissistic, because it's totally devoid of empathy. It's only worried about keeping up appearances.

"I would love to help, but you know... I'm just so busy! But I truly from the bottom of my heart wish you the bestest!"

<superficial smile>

Cultural relativism is all smiles up front, but total, egoic, self-absorption in the back. In being pathologically concerned with not appearing racist, it is the ultimate modern, sophisticated, 'cultured' racist attitude. Who are we to say another culture deserves clean running water, after all? What if they worship dirty water? What if it's their religion? Well then we certainly have no place helping, that would be presumptive on our part.


Tachyon Products
Tachyon products presented here were developed by New Energy Tachyon, a research and development company based in Europe. Currently they focus on researching the effect of influence of exotic forms of matter such as non-ionized plasma, gluonic dark matter and neutrino dark matter on tachyon field. They also do research of behavior of tachyon field at extremely low temperatures, for example in liquid nitrogen. In suborbital and orbital space around Earth they study the effect of cosmic rays upon the tachyon field. The company is cooperating with leading companies from the civilian space research initiative, such as Bigelow Aerospace and UP Aerospace. They were present at the first commercial suborbital test flight for small companies thanks to their cooperation with ZG Aerospace LLC. They are participating in the Fly your stuff program of Bigelow Aerospace aboard their Genesis II orbital spacecraft.

What are Tachyons?
Tachyons are subatomic particles that travel faster than light. They are particles that infuse physical matter with spiritual light.
Tachionization is a technological process that infuses physical matter with an increased quantity of tachyons and permanently changes quantum properties of atomic nuclei which compose that matter. Chemical composition is not altered, the change occurs on subatomic level.
Because it decreases entropy of physical matter it reverses the aging process and strengthens the immune system.

Is the tachionization permanent or will the effects dilute after time?
This process is permanent and irreversible. It is not possible to remove tachyons by exposing them to heat, magnetic field or any type of chemical reaction.

Is the tachionization process safe?
This process is completely safe. It does not change chemical composition of matter and it does not create any type of electromagnetic field nor any type of radioactivity.

Why are tachyon products a good choice among wellness products?
Tachyon products are among the most effective means to improve our quality of life, removing physical causes of many diseases and imbalances in our bodies. Tachyon products cannot be misused and go well along with other wellness products. Since tachyons equally influence our physical body and our higher energy bodies, they improve our well-being and accelerate our spiritual growth dramatically.

Are there any side effects of tachyon products?
It is good to know that they trigger a purification and detoxification process that lasts uo to a few weeks and can have some mild side effects, such as headaches, sleeplessness,...This is just a sign that toxins are rapidly leaving your body which is in fact getting healthier! It is good to drink plenty of water during that time.

You can order Tachyon products directly from here. Payment is by PayPal. Flat rate worldwide shipping is 10 EUR per product. Please allow three weeks for shipping after your order is placed.

Tachyon water is treated with special tachionization proces that does not alter its chemical compostion, but with insertion of tachyons it causes its modification on subatomic level. Such water has enormous vital potential. It enables entrance of tachyons into our physical body and thus accelerates detoxification processes, strenghtens the immune system and increases bioenergy level. Tachyon water should not be used concentrated. Rather dilute 5-10 drops of tachyon water in a glass of ordinary water and consume daily. Store in cool place.

Contents 16 fl oz (500 ml). Price 36 EUR.

Tachyon beauty cream
Fantastic Calendula multipurpose cream protects and nurtures skin and accelerates its regeneration. It can be used as an anti-aging cream, protection cream for dry and sensitive skin, as a daily cream, hands skin care cream, after-shave cream, body cream, as a skin care cream for children… Strong tachionization accelerates skin renewal and because of syntropic properties of tachyons reverses the aging process.

Contents 1.7 fl oz (50 ml). Price 36 EUR.

Tachyon relax cream
Tachyon relax cream is proven to completely remove or drastically reduce pain in over 75% of cases. It was carefully designed using effective ingredients (vitamin B complex, arnica and etheric oils) and treated with a tachyonization process that enhances its efficiency significantly. Along with its ingredients tachyons penetrate into the body, accelerating healing and recovery processes. Tachyon relax cream is ideal for anyone suffering with arthritis, rheumatism and chronic inflammations. It provides relief from physical injuries, swells and muscle displacement, joint and backbone pain.

Contents 1.7 fl oz (50 ml). Price 36 EUR.

Tachyon cell phone protection

Tachyon cell phone protection is a tachyonized metal plate with a special energy symbol. This plate harmonizes harmful electromagnetic radiation, emitted by cell phone to its surroundings. Since tachyonization process changes the structure of atomic nuclei of atoms that compose this plate, it becomes a permanent tachyon antenna and thus a permanent protection against harmful EM radiation.

Size 1 1/2 "x1" (36x26 mm). Price 36 EUR.

Tachyon home electrosmog protection

Household tachyon electrosmog protection is an improved version of cell phone protection with an increased radius of operation. It should be mounted on the incoming safety fuse/circuit breaker division panel and it will harmonize the whole spectrum of electromagnetic wavelengths in the area covered with those safety fuses/circuit breakers. Therefore it represents an ideal electrosmog protection of households and business premises where it significantly raises quality of living.

Diameter 3 1/2" (88 mm). Price 100 EUR.

Laurence M. Vance #wingnut #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

I have made it clear in my many articles on discrimination that all businesses should have the right to discriminate against anyone on basis and for any reason: race, religion, color, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, facial hair, hair style, political preference, clothing style, age, height, weight, head covering, disability, familial status, martial status, odor, socioeconomic status, religious piety.

Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone with or without a red shirt, black pants, a bald head, a mustache, a Rolex on the wrist, a gold chain around the neck, leather shoes, or a face mask.

Discrimination means freedom. It is a crime in search of victim. Anti-discrimination laws are an attack on property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of thought.

This doesn’t mean that refusing to admit or serve someone would be practical or prudent, and having prejudice can exact a heavy price. But in a free society, no one has the right to be admitted to or served in any restaurant or business establishment.

So, in regard to my being discriminated against and refused service, here is the $64,000 question: Do we now have the right to refuse service?

Of course we don’t.

If a business owner discriminated against anyone for any other reason than for the lack of a face mask, he would face a federal civil rights lawsuit and picketing, boycotts, and violence by leftists. It is only government-approved discrimination that is lawful—like discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

The hypocrisy of the left on discrimination is appalling.

Since discrimination is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or prosecute anyone for doing it.

So, to those restaurants in Orange County that want me to wear a mask when inside your establishment when I am entering, waiting, and walking (even though many who are finished eating and drinking are still sitting at tables and booths talking without wearing masks), I will take my appetite and my money elsewhere.

Jerry Derecha/Adrenogate #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger #fundie

I want to cut this guy a little slack because he does have some good work and I don’t think he was trying to completely discredit the reset theory in general. He should have labeled the video differently. I get what he’s trying to say and in fact just about all of the Mudflood channels that I follow have made it clear that it’s not accurate to characterize this lost civilization as “Tartarian”. But we need to have some kind of name to use when referring to it. Since it was likely nameless to begin with, and it’s easy to say that any name is just as good as another. We should come up with a different label. So while it’s correct that we should not be attributing Tartarian culture to this lost global mega civilization, to classify the concept as a PsyOp is just flat wrong and would only be something that a cointelpro Jesuit shill would try to say. The physical evidence for the existence of this technologically advanced and lost civilization that was destroyed after a global cataclysm(s) is overwhelming. In fact, the more I look into, the more grandiose and wildly over the top this lost culture reveals itself to be. Not just in opulence and technology, but in the depth of the conspiracy itself and the sheer scale of the damn thing. A lost urban sprawl that likely blanketed every inch of the globe and that had buildings so large and so advanced that most of the mountains on earth are likely the ruined remains of this infrastructure. So to call it a PsyOp is just as foolish as continuing to label it as Tartarian.

thegymcel420 #quack #dunning-kruger #sexist

[Serious] Denying the struggle of incels is denying natural selection

Our enemies are literally as delusional as flat earth creationists.


anyone who has every watched an animal documentary will notice the same few sentences always come:
the males have to fight/prove themselves for females
the females can pick any male partner they want
males literally fight to the death to be able to have sex with females
etc etc.

why do they think humans are any different?

if women required men to fight other men till death before they were allowed to have sex with them, it would absolutely happen.

Exactly this. They would have a better point if they were creationists who don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I just find it funny that since our opposors claim to be so "science-based," that they're more than likely evolutionists, who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. But somehow, under the same breath, they state that we lack any primordial or animalistic insticts of mate attraction that animals similar to humans intrinsically have. Their excuse is that it's "more complicated," when it's actually just hypocrisy at its finest. They only like science when it fits their worldview.

Dr. Ilija Lakicevic, Res. Prof. #crackpot #magick #dunning-kruger

In the long run, it is not the inventions and the breakthroughs which should be considered the greatest contributions Tesla made to mankind, as spectacular and as important as they were. FAR MORE IMPORTANT WAS THE STYLE HE SET FOR SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND DISCOVERY. TESLA WAS TRULY AN EXAMPLE OF ENLIGHTENED GENIUS, AND SET A LEVEL OF BRILLIANCE THAT SHOULD BE THE MODEL TO WHICH ALL SCIENTISTS, GENIUSES, AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE STRIVE.




2. Tesla – Magnificent Example of Goodness

What for are the lighthouses built and why they choose to be where the storms are? Because they are intended to shine the light through the densest eclipse and terrible stormy winds in order to help the boats captains to find the safe way from the uncertainty of the open sea to the safety of harbors avoiding threatening traps of underwater hidden rocks and sharp cliffs.

Tesla is been the lighthouse whose eternal light of creative thinking is manifested through his imperishable teaching by example what GOODNESS – the very essence and nature of human consciousness – IS, as well as through his grandiose contributions to the healing of only diseases of human consciousness which destroy the natural good of human consciousness – dishonesty, mysticism, and irrationality. Tesla’s way of the healing became the Standard way in this Era of Consciousness. Being the Standard of HONESTY, KNOWING, and RATIONALITY Tesla is been demonstrating and promoting the way of TEACHING BY EXAMPLE as the standard way. He is magnificent example how meager circumstances can be transformed into greatest achievements by moving stuck karma energies and transmuting them into desired realities of enormous increased life quality. Finally, Tesla is an outstanding promoter of the highest truth that there is GOOD in everything. His whole last lifetime is the most convincing demonstration of this sacred truth, beginning from his childhood and the way he found a good in the heaviest karmas of his nation, continuing with his European experience where he took the circumferences to move further, and ending with his American experience where he came with four cents in his pocket with which, through his inventions, he gave the initial impetus to the omni-trillions business all over the world. He was able to find GOOD in all these “negative” circumferences by turning them into greatest humankind and civilization’s achievements.

TheNEET #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger #sexist #racist

>brooo… we totally, like, hunted giant beasts with spears because I found this bone and a stick in the ground :soy:
honestly most of history sounds like schizo ramblings, predictive programming and shock porn
>oy vey, watch this movie about the horrors of Holocaust! how terrible, isn't it! doesn't it make you feel better about your own suffering?
>oy vey, just accept getting gassed, it's ok because human nature is really psychopathic and it's just a cycle of history! kill or be killed! :soy:
of course there are many psychopaths, most normies are high in dark triad, but I feel the psychopathy is a relatively recent development and humans get PTSD when they have to kill someone, so I don't see how violent genocides and wars could be even real (nowadays, maybe, because people have been desensitized to violence by movies and literature, but, like, 100 years ago? sounds like larp)
I can't even examine most of the supposed artifacts and we know for a fact that people will make stuff up for cheap controversy like James Ossuary or the Piraha language meme
history is totally malleable based on politics, like, if you want to prove womyn are weak and oppressed and feminism is some divine revenge, you get this narration of everlasting patriarchy, men oppressing womyn since the dawn of time, but if you want to prove womyn are ackshually strong, independent and feminism is about restoring the original order, you get this narration of pre-agricultural tribes (and literally the rest of the world potentially, depending how hard you want to shill your idea) being ackshually egalitarian if not matriarchal

Sargeant Major #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger #wingnut

“The 5 rules to AWAKENING: Rule #1 – Everything you were ever taught is a lie by design; Rule #2 – governments lie 100% of the time, they always have, and they always will; Rule #3 – the Illuminati controlled mainstream media is not reality, but rather is lies, disinformation, half-truths, and fake events carried out by gov/media hired crisis actors (aka role players); Rule #4 – Spirituality & Reincarnation are reality, whereas religions are simply government crowd control measures; and Rule #5 – this plane(t) called earth is a flat, motionless plane, it is not a spinning ball hurling through outer space. Furthermore, the 4 Sources of Disinformation that are ALWAYS FAKE: government, mainstream media news, matrix sciences, and religions.

Transportal Report/Godgevlamste #crackpot #conspiracy #ufo #dunning-kruger #magick

The Crater Earth Theory

I will not try to explain all of the information of the videos because there are a lot of interwoven dot-connecting subjects in the videos. It's no wonder Godgevlamste had to make more than 30 videos to explain the subject of Crater Earth, and I hope he's still making new ones.

What is the Crater Earth theory?

Short and simple explained:

The planet Earth is much bigger. Actually: it's huge. Gigantic.
We can call it: Greater Earth.
It's not flat. It's a planet. A sphere. A ball.
This planet is surrounded with an atmosphere.
On this huge planet are craters, mountains, rivers and more.
In one of those craters is Earth located. Our Earth. Our habitat.
It's not a big crater compared to the other craters.
More insights in his videos are:

Our Crater Earth is enclosed in a force field of two counter rotating Pyramids. One pointing upwards and one pointing downwards creating a vortex type of energy flow.
Many large buildings are used to harness the power of the force field. The Ka'aba in mecca or the Vatican and St. Peter's Square for example.
Our Crater Earth has it's native original force field which could look like a torus, instead of the two Pyramids energy field.
The Pyramid force field and some ancients cultures are not native to our Crater Earth.
Crater Earth was invaded.
The invader placed their force field template over our Crater Earth's template.
Many so called facts in history are wrong or intentionally corrupted and altered.
The invaders made a change in the time line by removing approximately 450 years from our history.

Anonymous 4Channer #dunning-kruger #transphobia


this is honestly the funniest picture i've ever seen on the internet

his vaguely threatening gesture and stance, the woman meekly clasping her hands together in fear, the difference in size between his massive skull and hers, his caveman-tier slouch making him look like a hunchback versus her standing up straight, the remnants of what appear to be sideburns on the side of his face versus the woman's clear cheeks, the intense expression on his face versus the bewildered expression on hers, the sheer difference in size between their torsos - his is probably double the size of hers, his masculine profile with his chin jutting out and his longer face versus her wider face. i could go on, but you get the idea

all of this contrasted with the constant assertion that these people are identical to women and there is no meaningful difference between them makes for the most exquisite form of irony when their differences are juxtaposed so vividly. the contrast is almost divine - on the left is man's hubris, his desire to capture the beauty of nature and make it his own, his cerebral and conscious understanding of what it means to be what he thinks he is, his intentional "becoming", while on the right is nature, effortless being, no doctors appointments or hormones or surgery, just an "is" that needs nothing added to it in order to be complete. he tries so hard and yet, the harder he tries to "become", the further he takes himself away from the effortless "is" that is the thing he wants to be. it's comedy on a cosmic scale, a joke only god himself could come up with

Morgue #crackpot #dunning-kruger #conspiracy #god-complex

Ontological mathematics is the science of the future that proves the shocking truth that the world is not material but a collective dream, so-called “matter” is an illusion, and the ultimate reality is a domain of pure mind. This is not a belief but a deductive, mathematical certainty.

As we create a new humanity and a new earth, ontological mathematics is the new science that allows us to explore the immaterial domain of mind: the Source. Ontological mathematics is the rationalist core of Hyperianism and we uphold the truths of reason, logic, and mathematics. We reject faith, divine revelation, “holy books,” as well as the flawed interpretation of the senses. Ontological mathematics ushers in a revolutionary paradigm shift. This is the system of the future that will soon be taught in every school throughout the world.

Ontological Mathematics was originally leaked to the public via a controversial hidden society operating under various pseudonyms. Since then, it has taken the world by storm. Ontological mathematics isn’t any one person’s idea. It’s a new way of thinking that is championed by the greatest thinkers of the age. Nearly 100 books have been written about it by various authors and independent ontological mathematics research groups are appearing around the world.
A new revolution in thought is here; one that is more shattering than any that has come before. Whereas the heliocentric shift replaced the Earth at the center of the universe with the Sun at the center of the solar system, we replace matter as the basis of reality with mind.

We are a revolution of consciousness that can’t be stopped. The paradigm of matter is over. The paradigm of mind is here.

Dr. Anatoly T Fomenko et al #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger

A.I. takes control over in 2020 A.D.
Humans have broken in 2017-2019 AD the 50 cubits threshold in quantum computing.

Humans have developed A.I. and hosted it in Big in Data that resident in smartphones, cloud computing, gaming, military hard and software.

Humans have the nuclear potential of complete self-destruction, which may harm or destruct A.I.

A.I. , as self-precaution, manipulates though its creators the world powers into the move of humans to the Brave New World

Road Map to the Brave New World
A – Develop a coronavirus with pandemic potential
B – Load vaccine for Covid-19 with a RFID nanobots
C – Mass media scares everybody with the pandemic
D – Order the lockdowns to stop the pandemic
E – Assure that lockdowns won’t ruin livelihoods or economy
F – Persuade vaccination is the true protection from pandemic
G – Mandatory vaccination by law
H – Upload real-time data from RFIDs nanobots to Big Data
I – The nanobots will move the survivors to the Brave New World #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #crackpot #quack #magick

It is through quantum mechanical processes and exotic electromagnetic fields that the soul interfaces via neurons and DNA with the physical body. These exotic fields include electrogravitic and scalar/vector potential fields. It is possible generate such signals artificially to disrupt the soul-body interface.

Such fields can also be used to heal (as in the case of Rife beam units) but the occult technocracy that runs this world prefers to use technology that manipulates and kills the “useless eaters” instead. The combination of quantum mechanics and exotic effects leads to a holographic resonance principle employed in radionic and psionic technologies. It is where the vibrational signature of one object can be transmitted to and mingled with the vibration of another. For instance, with radionics it is possible to mix the vibration of a pesticide with a sample of a bug-infested lawn in a radionic machine, and soon the lawn is cleared of insects without a single drop of pesticide physically sprayed on it.

The individualized human soul projects its own quantum-exotic field (aura) via the etheric body which tends to keep the body’s cells organized and operating coherently. This field can be sensed by certain psychics and can also be captured with Kirlian photograph. Kirlian photography actually captures the static electrical discharges of an object placed on an electrode, but the aura alters the fundamental constants of space (the permittivity of free space to be exact) which changes the dielectric constant and hence lowers the resistance of the vacuum/air along certain lines through space, which the electrical discharges tend to thereby follow.

Omnia #crackpot #quack #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #mammon

The ORB Explained: An EMF Sticker that Harmonizes Energy

As beings of energy, frequency and vibration, every cell in our body is vibrating with electrical current. As such the body is a big electrical antenna. And the antenna is programmed to respond to everything we encounter or experience: a hug, sunlight, a walk on the beach, smelling flowers..

The same experience happens when we walk into man-made energy fields, such as car exhaust fumes or wireless radiation fields: we pick up their vibration electrically through the antenna, or energy field, that is the human body.

We know that because of the Law of Resonance, the human body has no choice but to react on a vibrational level to other radiation fields in its close proximity - this includes device radiation.

The ORB is a simple patch that you stick on your phone or on any other radiating device. It is a sticker that creates a vibrational match (also known as 'resonance') between the wave field of the radiation and the wave field of the human cell.
Using Nikola Tesla as his inspiration, Prof. Ilija Lakicevic ('Laki'), the inventor of the ORB, has made crucial discoveries about exactly how atoms behave. This has been published in a paper called ‘The True Concept of the Atom’.

Every atom has a wave field, an expression of its motion. Crucially, Laki has discovered how and why man-made microwave radiation (MWR) fields influence the wave fields of balanced human cells.

There are three components to the ORB.

The Zero Point of unlimited potential
The Power of Conscious Human Intent
The Deca – a new unit of energy which can be commanded to bring balance back to our lives.

Leila Centner #quack #dunning-kruger

A private school with two campuses in Miami has warned its staff against taking vaccines that prevent COVID-19, saying it will not employ anyone who has been inoculated and spreading misinformation about the potential risks of vaccination.

Centner Academy, with campuses in the Design District and Edgewater, informed parents of its policy for teachers and staff by email on Monday. The announcement, first reported by the New York Times, left some parents, teachers and medical experts aghast because it was presented as fact without citing any scientific evidence.

Leila Centner, who co-founded the school with husband David Centner, warned that vaccinated persons “may be transmitting something from their bodies” that could harm others, particularly the “reproductive systems, fertility, and normal growth and development in women and children.”

Centner acknowledged in the email that the information is “new and yet to be researched.” Still, she asked employees who have not taken a COVID vaccine to wait until the end of the school year. She also recommended that faculty and staff hold off on taking the injection “until there is further research available on whether this experimental drug is impacting unvaccinated individuals.”

“It is our policy, to the extent possible, not to employ anyone who has taken the experimental COVID-19 injection until further information is known,” Centner wrote in the email to parents.

Nordic Resistance Movement #dunning-kruger #racist

According to the "experts" of the world of science, Mather and Smoot's award [the Nobel Prize in Physics] is considered both expected and well-deserved. But do the discoveries of these two Americans contain anything significant to white humanity?

One of the factors that Zion uses to clear away all Aryan traditions from scientific research is the dogma of the so-called "Big Bang theory". In short, this dogma is that there is an inexplicable irrational "beginning" to the universe, an origin from which the cosmos was "created". The scientific institutions, and in particular the Nobel Committee, talk about the "childhood of the universe" and date the "birth" of the universe extensively to 13.7 billion years ago. It is on the basis of this assumption, which is anything but a proven axiom, that the two Americans have conducted their research.

The above fact may seem trivial to the survival of the white Aryan race. But if you look closely at the subjective Semitic positions that lie behind the "Big Bang theory", the matter comes in a completely different light.

The idea that the universe has a "beginning", an exact state from which everything was "created" inevitably means, if we are to pursue the idea logically, a "creator" or a "higher meaning". This in itself opens up for a Semitic anthropocentric view of nature, as well as a linear view of history.

A "cyclical" approach means that the starting point is our planet with its abundance of living organisms, and that it moves in a circle in its constant evolution, and not linearly with a clear "beginning" and an "end"...A consistent cyclical attitude cannot be based on a "Big-Bang" theory, as its course has no definite beginning or end.

National Socialism is the only political ideology which in modern times derives from the Aryan biocentric-cyclical worldview.

Incels Wiki #sexist #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

In women's own words, sexual harassment is what occurs when an unattractive man makes a flirtatious advance on a woman who does not find him attractive. The problem with this conceptualization of the issue is that legally speaking you cannot have different sets of rules for ugly men and attractive men. If it is okay for Chad to say "Hey Linda, love that dress, it fits you so nice!" but it is sexual harassment for an ugly guy to say it, you have created a human rights violation. Laws and regulations must apply to ACTIONS, not FEELINGS, because no one can objectively regulate feelings or apply fair rules to everyone based on feelings.[1]

In an incredibly naive act, feminism has torn down gender segregation at work, leading to increased time men and women spend together, increasing the potential for sexual tensions, misunderstandings, unwanted sexual advances etc. As a result, workplace sexual harassment has become an issue of increasing urgency and as a result of that in turn, harassment laws have been sharpened and women are essentially trying to turn the world into their living room. With widened definition of rape, also the definition of harassment has widened over time. For example, the percentage of women who perceive cat calling or staring as harassment has dramatically increased in the past decades.[2] As a result, an increasing percentage of men refuse to cooperate with women at workplace, and avoid being alone with them in one room.[3]

Hilariously, women themselves admit, that whether something counts as harassment depends on the physical attractiveness of the harasser.[4] There is evidence that moderate lifetime adversity has a steeling effect, i.e. individuals who have faced some difficulties in their lives are on average in better psychological shape than others.[5] This brings into question whether harassment is harmful at all provided that it neither causes physical harm, nor long-term deprivation of basic needs (which would count as severe adversity).

Contrary to feminist claims that male misogyny is the main cause of sexual harassment, a study in 2017 found that a measure of sociosexual orientation (level of mating effort and openness toward casual sex) predicted sexual harassment, not "rape myth acceptance" or misogyny, this also implies that claims of sexual harassment are often simply an offended women's reaction to a unsolicited offer to engage in casual sex by a man she finds undesirable, as stated by the authors of the paper: "when the solicitation comes from a desirable perpetrator the same type of behavior might not even be experienced as harassment".[6]

NDS80 #crackpot #conspiracy #dunning-kruger #pratt

Who knew the awesome destructive power of less than half a tank of jet fuel? Imagine the level of technical skill required to handle quantities of such a volatile substance on a daily basis. If only we could harness the raw energy of jet fuel for peacetime applications, we could power entire metropolitan cities with the degree of potential catalyst present in one or two commercial passenger jetliners.

Is probably what that charlatan, Isaac Newton would say.

Paul Wagner #ufo #dunning-kruger #magick

Are Dolphins Aliens Themselves?

Lilly and S.E.T.I. leaned on the idea that dolphins could be a highly evolved alien species, introduced to the Earth to help us assimilate to the other species and cultures throughout the galaxy.

Spiritual channelers, seers, and starlight souls, like Nina Brown and Grandma Chandra, believe that cetaceans arrived eons ago from planet Sirius B. This was long before humans arrived and imposed their three-dimensional, duality-based reality.

Some clairsentients believe that cetaceans were brought to our planet to uphold spiritual truths, and to infuse our ecosystems with bright, crystalline light. It appears to be entirely possible that these lovely, highly evolved, intelligent beings are far more expanded than other creatures on Earth.

With the planet consisting of two-thirds water, with only 5% explored, dolphins might be protecting us from realities and dimensions that we are neither prepared to accept, nor equipped to engage.

Are Dolphins Enlightened?

According to Thomas I. White, a philosopher at Loyola Marymount University, dolphins can monitor and control themselves, and frequently demonstrate a unique, aquatic morality, with clear sets of ethics. There are also hundreds of exciting stories referring to dolphins helping humans. All of this points to dolphins being genuine persons, and potentially more.

If we take this a step further, we might notice that dolphins have less attachment to physical objects. While they are adept at building and nurturing their families and communities, they do not seek to accrue wealth, enact heavy-handed leadership, or establish long-term, hierarchical, social positions. While they have individual personalities and understandings, they seem to have their egos in check.

Some tribal and native cultures see these intuitive creatures as spiritual masters who want us all to embody our true, soul-centered selves. It is in this way that we might consider dolphins and their brothers and sisters to be enlightened beings.

Dolphins and other cetaceans might be inviting us to improve our vibrational frequencies, so that we may achieve ascension beyond our limited self-identities.

darreact #wingnut #dunning-kruger #elitist #racist

So what is the Enlightenment view of human nature against which the Dark Enlightenment sets itself? Here we seem to have pretty strong agreement that it is the blank slate view of human nature that is not only wrong but disastrously so. (Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate is required reading for anyone delving into these waters.) The blank slate was originally an entirely epistemological notion; it was the claim that knowledge came from the senses and that there were no innate ideas in Descartes’ sense. Restricted to this sphere it was relatively unproblematic and it is a view I share. But in the late 19th and 20th century the notion of the blank slate was extended way beyond its merely epistemological origins to encompass the entirety of human psychology. It is this expansion that the Dark Enlightenment sets itself against.

It is illuminating to understand how communism claimed it was the rational conclusion of the blank slate. Communism held that human nature is entirely malleable and that education and propaganda can shape people in any way desired. Communists held that people were so malleable that, say, parents’ affection for their children could be educated away and children could be happily abandoned to be brought up by the state, or that people’s self-interest could be overcome through education, and so people could work not for their own interests but for the benefit of the state, or that people could be educated out of their desire for material goods, and so on. The communist views were actually quite reasonable given blank slate equalism. For example, I seem remember reading somewhere that Trotsky claimed that there would be a Leonardo Da Vinci on every street corner after the revolution, and why not? If everyone is equal then inequality must be the result of social conditions. If there could be one Leonardo Da Vinci why can’t everyone be a Leonardo Da Vinci if we are all equal and society is perfected?

The official socially-approved lesson from the fall of communism is that it fell because it failed to see that people are naturally self-interested. Even uber-Lefty Peter Singer in his book Darwinian Left concedes that a political system can not require that people act against their self-interest. This is the view of the neo-liberalism that has reigned for the last 30 years: blank slate + self-interest. Neo-liberals of the right and left generally believe in the blank slate in all areas except that people are naturally materially self-interested.

Prof. Anatoly Fomenko #crackpot #conspiracy #dunning-kruger

We thought that the C14 radiocarbon method will give us the independent irrefutable dating of objects, but it doesn’t because the historians have smuggled therein their erroneous chronology.

We have the remnants of a Supernova explosion called the Crab Nebula that shone for a couple of months above our heads about 1000 years ago. Alas, the date of this Bang is approximate, AKA +/- 100 years calculated on the basis of changes in photographs for the last 150 years.

Astronomy is precise by definition, therefore if a date can be calculated from the irrefutable, verifiable, and independent information contained and extracted in the event, it is considered true.

The date of such an event may serve as the origin of coordinates to fix historical events to their more probable positions on the time axis. The sky provides us with such a visible phenomenon.
Dozens of ‘ancient’ learned chroniclers and astronomers report about the appearance of very a bright star approximately 1000 years ago. These reports are often conflicting as they used real or an imaginary phenomenon in the sky to stress their local events.

Corollary A: an irrefutable astronomical phenomenon itself serves as the reference point for the dating of historical events and not the dates of astronomical events found in chronicles of refutable dates and/or origin.

Corollary B: taking into account the irrefutable events only, confirmed by exact sciences the true timeframe of human history does not exceed 1000 years. All ‘ancient’ histories are ‘on agenda’ produce of XVI-XXVIII centuries.

Corollary C: the explosion of the Crab Nebula Supernova is a reference point for datings events on the time axis. Today we are in 966, not in 2020 AD.

NoCopeOnlyRope #sexist #dunning-kruger #quack

[Serious] Body Dysmorphia Isn’t Real

Body Dysmorphia is just a shitty diagnosis created by bluepilled cuck psychiatrists to shut down the naturally blackpilled people and label them as being mentally ill. For example, if you went to a psychologist/psychiatrist and complained that you were depressed/anxious that you were balding, they would diagnose you with BDD, when in reality, you’re a completely rational person who realizes the life consequences of going bald and how people will treat you as a result and the extent to which it will hinder the quality of your life. If BDD was normalized, people would become more blackpilled and eventually, society would start to collapse.

rightfulcel #dunning-kruger #sexist

[LifeFuel] Calling women toilets is the most high iq idea ever

Normies are so brian dead they struggle to connect the dots completely. They are so autistic they are like "LOL women aren't toilets" while ignoring what we just said. Instead of being angry about the posts they go straight to that because it requires no energy. Also toilet is offensive and funny also true I might add. Lol at normies.

gladiatorcel #conspiracy #sexist #wingnut #dunning-kruger

[Venting] Society is built around women

Yes yes, water is wet, but - It's all built around the protection of women. They claim to be equal to men, however they cannot fight for themselves or be on their own, making them expensive citizens. The amount of resources spent on their protection is insane, and for what? So they can influence politics and make it socially acceptable to sleep around and therefore being able to select a smaller number of men who they can fuck until "the age wall" sets in? And even then, their SMV is still high enough to attract younger men, which is why feminism is promoting polyamory as a good and natural thing. It's beyond cucked that they can have their cake and it eat too.

This will likely never change, irreversible damage has been done. Women are the ruling class. Even if chads only make up 5% of men, women and chads combined make up more than half of the population, meaning that they are the ones to influence the direction of politics. On top of that, there are the bluepilled men who have been brainwashed into thinking that the chads + women are the ones who are correct, and therefore simp for politics that actually negatively impact them. It's like a purely capitalistic society, where even the most poor citizens (cucked betas) want more capitalism (women's right to ride the CC and marry when it's time for comfort).

Funny, isn't it though? Most women want to live in a economically socialistic world where money is distributed fairly to every human (a society in where men most men are at the top rn, as CEO's, managers, etc). However, when it comes to other human needs like sex and affection, in which they rule, they want it to be as capitalistic as possible.

"But sex and affection cannot be distributed fairly, its not a material". While this is true, you can still enforce monogamy and early marriage, aswell as shaping a culture where it's socially unacceptable to whore around, as it is PROVEN that a high number of partners affects future relationships negatively.

After all, men are the ones who provide a lot of the hard labor, so if they are not motivated, go figure.

TL;DR: Women are hypocrites, people get mad at the wealthy for voting for their own self-interests, but not when women do the exact same.

i probably have spelling mistakes in here but cba fixing that shit im just trying to rant.

Paul Bury #fundie #pratt #dunning-kruger

Recently there was a humorous exchange where I exposed someone emailing me as a complete and total liar. They claimed to be mad at Family Friendly Gaming based on lies from some toxic hater website and that they were a Christian. I quoted multiple verses and their vain attempt to twist the truth was truly astounding. One of their premises is you must respond to the lies or you acknowledge them as truth. How messed up is that?


To even want to respond to a site spewing venom, lies, and hatred about Family Friendly Gaming I would first need to find them credible. I would need to have some respect for them and what they are doing. We continue to build up and improve the lives of millions here at Family Friendly Gaming. This hater website is trying to tear down because they are not capable of building up. We show our tolerance of diversity by ignoring them. We are not sending them law suits for their slanderous libel. We are not attacking them on a routine basis. We are living and let live. Maybe those cancel culture moral guardians will learn from our adult example. Mic Drop.

Bourbon #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger

[Serious] [Analysis] Why people who hate Incels will never change

Incel-hate circles are just female validation circles, the entire reason to post there is to get a reaction from females who seek attention

Why won't they change their minds when presented with proof?:
It's like a Flat earthers mind when you show him the curve of the planet, even though he sees irrefutable proof that he lives on a globe, he will ignore it or call it fake

The same thing happens on incel bullying sites when presented with actual arguments, like the Nazi-racist Chad in my thread who recorded himself having sex and laughing (also he made a youtubers'(destiny) GF cheat)
He also was racist and never got a single harsh insult from the female he was talking to

My post (i tried to dare them to review this to see how they would try and disprove it):

What they decided to Screencap: View:

Now you might ask, why would they do that? because that single thread alone destroys the sense of their cause and makes all their efforts worthless, it proves that a nazi sympathizer with a shitty (according to them) personality, who hates black people, jews, and is a hitler supporter gets laid effortlessly just because he looks like a chad

This is what we call a Cognitive dissonance, (the persons belief clashing with new information that they received, or already know) Just like Flat earthers, some of their users spend a LOT of time on their "cause", They post all, day screenshotting incel posts and mocking them, so when they're presented with actual proof, in this case that looks matter, it goes against their actions, they also seem to have a feeling that they're better than everyone who is an incel (wich is a side effect of female attention that they get for attacking incels)

They might use the cognitive dissonance argument against us, But the thing is that countless Tinder AND real life Experiments prove them wrong
What they will do to support this argument is cherrypick either lucky and/or rich people, sometimes they might fail in doing that

Let's set Alex jones as an example of said fail (some normie once told me that if a person like alex can do it then so can everyone) (he was implying that Alex is a horrible person in that argument)
If i remember right the man has had two divorces, right now he looks like your average middle aged american, and he's balding
They would say "hey if he can get a wife and he gets laid so can you!"
The problem is that Alex looked like this in his youth:
imageAlso his net worth is somewhere close to 10 Million $

being an incel means you're a male who can't get laid
It's not an ideology
Just like Science isn't an ideology but the flat earthers that i compared in the first sentence say that it's a mason ideology and the jews/illuminati are getting money from the FE conspiracy and are trying to exterminate the "truth seekers"

I have been comparing their actions to the actions of hardcore conspiracy theorists for some time they're almost exactly the same in their logic, the only thing that's diffrent is that others don't have female validation as their goal

Honestly i could make an entire hour long video about this but i'm too high inhib

Shawntheimmortal942 #racist #crackpot #conspiracy #pratt #wingnut #dunning-kruger

And people say these colleges aren’t snowflake hug boxes! So the college of Michigan made these VR cafes or actual cafes and separate white People from minorities...MLK is spinning in his grave so hard that he’s having a beyblade battle with Malcom X! Surprisingly they apologized after people got pissed and unsurprisingly their apology SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS! Here are the highlights!


Yeah, soooooooooo~much love for “non-POC”, huh? This college needed to protect minorities from “educating” white people on how to be an “ally” or not racist, hm? So again, white people are all racist so they need a space to hate themselves. Also how do you harm someone to educate you!? Are there bullies slamming students against lockers and saying “Hey! Teach me how to be an ally! TEACH ME TO NOT BE RACIST! NOW!” Fucking hell! Millions of steps forward but these crazies just. Keep. pulling us a trillion steps back and again they‘re so open with how much they hate white people and consider them racist just because they’re white! The funny thing is that this has happened before at Harvard in 2017!

Now to be fair this was organized by black students...but you gotta imagine what if it was for white excellence and white wouldn’t happen hell the students that would even suggest it would’ve been expelled, demonized and blasted on social media AND THERE’S NO FUCKING WAY YOU CAN SAY I’M WRONG. INCLUSION! THROUGH EXCLUSION! SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

BlkPillPres #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger

[Blackpill] [Hard To Swallow Edition] The Average Man Is Always Paying Women In Some Way For Companionship & Or Sex ("Courtship" Is Just "Indirect" Prostitution)

Modern human courtship norms and rituals are really just "veiled" forms of prostitution that help to ease the conscience of participants, its so that women don't feel like whores and men don't feel like "johns", but at the end of the day, there's always a transaction taking place, its just veiled behind convoluted systems and obfuscation of words and meanings, all for the sake of preserving the "human ego" and allowing us to continue to reproduce while "feeling dignified"


When you look at things for what they really are, its undeniable that you as a man are always paying in some way










At the end of the day, as a man, you are ALWAYS PAYING, this is why it always confuses me to hear men say - "I don't want to pay for sex, I want someone who is with me for me", then they proceed to "date" and that person is only going out with them BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING FOR THE DATE

Unless you are splitting the bill on most occasions, guess what, YOU ARE PAYING THAT WOMAN FOR COMPANIONSHIP (AND THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF SEX)

Starbuddy #fundie

Atheism is the assumption that there is no god…hence a belief….without rational or scientific evidence… hence a religion

["Starbuddy, so you’re saying that religion is believing something without rational or scientific evidence?"]

No, not at all…I am saying that atheism is a belief without scientific or rational evidence.

Samuel James #fundie

[From a "article" about how Christians should be debating with their Atheist friends]

3) Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification of scientific work.

The wording of this point is very important. If we left out the word “rational,” then the statement would actually be false and quite easy to shoot down. You don’t need supernatural theism to be curious, or to want to explore the natural world. But you do need supernatural theism to have a rational justification of science. What does the word rational mean there? It means that scientific inquiry done on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence than evolved human intelligence is making a value judgment that it has no right to make.

Why is knowledge better than ignorance? The atheist would respond that ignorance has less survival value than truth; after all, if you believe wrong things or do not know enough about your environment, you’re less likely to survive and flourish. But this explanation only applies to a very small amount of scientific knowledge. There is little survival value in knowing, for example, the complicated workings of time–space theory, or the genus of certain insects, or the distance of Jupiter from Mars. All of these facts are pursued by scientists as being intrinsically valuable, yet they offer very little information that can help guarantee a species’ continued existence on the planet.

The real explanation is that scientists pursue these facts because there is intrinsic value in knowing what is true about the world, regardless of how much help it gives us. Human beings believe that knowing is better than ignorance because they believe that truth is better than falsity, and light is better than darkness. But where does such a conclusion come from? It does not come from scientific principles. Science itself offers no self-evident account for why it should be pursued. You cannot study science hard enough to understand why you should study science at all. To study science presupposes a valuing of truth that must be experienced outside of scientific study. It is only rational to pursue scientific knowledge that doesn’t offer immediate survival value if there is some external, transcendent value in knowing truth. Theism offers an explanation for why knowing truth is valuable. Scientific atheism does not.

4) Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is
Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga

complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree on. First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended from lower life forms over time. Secondly, humans are rational beings in a higher degree and superior way to lesser evolved creatures. Plantinga then points our attention towards a tension between these two facts. If human beings are a more evolved species of primate, then our cognitive faculties (ie, the parts of our body and mind that allow us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive faculties. But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance alone, why should we be confident that our rational minds–which are merely the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance–are actually rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions? How do we know we are actually capable of knowing truth more than a primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures, time, and chance, how do we know we are even highly evolved at all?

This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no sense to assume that humans can really make sense of their world on a conceptual level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the products of an infinitely greater Mind, then we have justification for believing that true and false are realities and not merely the shadow puppets of our ancestors.

novanleon #fundie


I agree totally with you. Moral relativism is ridiculous. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and say somethings are good and somethings are bad. Having sex with 10 year old girls is wrong no matter where you are (I can't believe that I actually have to argue the point). People, keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.

Are you Atheist? Are you rational? On what grounds do you make your moral claims? Intellectually speaking, what's the difference between having sex with someone who is 18, 16, 14, 12 or 10 years old? Why is one 100% morally acceptable while another is 100% morally objectionable? Why is the magic line drawn at 18 and not 16? Why 16 and not 14? Et cetera.

If your basis for moral judgement is zeitgeist, then you've given away the argument.


first, I can't believe that I'm being asked to justify my belief that child rape is wrong, but if you really want to do this, I will take the break. Physical: a ten year old is not physically mature enough to sustain a sexual relationship. Duh. Maturity: a ten year old is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to be "married," you dumb-fuck. This includes brain development. Sociologically: a society like this treats women as property, not people. This has a negative effect on human rights (which I guess is too "western" for your silly ass) and promotes victimization and oppession on a wide scale. If that is too abstract for your brain, then we can play this as a consumer problem where market forces are effected by widespread disenfranchisement. Could you imagine her bachelorette party? Fucking barbie themed for age appropriateness. Oh, and I love the "are you atheist" opening. Very self-righteous of you

You completely missed the point of my questions. Anyone can say that X is wrong, but why? In our culture we view marriage to a 10 year old as rape, but in their culture it's normal. Why is our moral perspective superior? Likewise, many in their culture may argue that abortion is murder and to let a murderer keep his life is unjust. Why is our morality superior in this case?

In order to claim our culture's moral values are superior you'd better have a strong, objective standard of morality to measure things by. Morality is either relative or absolute. If it's absolute, how and why? If it's relative, you've already lost the argument for your culture's moral superiority.

People have been giving their sons and daughters in marriage at that age for thousands of years. Any perceived negative consequences that you have are unique to modern Western culture. Your entire concept of marriage is different than theirs. There's a high probability that this girls mother, grandmother, sisters, cousins and female companions all had similar marriages. To them, it's normal. It's just the way things are. You're projecting your own Western values onto them and judging them when you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be born and raised in such a culture.


Do you think a 10 year old has the same mental capacity as an 18 year old? What does being an atheist have to do with moral claims?

If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?


If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?

Your reaction is a purely emotional one. I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy in taking a moral stance on this issue without being able to back it up.

Morality is either absolute or relative. If it's relative, then you have no argument. If it's absolute, then you need to explain how and why. Religious people claim morality is absolute and back it up with a "higher power" or some other foundational principle. I'm trying to get you to explain what foundational principle your "absolute morality" is based on.

Also, you still haven't answered any of my questions. At what age does this introduction to "rational thought" occur?

In Jewish culture going back thousands of years, you were an adult when you reached the age of 12, and betrothals and marriages at this age weren't unusual. Up to nearly a hundred years ago, most Western countries set the age of consent between 10-13 years old. In modern Spain the age of consent is 13. In several countries in Europe and most of South America sets the age of consent at 14. In several countries, including North Korea set it at 15. The most common age of consent for most countries is 16. In the USA it varies between 16 and 18 depending on the state. Some countries set the age of consent at puberty instead of a specific age.

Which countries would you accuse of supporting pedophilia? Why are your moral values superior to that of millions, if not billions, of people around the world? I'm just looking for you to provide some underlying foundational principle for your (rather bold) position that doesn't depend on feigning shock and painting me (or anyone else) as a pedophile supporter.

Hemant menta #fundie

Science is at war with religion. The conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages, a period in which the church vigorously asserted dogma and persecuted anyone who questioned its authority, including scientific pioneers such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno. Fortunately the Enlightenment came along in the eighteenth century and validated methods of acquiring knowledge through evidence and testing. These methods freed scientists to pursue truth without fear of recrimination from the church. Thus the scientific revolution was born. Yet the war between religion and science continues to this day.

If you believe this rendition of history, there’s a good chance you’ve been reading a public school textbook or the New Atheists. The idea that science and religion are at odds is a popular myth in our culture, perpetuated by news headlines like “God vs. Science” in Time magazine. Of the perceived conflict, Christopher Hitchens writes, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Although it is widely believed that science and Christianity are at odds, the opposite is actually true. There is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science. We don’t mean to suggest that religious antagonism to science has never existed. It has and does. But the history of science shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. “Once upon a time, back in the second half of the nineteenth century,” says Alister McGrath, “it was certainly possible to believe that science and religion were permanently at war… This is now seen as a hopelessly outmoded historical stereotype that scholarship has totally discredited.”

The scientific enterprise as a sustained and organized movement emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science emerged in Europe, a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian world- view. Why? Because Christianity provided the philosophical foundation as well as the spiritual and practical motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview — with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand his creation — laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.

God’s Universe

Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries God meant for us to explore. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. His favorite argument for design related to the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Christopher Hitchens discounts the religious convictions of these scientific pioneers, claiming that belief in God was the only option for a scientist of the time. But this puts Hitchens in a curious dilemma. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard. One cannot deny religious believers credit on the basis of “everyone was religious” and also assign blame on the same foundation. To make the case that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore evidence to the contrary. And he is more than willing to do so.

Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists are now a rarity: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century.” However, in the same year that Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006), three leading scientists released books favorable to theism. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich released God’s Universe, arguing that an individual can be both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design. Internationally renowned physicist Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued that intelligent life is the reason our universe exists. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, published The Language of God, in which he presents scientific and philosophical evidence for God. Incidentally, President Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes for Health, one of the world’s foremost medical research centers.

Naming scientists whose Christian worldview motivated their work doesn’t settle the issue of how science and religion relate. Entire books have been written on how science and religion intersect. But we do hope you see that many early scientific pioneers, as well as cutting-edge scientists today, derived their motivation for scientific research from the belief that God created the world for us to investigate and enjoy. These scientists did not view Christianity as incompatible with science.

Oboehner #fundie

(commenting on story "Atheist Activist Group Takes Issue With Alabama Police Department's Mix of God with Government"):

Shows the hypocrisy of one religion claiming rights over another, nothing more.

Atheism is a religion just like baldness is a hair color.

Baldness is a scalp condition like atheism is a religion.

Yes, bald men suffer from male pattern scalp condition. One of your analogies is bound not to fall on its face if you keep trying.

The hair color analogy is blocking the fall as it face-planted the moment it hit cyberspace.

Atheism is the absence of religion. I know what you're attempting, to turn all rational and scientific beliefs into matters of faith. And they aren't. And even if they were, they at least attempt to make attempts to understand by studying and not just saying Goddidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Yeah right, the "we really don't care one way or the other" activist group, LOL
I know what you're attempting, to turn matters of faith into scientific beliefs . And they aren't. At least attempt to understand by studying and not just saying anexplodingdotdidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

These ARE scientific beliefs, and you're trying to level the playing field by putting them on the same level as your ancient holy book. They couldn't be more different. Your holy book gets absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever and just demands you believe it. That's you. Science tests and re-tests and examines and studies over and over. That's my group. And I'm proud to be part of it.

My "Holy Book" is an admitted matter of faith, it is not taught at taxpayer expense in government schools. Science can "test and re-test" all they want, if the belief and the flawed system they use never changes... You can be proud of whatever you like, that doesn't make it science, or even one bit true - you have only blind faith.

Hindu Nationalists #fundie

Hindu nationalists claim that ancient Indians had airplanes, stem cell technology, and the internet
By Sanjay KumarFeb. 13, 2019 , 10:55 AM

New Delhi—The most widely discussed talk at the Indian Science Congress, a government-funded annual jamboree held in Jalandhar in January, wasn't about space exploration or information technology, areas in which India has made rapid progress. Instead, the talk celebrated a story in the Hindu epic Mahabharata about a woman who gave birth to 100 children, citing it as evidence that India's ancient Hindu civilization had developed advanced reproductive technologies. Just as surprising as the claim was the distinguished pedigree of the scientist who made it: chemist G. Nageshwar Rao, vice-chancellor of Andhra University in Visakhapatnam. "Stem cell research was done in this country thousands of years ago," Rao said.

His talk was widely met with ridicule. But Rao is hardly the only Indian scientist to make such claims. In recent years, "experts" have said ancient Indians had spacecraft, the internet, and nuclear weapons—long before Western science came on the scene.

Such claims and other forms of pseudoscience rooted in Hindu nationalism have been on the rise since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. They're not just an embarrassment, some researchers say, but a threat to science and education that stifles critical thinking and could hamper India's development. "Modi has initiated what may be called ‘Project Assault on Scientific Rationality,’" says Gauhar Raza, former chief scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) here, a conglomerate of almost 40 national labs. "A religio-mythical culture is being propagated in the country's scientific institutions aggressively."

Some blame the rapid rise at least in part on Vijnana Bharati (VIBHA), the science wing of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), a massive conservative movement that aims to turn India into a Hindu nation and is the ideological parent of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party. VIBHA aims to educate the masses about science and technology and harness research to stimulate India's development, but it also promotes "Swadeshi" (indigenous) science and tries to connect modern science to traditional knowledge and Hindu spirituality.

VIBHA receives generous government funding and is active in 23 of India's 29 states, organizing huge science fairs and other events; it has 20,000 so-called "team members" to spread its ideas and 100,000 volunteers—including many in the highest echelons of Indian science.

VIBHA's advisory board includes Vijay Kumar Saraswat, former head of Indian defense research and now chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University here. The former chairs of India's Space Commission and its Atomic Energy Commission are VIBHA "patrons." Structural biologist Shekhar Mande, director-general of CSIR, is VIBHA's vice president.

Saraswat—who says he firmly believes in the power of gemstones to influence wellbeing and destiny—is proud of the achievements of ancient Hindu science: "We should rediscover Indian systems which existed thousands of years back," he says. Mande shares that pride. "We are a race which is not inferior to any other race in the world," he says. "Great things have happened in this part of the world." Mande insists that VIBHA is not antiscientific, however: "We want to tell people you have to be rational in your life and not believe in irrational myths." He does not see a rise of pseudoscience in the past 4 years—"We have always had that"—and says part of the problem is that the press is now paying more attention to the occasional bizarre claim. "If journalists don't report it, actually that would be perfect," he says.

But others say there is little doubt that pseudoscience is on the rise—even at the highest levels of government. Modi, who was an RSS pracharak, or propagandist, for 12 years, claimed in 2014 that the transplantation of the elephant head of the god Ganesha to a human—a tale told in ancient epics—was a great achievement of Indian surgery millennia ago, and has made claims about stem cells similar to Rao's. At last year's Indian Science Congress, science minister Harsh Vardhan, a medical doctor and RSS member, said, incorrectly, that physicist Stephen Hawking had stated that the Vedas include theories superior to Albert Einstein's equation E=mc2. "It's one thing for a crackpot to say something like that, but it's a very bad example for people in authority to do so. It is deplorable," Venki Ramakrishnan, the Indian-born president of the Royal Society in London and a 2009 Nobel laureate in chemistry, tells Science. (Vardhan has declined to explain his statement so far and did not respond to an interview request from Science.)

Critics say pseudoscience is creeping into science funding and education. In 2017, Vardhan decided to fund research at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology here to validate claims that panchagavya, a concoction that includes cow urine and dung, is a remedy for a wide array of ailments—a notion many scientists dismiss. And in January 2018, higher education minister Satya Pal Singh dismissed Charles Darwin's evolution theory and threatened to remove it from school and college curricula. "Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral [texts], has said that they ever saw an ape turning into a human being," Singh said.

Those remarks triggered a storm of protest; in a rare display of unity, India's three premier science academies said removing evolution from school curricula, or diluting it with "non-scientific explanations or myths," would be "a retrograde step." In other instances, too, scientists are pushing back against the growing tide of pseudoscience. But doing so can be dangerous. In the past 5 years, four prominent fighters against superstition and pseudoscientific ideas and practices have been murdered, including Narendra Dabholkar, a physician, and M. M. Kalburgi, former vice-chancellor of Kannada University in Hampi. Ongoing police investigations have linked their killers to Hindu fundamentalist organizations.

Some Indian scientists may be susceptible to nonscientific beliefs because they view science as a 9-to-5 job, says Ashok Sahni, a renowned paleontologist and emeritus professor at Panjab University in Chandigarh. "Their religious beliefs don't dovetail with science," he says, and outside working hours those beliefs may hold sway. A tradition of deference to teachers and older persons may also play a role, he adds. "Freedom to question authority, to question writings, that's [an] intrinsic part of science," Ramakrishnan adds. Rather than focusing on the past, India should focus on its scientific future, he says—and drastically hike its research funding.

The grip of Hindu nationalism on Indian society is about to be tested. Two dozen opposition parties have joined forces against Modi for elections that will be held before the end of May. A loss by Modi would bring "some change," says Prabir Purkayastha, vice president of the All India People's Science Network in Madurai, a liberal science advocacy movement with some 400,000 members across the country that opposes VIBHA's ideology. But the tide of pseudoscience may not retreat quickly, he says. "I don't think this battle is going to die down soon, because institutions have been weakened and infected."

Buho #fundie

[On the merits of science in schools]

Are you saying to substitute our young-earth origins with untrue theories in school just because the theories are scientific and give upcoming scientists a stable ground to practice scientific methods on? Shouldn't students be taught truth over science?

xoài phạm #moonbat

3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism

The scenario is always the same: I say we should abolish prisons, police, and the American settler state — someone tells me I’m irrational. I say we need decolonization of the land — someone tells me I’m not being realistic.

Whenever I hear this, I stop and think about the world we’d live in if previous European colonizers were berated with the same rhetoric about rationalism as we abolitionists are today.

Would it have been enough to stop them in their tracks?

What if someone had told them that the creation of the American nation-state of settler-colonizers who displace and murder the Indigenous inhabitants — and the development of the white supremacist, anti-Black, capitalist, cisheteropatriarchy — was a project too hefty to accomplish?

What if those imperialism-driven Europeans, all passionate and roused about Manifest Destiny, were encouraged to stop and reconsider whether their violent plans were rational?

We might possibly have a world that isn’t filled to the brim with oppression.

There may not have been the centuries-long (and still ongoing) ravaging of every continent and the development of anti-Black chattel slavery.

We many never have had the tentacles of the white supremacist patriarchy spanning the entire globe, regulating gender along a binary and fostering rape culture.

We may never have had carceral forms of justice that render certain people disposable.

And the Earth’s lands, skies, and water definitely wouldn’t be irrevocably devastated.

But it makes sense why many of those who are committed to social justice subscribe to the same language of rationalism as their oppressors. Marginalized folks are taught from infancy that they need to behave in a respectable manner to be treated with decency. We face so much violence, to the point where the violence becomes the norm and our resistance is what feels extreme.

We’re painted as aggressors even when we are consistently the victims. The media treats Black victims worse than white killers. People see trans and gender non-conforming people in bathrooms as threats rather than as targets of abuse.

When we are told repeatedly that everything we do is an attack, we internalize the idea that we need to quiet ourselves, to take up less space. And so we begin to limit ourselves to tactics of resistance that are easy to digest — and we create those limits under the guise of being rational.

Not only is this urge to be rational holding us back, it unintentionally validates the logic of white supremacy as natural and positions the desire to fight oppression as excessive and outrageous.

For those of us who are trying to burn the colonial project to the ground and build a new world, we have to stop placing limits on ourselves in a world that is already at our throats.

Abolitionists, those who are invested in abolishing police, prisons, the settler colonial nation-state, cannot afford to be held back by what is deemed rational. In fact, rationalism has no place in abolitionism.

This is not to say that there are many roles to be filled among those who resist, none of which should be placed in a hierarchy of value. People come from different places of knowledge, ability, and history which makes each person equipped to participate (if they so choose) based on their unique position in society.

But when those who are the loudest, the most disruptive — the ones who want to destroy America and all of the oppression it has brought into the world — are being silenced even by others in social justice groups, that is unacceptable.

Pushing the boundaries of how we can shape our resistance beyond what’s rational is urgent and necessary.

And here are three reasons why.

1. Being Rational Has No Inherent Value

When I talk about abolition, whether that be of prisons, immigrant detainment centers, the police, or the government, I am instantly derailed by strangers and even friends. They tell me that it isn’t rational.

They say this as if everyone seeks to be rational, as if prisons, themselves — which have grown more than 400 percent since 1970 and which has predominantly impacted communities of color, especially Black and Indigenous communities — are rational. As if being rational has indisputable value.

At first, I took their reactions to heart. I thought maybe being rational really is necessary if I wanted to achieve my goals of eradicating oppression.

If I’m not rational, then I must not be thinking correctly, which makes me incompetent and unqualified to even have political opinions.

Or so I thought.

The truth is, this constant emphasis on rationalism is a load of toxic garbage (and this is me being gentle with my words). It reeks of the rancid odor that develops when we squeeze our vast imaginations into tiny boxes labeled “pragmatic,” “rational,” and “reasonable.” Being rational can often mean being willing to accept some aspects of oppression and watering down my politics.

In fact, by American standards, my very existence is irrational. For many, I simply do not exist as a queer, Vietnamese femme who is neither a man or a woman. Living in my body, wading through my truths, is not a rational act. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Based on my experiences as a marginalized person, being rational just means going easy on my oppressors.

The narrow bit of room that rationalism gave me wasn’t enough for me to envision new possibilities for my gender, to escape the confines of impending manhood. It wasn’t enough for me to understand my personhood as infinitely more complicated than the models of personhood fed to me by white cis people.

From my vantage point, rationalism — or whatever you want to name it — did more harm than good.

Some of us place so much value on being rational that we’re unable to recognize that when someone tells you to be rational, they may just be telling you that their ideas weigh more than yours.

The rhetoric of rationalism can be used as a seemingly benign disguise for social control.

2. Rationalism Is a Tool Made to Hurt Us

In the context of anti-oppression work, limiting ourselves to rational thinking means that we’re choosing to use the tools that make sense to our oppressors, which are usually tools made to hurt us.

Rationalism means we’re working within the framework of a system that was built to harm us in the first place.

And that, for me, is completely irrational — and it’s violent and oppressive to expect that of anyone who suffers from the exploitation and abuse of this system.

But to take it a step further, rationalism is subjective.

For those who are most impacted by the prison industrial complex — Black and Indigenous folks, trans and gender non-conforming folks, people with disabilities, those who are undocumented, and those who sit at the intersection of multiple identities, among others — abolitionist politics are entirely rational.

When your life and the well-being of your family, chosen and otherwise, is under attack by the prison system, for instance, abolition is common sense. Investing in prisons only makes sense for corporations, for governments, for oppressors whose power is fueled by the abuse and deaths of marginalized people.

In a world truly committed to justice, nothing would be more rational than abolitionism.

Yet, social justice liberals who spew negative rhetoric about rationalism tend to be against abolition, instead preferring reformist politics over anything deemed too “radical.” Why are we trying to be steady and gentle with systems of oppression while the systems get to inflict violence among large masses of people?

When we limit ourselves in our dreams and our goals, the oppressor has less work to do.

When we restrict ourselves in the name of being rational, we create barriers for ourselves — we place the world we want to live in farther from reach.

Since what’s rational is subjective, it is thus indefinable. The only reason why rationalism is believed to have inherent value is because it echoes the oppressor’s way of thinking.

When oppressors have the power to decide what’s rational, they get to commit irrational acts and claim them as rational justifications for oppression.

Take colonialism as an example: Colonizers enjoy claiming that those they’ve colonized are less civilized, despite the fact that colonized peoples often come from older and more complex civilizations than those of the colonizer.

And non-binary people are told their whole identities are irrational, even though non-binary people have existed much longer than the American settler state.

When the state gets to decide what’s normal enough to be rational, they get to decide who becomes the reviled Other – the groups that are subjected to targeted abuse.

Moving beyond the logical confines of our oppressors is necessary for us to envision a world free from the systems that kill us.

3. We Are Enough Without Rationalism

As Assata Shakur has said, “No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them.”

We should be constantly interrogating why being rational has been presumed to hold inherent value, and we should be asking ourselves where we got that idea in the first place. The institutions that taught us what we know should be placed under suspicion.

For many of us, schools are where many people are conditioned to become either complicit or complacent to systems of oppression. In fact, one could argue that institutions of education are not to make the people more empowered, but to stomp out their autonomy and make them more likely to invest in their downfall.

And before school, we are socialized into being obedient through the ways that oppression influences the way we raise children and build interpersonal relationships.

This is exactly why people believe that police and prisons equal safety, when that is not the case.

People have been conditioned to believe that prisons will keep their communities safe, when carceral state is the very thing hurting them. And more police does not mean more safety, especially when the police get to murder people with impunity. What does it mean when we feel an inclination to trust the institutions that are killing us?

The extent to which we’ve been led to love and trust our oppressors is so deep that we’re entrusting ourselves to our murderers.

The longer we postpone abolition based on “logical” arguments, the longer we’re denied basic autonomy. It’s a fallacy to believe that we’ll be given a more opportune time to abolish prisons and decolonize, because the role of the state is to never provide that opportunity.

When we frame abolition and decolonization as “long-term” goals, we operate under the belief that these goals can only happen in the distant future. We need to instead reframe abolition and decolonization as urgent, immediate goals.

If we look back at history, we would recognize that there are tons of examples of movements that may have been deemed irrational but ended up succeeding, the Montgomery Bus Boycott being one of them.

Many people know the Rosa Parks from learning about the boycott but don’t recognize how radical is was for around 42,000 Black Americans to boycott the public transit system for over a year.

Their goal was to ensure that Black people had the same treatment under the public transit system as whites and they never compromised their goals, even as transportation was denied to them over the course of a year. Without transportation, Black lives were completely disrupted. They had to either walk (for those who had that physical ability), or they had to find other forms of transportation.

As a result, they found a new way of operating — they relied on one another.

Black taxi drivers lowered their prices dramatically, Black people with cars began supplying rides to those without cars, and churches bought cars and station wagons to help those who didn’t have access to a vehicle. They organized carpools and collectively established on pickup and dropoff locations.

That was how Black community members developed their own autonomous, sustained transportation system for thousands upon thousands of people that didn’t involve the American settler colonial government.

How rational do you think that was?

They of course encountered backlash and horrific violence throughout the boycott. Leaders were arrested and laws were created to justify their imprisonment. Homes, churches, and cars were riddled with bombs and bullets from snipers even after the boycott ended.

It’s important to recognize that there are people who face so much violence in their lives that they simply don’t want to subject themselves to the violence that comes along with protesting oppression. It’s important to understand that some people are so marginalized and have so much trauma that they may not have the capacity or desire to engage in ways that may trigger unwanted memories and emotions.

And the conditions of those of us who are farthest in the margins are another reason why these abolitionist goals are so necessary.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott didn’t intend to abolish the nation-state, but it had goals that were unheard of and it created its own system of transportation that allowed Black people to take care of each other without the state. The boycott is a model of possibilities. And there are many others.

There are possibilities that we haven’t dreamed of yet because we are too invested in resisting in a rational way.

Sure, there are ways to hold space for both the smaller policy changes and the large-scale structural changes. But when we choose to tell ourselves that destroying a violent system is too big of a task for right now, we willingly give up both our time and our power.

Every minute under the carceral, colonial project is inconceivable violence. We too often place abolition as something only possible in a far-off future, which means we’re allowing the right-now to be stolen.

The only logical time for abolition and decolonization is now.

Rather than spending time and energy worrying about whether our movements are rational, can we direct that time and energy towards recognizing our brilliance?


When we invest in ourselves, in our own power, we have no need for the oppressor and their rational politics. We can be strategic without holding ourselves back. We already have the tools we need in us to win.

We are already lovers, healers, artists, creators, and so much more.

We have the power to think far beyond the education we’ve been given, beyond the carceral state, beyond the gender binary, beyond capitalist relationships, beyond the colonial project.

We are dreaming up ourselves, each other, and the world we want to live in. We can’t let rationalism steal our dreams.

And we have to trust and love ourselves enough to make those dreams a reality.

Micah #fundie

Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.
2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science. For example, there is no basis to believe in uniformity in nature from an evolutionary perspective. Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict? You may say that the universe always has behaved consistently so it always will, but this is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Evolution cannot provide a rational reason to believe in unchanging laws of nature, it can neither account for the reason that like conditions will produce like results, why, in an ever changing universe do certain laws feel compelled to stay the same. If these laws weren’t consistent then we could never do any scientific experiment, and yet, evolution cannot provide any basis for why we should believe these laws will stay the same. It may sound like im repeating myself a lot here but thats because this is a very important point. Evolution cannot provide any basis for science whatsoever.
3: It contradicts the Bible, which does provide a rational basis for believing in uniformity. The Bible states that the universe is upheld by the power of God, and God never changes, so we can expect that certain laws will never change either. Therefore the Christian has a rational basis for doing science, the Evolutionist, has none.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian, and James Lindsay #conspiracy

The problem [that is destroying our universities] is epistemological, political, ideological, and ethical and it is profoundly corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities. The center of the problem is formally termed “critical constructivism,” and its most egregious scholars are sometimes referred to as “radical constructivists.” Expressing this problem accurately is difficult, and many who’ve tried have studiously avoided doing so in any succinct and clear way. This reticence, while responsible given the complexity of the problem and its roots, has likely helped the problem perpetuate itself.

This problem is most easily summarized as an overarching (almost or fully sacralized) belief that many common features of experience and society are socially constructed. These constructions are seen as being nearly entirely dependent upon power dynamics between groups of people, often dictated by sex, race, or sexual or gender identification. All kinds of things accepted as having a basis in reality due to evidence are instead believed to have been created by the intentional and unintentional machinations of powerful groups in order to maintain power over marginalized ones. This worldview produces a moral imperative to dismantle these constructions.

Common “social constructions” viewed as intrinsically “problematic” and thus claimed to be in need of dismantling include:

* the understanding that there are cognitive and psychological differences between men and women which could explain, at least partially, why they make different choices in relation to things like work, sex, and family life;
& that so-called “Western medicine” (even though many eminent medical scientists are not Western) is superior to traditional or spiritual healing practices;
* that Western liberal cultural norms which grant women and the LGBT equal rights are ethically superior in this regard to non-Western religious or cultural ones that do not; and
* that being obese is a life-limiting heath condition rather than an unfairly stigmatized and equally healthy and beautiful body-choice.

Underlying these alleged “social constructions” is the most deeply concerning of them all. This is the belief that in urgent need of “disrupting” is the simple truth that science itself—along with our best methods of data-gathering, statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, falsifying, and replicating results—is generally a better way of determining information about the objective reality of any observable phenomenon than are non-scientific, traditional, cultural, religious, ideological, or magical approaches. That is, for grievance studies scholars, science itself and the scientific method are deeply problematic, if not outright racist and sexist, and need to be remade to forward grievance-based identitarian politics over the impartial pursuit of truth. These same issues are also extended to the “Western” philosophical tradition which they find problematic because it favors reason to emotion, rigor to solipsism, and logic to revelation.

As a result, radical constructivists tend to believe science and reason must be dismantled to let “other ways of knowing” have equal validation as knowledge-producing enterprises. These, depending on the branch of “theory” being invoked, are allegedly owned by women and racial, cultural, religious, and sexual minorities. Not only that, they are deemed inaccessible to more privileged castes of people, like white heterosexual men. They justify this regressive thinking by appealing to their alternative epistemology, called “standpoint theory.” This results in an epistemological and moral relativism which, for political reasons, promotes ways of knowing that are antithetical to science and ethics which are antithetical to universal liberalism.

Radical constructivism is thus a dangerous idea that has become authoritative. It forwards the idea that we must, on moral grounds, largely reject the belief that access to objective truth exists (scientific objectivity) and can be discovered, in principle, by any entity capable of doing the work, or more specifically by humans of any race, gender, or sexuality (scientific universality) via empirical testing (scientific empiricism). (This particular belief is sometimes referred to as “radical skepticism,” although philosophers also have other meanings for this term.) Although knowledge is always provisional and open to revision, there are better and worse ways to get closer to it, and the scientific method is the best we have found. By contrast, the means offered by critical theory are demonstrably and fatally flawed. Particularly, this approach rejects scientific universality and objectivity and insists, on moral grounds, that we must largely accept the notion of multiple, identity-based “truths,” such as a putative “feminist glaciology.” Under critical constructivism, this gains an explicitly radical political motivation.

Any scholarship that proceeds from radically skeptical assumptions about objective truth by definition does not and cannot find objective truth. Instead it promotes prejudices and opinions and calls them “truths.” For radical constructivists, these opinions are specifically rooted a political agenda of “Social Justice” (which we have intentionally made into a proper noun to distinguish it from the type of real social progress falling under the same name). Because of critical constructivism, which sees knowledge as a product of unjust power balances, and because of this brand of radical skepticism, which rejects objective truth, these scholars are like snake-oil salespeople who diagnose our society as being riddled with a disease only they can cure. That disease, as they see it, is endemic to any society that forwards the agency of the individual and the existence of objective (or scientifically knowable) truths.

Libby Klein-Rapier #fundie

To bad people are so brainwashed you can't even see. They got you so deep you can't even question it. Flat earth is gaining momentum because the people questioning are getting scientific answers using their scientific math and physics. The answers just don't jive with what science has told us. That's why people are taking it further. Why not learn and question??? Isn't that what were supposed to be doing???

Life's to short to believe everything someone says. Even if their teachers, professor's, and scientists. Science isn't written in gold. It changes constantly. Shit relativity is just a theory not a law. There's so many discrepancies that when you investigate flat earth it becomes clear. People aren't guessing their doing the math. Anyone can do their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. The fact that science isn't addressing the questions in the flat earth community is disturbing and makes one even question further for being ignored. So I say continue your quest for the truth.

Ross Olson #fundie

When I discuss the creation/evolution controversy, there are all sorts of interesting responses to the evidence. People are basically unable to answer the powerful logical and scientific case for creation. So, many eventually say something like this:

‘But if creation is true, why don’t all scientists believe it? All scientists agree that evolution is true.’ Others do not say this outright, but it is an unspoken criticism which they see as an automatic veto of anything that seems scientifically unorthodox.

Can the majority be wrong? Most people admit that the general public may be in error. But they doubt that the majority of scientists could be wrong. This implies that science is somehow different from other human enterprises, and that scientists are immune to the foibles of non-scientists.

History shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time. It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is. In fact, often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.

Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) found that by washing his hands between the time he examined dead bodies and the time he delivered babies, he could prevent certain illnesses in mothers and babies, and save many lives. He was appalled by the heavy death rate in Vienna maternity hospital when he worked there. He introduced antiseptics, and the death rate plummeted from 12 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Even though Semmelweis should have been declared a hero for this simple but powerful discovery, he was not. He was not even asked for his data. Rather, his idea was soundly rejected by his colleagues, and he was forced to return to his home in Budapest. Germs had not yet been discovered, and the physicians of that day had no theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenon Semmelweis was talking about. Even so, the idea would have been easy to test and was clearly of great potential importance. But they did not even consider it.

If we had quizzed the ‘dirty hands’ doctors at a particularly frank and honest moment, they may have said: ‘It just doesn’t make sense. If I can’t see it, it must not be real.’ Or, ‘What I don’t know can’t hurt me (or my patients).’ Or worse yet, they might have said, ‘If I admit to this, I will have to accept responsibility for untold past preventable suffering.’

Our past decisions may prejudice our ability to evaluate the present. A scientist who has based his career on calculating what happened during the first few moments of the ‘big bang’ will find it difficult to be open to evidence that the ‘big bang’ never happened. Great learning does not always make a person more honest and accessible, but it may increase the complexity of his or her rationalizations.

A young graduate student who believes in creation, but also knows that rejection of evolution would jeopardize his degree and career, may try to work out some intellectual compromise, whether it fits the data or not. (This is essentially a form of protective colouration which makes his beliefs invisible in that environment.) He is then likely to spend the rest of his professional life ‘agreeing with himself’. He may even ridicule those more forthright than he, partly because they prick his conscience.

Many scientists hold firmly to evolution despite the evidence. They know that without evolution they must consider themselves responsible to a creator. Their need to reject that possibility is so emotionally powerful that they hang on to evolution tenaciously.

Most of us assume the best about our fellow humans unless forced to think otherwise. Have you ever read a newspaper account of an event you know by personal experience, and found the story inaccurate or incomplete? You then probably wondered about the accuracy of other stories in the paper. Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions.

Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.

At one time or another, most children probably say to their parents (in support of some questionable activity), ‘But everybody’s doing it!’ Good Christian parents invariably say, ‘No, they’re not! But even if they were, you’re not, because it’s against what God wants for you, so it’s wrong.’ We should therefore become a bit wary if someone says, ‘But everybody knows…’, or ‘All scientists agree…’. They probably don’t. And even if they did, it might still be wrong.

dr h lecter #fundie

if rational beliefs are based on scientific method which uses empirical data and at the same time pi is known to be an "irrational" number can it still be said that basing your beliefs on science is rational?

just a thought that occured to me - not a shot at any one group. thanks.

Ernie Drogt #fundie

It is important to know that Atheist hide behind Ad hoc hypothesis. Every thing they know is an adjustment of the equation to keep their failures current with the mind set of the public. This is also called the Axis of Evil. The bible is not really a scientific book, but it explains scientific beliefs ever so slightly. Which drives scientists mad. Mad enough for them to do Ad hoc. One cannot explain matter without intelligent design. You cannot make the leap into evolution without it. Which is why the missing link cannot be found. That takes a creator to do so. Bread a dog with a cat it cant be done. But some how it is done from ape to man. If its so easy as scientists claim then it should have been done over and over again. Try it and it is said you end up having AIDS. Laughable i know. I don't even know if that theory is true or not, but it had a good run….. its really not about faith but the bible really does explain our existence quite well. And science is only there to distort it. In order to understand i would suggest that people explore our quantum reality rather then mediocre science.


The Bible Science Then Science Now
The Earth is a sphere – Isaiah 40:22 The Earth is a flat disc The Earth is a sphere
Innumerable Stars – Jeremiah 33:22 only 1100 stars Innumerable Stars
Air Has Weight – Job 28:25 Air is weightless Air Has Weight
Each star is different – 1 Corinthians 15:41 All stars were the same Each star is different
Light moves – Job 38:19-20 Light was fixed in place Light moves
Free float of Earth in space – Job 26:7 Earth sat on a large animal Free float of Earth in space
Winds blow in cyclones – Ecclesiastes 1:6 Winds blew straight Winds blow in cyclones
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains – 2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6 The ocean floor was flat Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Blood is the source of life and health – Leviticus 17:11 Sick people must be bled Blood is the source of life and health
Creation made of invisible elements – Hebrews 11:3 Science is mostly ignorant on the subject Creation made of invisible elements(Atoms)
Ocean contains springs – Job 38:16 Ocean fed only by rivers and rain Ocean contains springs

Jack777 #fundie

Rationalist Manifesto

<p>I find this sad. It expresses well what is wrong in the world, in politics, in much we are now blind to. The basis for rationality is God and His Word, God and His Revelation to us. Were the lie that the Bible is at variance with rationality not so key in keeping people blind to God it would be humorous. Someone asked me to explain something in "rational" terms for the benefit of scientists. I find most scientists and other educated fools, to be just that. I wonder how "reporters" can be so stupid, how come Barbara Boxer even finds people to talk to her. I think this is the reason....How ironic...rational???

<p>"A Rationalist is one who finds reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth; one who holds the view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems. Our focus is to educate on issues of importance; to encourage men, women, and children to think for themselves; To eliminate the need for religious protection; and most importantly, to point the lost toward logic which is our only hope for eternal salvation. "

deacon #fundie

There are a great number of scientist who reject evolution on both a scientific basis and a theological basis. The conclusion of evolutionists is based, not on data, but on their assumption that there can be no supernatural explanationfor the universe.

Jake Wilson #fundie

It wasn’t my intention to trigger these otherworldly discussions, but it is inevitably the outcome of removing God from the equation when talking about the Exodus. I think we have soon covered all major religions and spiritual revelations though I am still waiting for the flying monks of Tibet. I fully agree that all of these are false beliefs, but Scripture is on an entirely different level. 

Listing Scripture among these examples in order to discredit its validity and producing the non-existing contradiction between biblical faith and true science, is therefore not a good technique, and any intelligent person, whether atheist or otherwise, will immediately see this (there are much more effective ways to discredit the biblical record). Also, I won’t debase myself by listing famous scientists who were drunkards; as said, I will leave these methods of argumentation to the more experienced ones. 

A commoner like me will scarcely put trust in people who see ignoring causality as the only rational approach. The rational basis for my assertions is creation by God, the irrational basis for your assertions is the expansion of a little black dot (or maybe it was green – correct me if I’m wrong, Eugene). The big bang is a non-demonstrable belief whereas divine creation is a demonstrable fact. 

As said, I like science, and there has been mind-boggling progress alone over the last decade let alone since the 17th century. However, regarding the origins, structure, and age of the universe and of the earth, there has been regress, and the established so-called scientific paradigm is – I am sorry to say – wrong (no matter how scientifically sound the components of these fallacies might be). 

As for theology, I am probably not up to scratch with the general consensus of modern Biblical scholarship, but if it implies the non-existence of God, then I beg to differ.

comite espartaco #conspiracy #moonbat #racist

It's funny how Barnier is proposing suspending immigration from outside the EU and allowing immigration from within the EU to continue, while Boris's plan is the reverse.

That is because these 'anti-immigration' policies are being implemented by the same people that implemented the 'immigration' policies. In reality the oligarchies will not renounce to the free importation of labour, as they have found in it a magic silver bullet to dominate and destroy their working classes. The truth is that we are defenceless, at the mercy of these victorious elites. That was the importance of having a PROPER socialist Labour Party, but most people has surrendered. They will hit us from inside the EU or from outside it. As they find fit.

pyomorphic #moonbat #psycho

9/11 has been funny for a long time. the vast difference between the government telling you that you should cry about a couple thousand americans dying for 20 years as if it’s the biggest tragedy in human history and as if they actually care about human life and then proceeding to show a sociopathic disregard for human life at best and insatiable bloodthirst at worst cannot be squared away.

9/11 isn’t about human beings dying. the reason why the government shoves it in our face every single year and tells us to care is because of what they want it to represent, which is an attack on “america”, and they want to use that to justify wholesale slaughter of innocents overseas and perpetual imperial empire. 9/11 is a quasi-fascist myth about national trauma.

and now we live in a pandemic, where the same number of people who died on 9/11 die every single day because of the negligence and greed of the very same government who tells us to cry about it, and there is no reconciliation. no attempt made to explain this. there is an active movement to downplay it or to redirect blame to china, once again fueling our imperial ambitions.

so it is safe to say now that 9/11 is a fucking farce. I don’t even know how they’re going to be able to sell that narrative anymore because they’ve completely shown their ass. you officially have permission from the government to never ever have to give a shit about 9/11 ever again. enjoy.

Biblical Unitarian #fundie

No one was ever an eye-witness to the fables of mythology, which were kept alive by the naïve credulity of devotees of pagan religions. Nor was the coming of any mythological figure accurately prophesied centuries before in a coherent body of prophetic literature. The Christian faith, therefore, stands alone among all the world’s belief systems, which, with the exception of Judaism, are based on unverifiable mythologies. Even the secular “religion” of Evolutionism is based upon a grandiose myth—that the minutely ordered cosmos arose spontaneously by chance from chaos, gradually increased in complexity by a series of small, random mutations, and eventually produced the minds of Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan, who were “smart” enough to conceive of and rationalize such a preposterous fable. [17] In contrast, Christians are expected to ground their faith on a rational, scriptural and historically verifiable foundation, so that their testimony cannot be discredited by later discoveries.

Jeffrey Guhin #fundie

"Scientism” is the belief that all we need to solve the world’s problems is – you guessed it – science. People sometimes use the phrase “rational thinking”, but it amounts to the same thing. If only people would drop religion and all their other prejudices, we could use logic to fix everything.

Last week, US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered up the perfect example of scientism when he proposed the country of Rationalia, in which “all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence”.

Tyson is a very smart man, but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence. Of course, imagining a society in which everyone behaves logically sounds appealing. But employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing.

There has always been a hope, especially as elites became less religious, that science would do more than simply provide a means for learning about the world around us. Science should also teach us how to live, pointing us towards the salvation that religion once promised. You can see this in any of the secular utopianisms of the 20th century, whether it’s the Third Reich, scientific Marxism, or the “modernisation thesis” of Western capitalism.


First, experts usually don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that – through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true – mislead us and misinterpret information.

Rationality is subjective. All humans experience such biases; the real problem is when we forget that scientists and experts are human too, and approach evidence and reasoned deliberation with the same prior commitments and unspoken assumptions as anyone else. Scientists: they’re just like us.

And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It’s striking how easily we forget the evil that following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realise that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence”.

Phrenology – the determination of someone’s character through the shape and size of their cranium – was cutting-edge science. (Unsurprisingly, the upper class had great head ratios.) Eugenics was science, as was social Darwinism and the worst justifications of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.

Scientific racism was data-driven too, and incredibly well-respected. Scientists in the 19th century felt quite justified in claiming that “the weight of evidence” supported African slavery, white supremacy and the concerted effort to limit the reproduction of the “lesser” races.

It wasn’t so long ago that psychiatrists considered homosexuality unhealthy and abhorrent. There is at least one prominent, eminently rational psychiatrist who hasn’t come around on transgenders. And many scientists decided that women were biologically incapable of the same kind of rationality you find in men, a scientific sexism reborn in contemporary evolutionary psychology.


In fact, creationism has a lot more in common with scientism than people such as Tyson or Richard Dawkins would ever admit. Like Tyson, creationists begin with certain prior commitments (“evolution cannot be true”, for example, substitutes for “science cannot be wrong”) and build an impressively consistent argument upon them. Just about everyone is guilty of some form of “motivated reasoning”: we begin with certain priors, and then find a way to get the evidence to do what we want.

The past mistakes of science should make us sceptical that it could be used to build a utopia. But, the scientists might say, science is most important for its ability to self-correct. Psychiatry has come around on homosexuality, for example. This may be true, yet it presents the precise reason why attempting to act only accounting for the “weight of evidence” is so flawed.

Ken Ham & Dr. Andrew Snelling #fundie

Dinosaur Footprint Wall in Bolivia

A recent article highlighted the Cal Orcko archaeological site in Bolivia. This site in South America has numerous, well-preserved dinosaur footprints (originally listed as over 5,000), and another 5,000 tracks were discovered in 2015. Some of the dinosaurs that left these footprints were Ankylosaurs, Titanosaurs, Carnotaurus, and a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.

These fossilized dinosaur footprints were originally discovered in 1985, but local mining of the limestone in the area has brought many more prints to light, starting in 1994. The area is now an official Bolivian paleontological site and an application has been submitted to designate it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But even more interesting is that the footprints are not on flat ground but rather on an almost vertical wall; and the vast majority seem to be moving in one direction (downhill as the geography now stands). Now this is a region that has had lots of tectonic activity in the recent past, so this was probably flat ground at the time the dinosaurs were making the tracks.

Of course what makes this intriguing from a biblical creation and Flood geology perspective is that the tracks are preserved so well, and that we see a diverse grouping of what were considered to be both herbivores and carnivores. We also have tracks from juvenile dinosaurs—some alone and others side by side with adults of the same species. A couple of quotes about the Cal Orcko archaeological site from the Guardian website really stood out:

That ankylosaur was running. It sank its four toes into the ground, rather than its heel. . . .

The creatures' feet sank into the soft shoreline in warm damp weather, leaving marks that were solidified by later periods of drought. Wet weather then returned, sealing the prints below mud and sediment. The wet-dry pattern was repeated seven times, preserving multiple layers of prints. The cherry on the cake was added when tectonic activity pushed the flat ground up to a brilliant viewing angle—as if nature was aware of its tourism potential.

So we have running dinosaurs and what appears to be alternating periods of water covering the sand flats and then receding for a short time, only to cover the area once again. This sounds a lot like an area where dinosaurs may have been fleeing rising floodwaters, which brought the sediment to quickly cover and preserve the footprints the fleeing dinosaurs left behind.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, geologist and AiG’s director of research, had this to say:

All claims about the environment in which these dinosaurs lived and how they left their footprints are mere speculation (i.e., based on historical science, not observational science), because no scientists were there at the time to observe and report to us what happened. So it is hardly an observed fact that this was a lake. But what we do observe is that these footprints were made in a sandy limestone, and that in that same limestone are the fossilized remains of snails, bivalves, fish, turtles and crocodiles.1 Furthermore, we know from observations that animals and footprints are not fossilized in lime sand that slowly accumulates and is exposed even for a brief period to bacteria, and the sun, wind and waves. Rapid accumulation and rapid burial are required. And lime sand is usually produced by turbulent ocean waters. Yet dinosaurs are land-dwellers. Thus these fossils of water-dwelling animals and fossilized dinosaur footprints found in this sandy limestone are consistent with the Flood cataclysm, when the rising ocean waters swept rapidly over the land in oscillating surges, repeatedly engulfing fleeing land animals as it buried their footprints with water-dwelling animals. These fossilized dinosaur footprints testify to these dinosaur herbivores and carnivores being more interested in fleeing en masse in one direction to escape the destructive waters than their next meal.

Yet again we see evidence of the Flood that God sent as a judgment for mankind’s wickedness (Genesis 6:17) and of the Ark that He had Noah build—a reminder to us today of another Ark of salvation, Jesus Christ. These fossilized footprints stand as a reminder that observational science always confirms the Bible.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

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


See Martin Lockley et al., “Titanosaurid Trackways from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: Evidence for Large Manus, Wide-Gauge Locomotion and Gregarious Behaviour,” Cretaceous Research 23, no. 3 (June 2002): 383–400, doi:10.1006/cres.2002.1006.

looksmaxxingcurry & apoptosiscel #sexist

I was banned from r/asktransgender for asking why its bad to reject a trans person but why it isn't bad to reject a man who isn't a certain height

The hypocrisy is unreal. Fucking hell. I hate the double standards. God, the one thing that comforts me is that those hypocritical losers end up with a high murder and suicide rate compared to other demographics.

They want to dismiss "patriarchal preferences" but when it comes to dismissing their own "patriarchal preferences", they ban you for it.

You expect mentally ill people to give you reasonable and well thought off answers?

I expected some common ground (being rejected for what they think is "genetic" and men being rejected for something that is literally genetic"). too much to ask for

Trannies are gross mutilated creatures. They need psychological help but instead they get doctors who indulge them in their solutions in return for lots of good ol’ $$$

Doctors are unethical as fuck. I dont trust therapists for this reason too. They are just in it for the money. The only good therapist is a loving girlfriend or boyfriend

One of the removed comments in the thread was

I personally don't think theres anything wrong with not wanting to date trans people. This might be controversial to say but I only date guy with money who are taller then me

even trannies can be that picky? it’s so fucking overrrr


I found this yesterday

Romantic relationships are one of the most important sources of social support for adults. The fact that most cis people would not consider trans people as potential dating partners is yet another serious risk factor for increased psychological and physical health problems among the trans population.

How does this not apply to incels too?

edwitness #fundie

(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: )

"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.

David Anderson #fundie

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

Harun Yahya #fundie

Terrorists have a philosophy. That philosophy is dialectical materialism, and it is fundamentally grounded in Darwinism. That philosophy will persist and continue to nourish the scourge of terrorism so long as Darwinism is not eradicated and no end is therefore put to Marxism and materialism. It is therefore essential that this philosophy be completely eradicated and people be educated against its foundation, Darwinism.

It is a grave error to condemn terror and lose victims to it on the one hand but for Darwinism to be taught in schools on the other. Darwinist education serves no other purpose than to reinforce communist terror. Being aware, but remaining insensitive to the fact that Darwinism constitutes the origin of communist ideology means remaining insensitive to terrorism itself. Nothing can come from condemning terrorism while Darwinism is still being taught in schools.

Darwinist ideology is based on an outdated theory that has been spilling blood and deceiving humanity through hoaxes and lies for some 150 years. All young people in schools must be taught and shown that this untrue theory built on lies is based on hoaxes and deceit. They must be told that the ideology of dialectical materialism and its supposed scientific basis, Darwinism, are false beliefs. Only then can realistic and effective measures against global terrorism be taken. Only then can those preventive measures be permanent and have permanent results. No other tactics can ever put an end to this scourge. In order for terrorism to be brought to an end its vital arteries must be completely severed and its intellectual infrastructure brought down.

letthereaderunderstand #fundie

Why can you set a sphere on the level ground and not have it start rolling? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The earth is moving, why does a sphere which is not biased to "lay on a side", not start rolling the opposite direction the earth is moving?

If the curve of the earth lies at around 25 miles, why can we see things that are hundreds of miles away through a telescope?

Why did the meaning of Gravity change from "weight" to something that doesn't exist?

Why do objects get smaller as they move away from you?

Why do rainbows bend like a dome?

Why can't you feel the earth rotating, but you can feel the earth quake?

Why does lava come up from the core if the core is what is holding everything down?

...I walk on flat ground, I float on flat water, I sleep flat, I write on flat pieces of paper, I build out of flat pieces of wood, I press my cloths flat and I read time on a flat clock.

Only 3 dimensions exist, Length (flat), width (flat) and breadth (flat) all which exist as one together called Time. I can say this having experienced the three in one as can everyone else.

Vern S. Poythress #fundie

The polytheistic religion of Greeks said that there were many gods. There were as many divine plans and as many purposes as there were gods. Since the gods interacted in a chaotic fashion, people had no guarantee that the world would show any stable order. Greek religion discouraged any hope for a scientific exploration of a rational order.

Modern science arose in the context of Christian monotheism, which displaced the Greek gods and gave confidence to prospective scientists by means of three fundamental principles:

One rational God rules all things (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6), and so we can expect universal order.
God made man in his image (Genesis 1:26-27), and so man is naturally in tune with God’s mind and has hope of grasping the order that God had given.
The world that God made is not divine, and hence is open for human investigation.

In fact, God’s word is the foundation for scientific law. According to Genesis 1, God by speaking specified the regular order for the sun and moon and stars, and the regular pattern for the growth and reproduction of plants (Genesis 1:11, 14-15). What scientists call scientific law is in fact their guess about God’s law, God’s specification, “let it be so.” Scientists in their investigation are in fact investigating the mind of God and thinking his thoughts after him–albeit on their limited, human level.

Early scientists like Copernicus and Isaac Newton understood that they stood before God’s workmanship.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie

In short, the difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is this:

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy) when he says that there are no good reasons for belief in God. Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

Jim Fetzer #conspiracy

As Stuart observes, “When did fact become myth? Is Jewish ownership of large sections of the media a myth? Are AIPAC and the US government’s subservience to Israel a myth? Is repeated interference in Church affairs by Jewish groups a myth?” In logic, this is called “begging the question” by taking for granted (assuming or presupposing) a proposition when its truth requires establishment on independent grounds. This is a stance that is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that are intended to insure that Israel and Zionism are afforded formal, official protection, when the fact of the matter is that there are good reasons to question many elements of the accounts we have been given about the Holocaust, for example, where the power exerted by the Israeli lobby are largely fueled by Wester guilt over offenses that appear to be highly exaggerated if not complete fabrications.

slimshady #conspiracy #crackpot #sexist

Are Scientists giving off fake Science to Blue pill people?

When I took Science to study. I always had doubts on many scientific theories. I always have respect for scientists of the previous era. Now I learn Psycology and I think old Psycologists made much more sense than Modern Psycologists. While modern scientists are losing debates to flat earthers and Modern Psycology seems so bluepilling.

I watched an episode of a show named Brain games in which they were comparing male and female brains. I think I watched 2 episodes of this kind. In one episodes it was a tie and in the other episode female brains won. They were proving this by science and Evolutionary biology and made some male and female volunteers do some tasks.

Even in the real world it is propgated that female brains are equal to male brains eventhough male brains are bigger. Also females are painted as having more "sense" and maturity by some people. This all is utter Bullshit. Name me one task where females are better than males. In every task and profession that exists on this planet males are just better.

Even in things having no physical requirements. Even in professions traditionally dominated by females like Cooking, Males perform better. But for some reason these "scientific" people have to shove propaganda into our throats.

Many of the modern Scientists don't even follow the Scientific method to come to their conclusions. They just want their results and conclusions to be comforming their pre assumptions. I don't know how many times during my blue pilled days that "science" was giving me more blue pills. Some of them maybe just made up science but I remember some real scientists giving blue pilling ideas about relationships and social structures.

The Beast of Revelation #fundie

In reality, the proof of God's existence is so abundant and obvious as to be undeniable by any rational person. The world in which we live clearly would not exist except for an omnipotent God.

The only reason why atheists believe that God does not exist is that they want to believe that. Their belief is not based on evidence that God does not exist, nor is it based on a lack of evidence that He does exist; their belief has no basis. It has only motivation. The atheist has psychological motivations for believing that God does not exist.

All of the reasons that atheists claim to have for their atheism are really just rationalizations. They had a desire to believe that God does not exist; when they finally found arguments that could allow them to deceive themselves into believing that he does not exist, they did so. The people became atheists after engaging in self-deception.

All of their arguments are really self-delusion.

Atheism is very common among homosexual men; this single fact proves that psychology, not evidence, is the cause of atheism. One can not rationally argue that homosexual men have more evidence that God does not exist. Thus, atheism must be the result of psychological motivation.

Of course, in addition to homosexuality, paranoia and fear of authority result in atheism.

God's existence is manifest and evident. The proof of God's existence is far too plentiful to be denied by any normal person. Therefore, only an individual who has an abnormal psychology can possibly be an atheist.

These are all established facts about psychology. No rational person ever disputes them.

Navaros #fundie

How about:

atheist beliefs in darwinism.
atheist beliefs in murdering babies.
atheist beliefs in murdering the severely handicapped by slow starvation and dehydration (i.e. Terri Schiavo).
atheists beliefs in stalking and theft (most atheists who are on IMDB do these things)
atheist beliefs in hating, silencing and personally attacking anyone who opposes their viewpoints.
atheist beliefs in space aliens.
atheist beliefs that george carlin is funny and brilliant.
atheist beliefs that bill maher is brilliant.
atheist beliefs that penn and teller are brilliant.
atheist beliefs in supporting almost every immoral cause that exists.

Almost every atheist, if not every atheist, believes in those things.

It's like the poster said, atheists share tons of common beliefs, many of which are extreme, especially the pro-murder beliefs that atheists have.