Similar posts

Julian Vigo #sexist feministcurrent.com

In an effort to move to a greener existence, I recently switched to an ecological toothbrush. As I have been living uniquely from solar panels for almost two years, I was forced to ditch my electric toothbrush. In choosing an ecological toothbrush, I studied materials, as well as the advantages of recycled plastic brushes versus those with replaceable heads. In the end, I had to eliminate every single option aside from the single one I chose. Yes, I had to exclude that which did not meet my personal standards and convenience.

I think a lot about exclusion these days. The #MeToo campaign which emerged in reaction to the sexually aggressive acts of Harvey Weinstein is clearly a female-centered campaign. But recently I’ve seen arguments that #MeToo should be extended to include males. While being “inclusive” of everyone might seem like a nice idea, the reality is that there are perfectly rational reasons for exclusivity in many situations. Our shared experiences with certain humans help us form bonds where and when we need them. These bonds can often make life bearable for those experiencing particularly painful moments in their lives. Commonalities help to create community. The truth is that all communities are exclusive, in one way or another, of individuals who don’t share certain experiences or requisites. While some might be tempted to argue exclusion equates to segregation, such arguments are very much apples and oranges, particularly in the context of women’s rights.

There are several key differences which should be underscored, when discussing “exclusion” in the women’s liberation movement, beginning with the myth that feminism must focus on males. Thanks to liberal feminists like Emma Watson, among others, many women have been made to believe that arguing for the inclusion of males in the women’s movement is a worthwhile cause. But any group in protest of its oppression by another group is within its rights to demand that the oppressor not be included in its organizing. For instance, when labour unions secured the legal right to represent employees in 1935, employers were excluded from the class of employees because it was understood that employers (as well as managers and supervisors) held power over workers. In terms of economic class, it seems that most people are on the same page when understanding which group holds power over another.

Similarly, civil rights advocacy began with the premise that there is social inequality between people of colour and white people, making a necessary distinction between who is being oppressed under white supremacy. Robbing a person of the right to distinguish the oppressor class means that she is barred from speaking about and identifying her oppression.

Nobody expected the Black Panthers to consider the marginalization of KKK members from their organization for good reason. Similarly, no such claim of exclusion was made about the Million Man March in Washington D.C. in 1995, when approximately 400,000 African American men converged en masse in the nation’s capital to engage in teach-ins, worship services, and community organizing. While there was a discussion over the fact that women were excluded, there was also recognition that black men had the right to gather without women to discuss their issues, and this action was largely supported by African American women. Two years later, the Million Woman March was held in D.C. to focus on issues specific to women.

This sort of exclusion is not based in hatred or a desire to do harm. Exclusion is how we decide, like me and my ecological toothbrush choices, what meets our needs. Exclusion is not necessarily about owning a card to an elite club — it is about setting a particular direction for an individual, group, activity, community, and so forth. All social groups exclude in some way. While I am a big believer in reaching over the aisle to dialogue with those responsible for our subordination, I also recognize the need of any group to make decisions within its group before reaching across that aisle.

(..)

Does the fact of breast cancer support groups for women mean that males cannot get breast cancer? Of course not. And there are breast cancer support groups for males. Why? Because males and females experience breast cancer differently. Commonalities between same-sexed bodies are part of the social intimacy that both males and females alike cherish across cultures. Be it in the hammam or the steam room, the hospital ward, or the changing room at the gym, there is intimacy between people of the same sex that provides a space of security and dignity. Females especially value these spaces because the public sphere is not safe for women. Being in a female-only changing room can offer women a needed reprieve from the daily sexualization of their bodies, and from unwanted male attention and judgment.

The issue of “exclusion” has become a touchpoint for the left in recent years. Most notably, we have seen exclusion being derided as bigotry in trans activist circles where women who say they would not feel comfortable with a male in their change rooms, their women’s shelters, or in a women’s prison are labelled transphobic. Yet both these examples come from real life paradigms. In 2007, Vancouver Rape Relief Society won a case against Kimberly Nixon, a trans-identified male who had attempted to join the training group for peer counsellors at the women’s shelter.

Nixon was asked to leave the group account of having been born male, and because the shelter operated on the basis that women could best counsel other women, having had the specific experience of growing up female under patriarchy. The B.C. Court of Appeals’ decided that Vancouver Rape Relief had the right to determine its own membership, as any oppressed group of people has the right to “discriminate” when organizing in their own interests, as a class. Currently pending in Texas is the case of three female inmates who are suing Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, claiming that, “They are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates.” The truth is that, for most women, sex does matter. What is more remarkable is that males who claim to have an internal “female identity” have zero compassion for or comprehension of the reality women face in a male supremacist world, and would prefer women put aside their own material reality, comfort, and safety in order to validate men’s feelings.

Choosing a female gynecologist or desiring a female-only space for changing is not meant to incriminate all males as, to paraphrase George W. Bush, “evil doers.” Rather, a woman might choose a female gynecologist both because she feels a woman would better understand her body, but also because she feels safer in that vulnerable state with someone statistically unlikely to assault them. Women’s desire to change in a locker room without male-bodied persons would likely be based on something similar, as well as a desire to maintain healthy boundaries that too often go unrespected. In excluding males from female spaces, women are demanding that society accept the healthy boundaries of women, even if, in certain scenarios, males might wish to be on the other side of the line.

Last week, Bustle ran a story arguing that “some members of LGBTQ community feel that the [#MeToo] campaign focuses too strongly on the gender binary and seems to erase nonbinary or genderqueer people from the conversation.” But what this statement really conveys is that males feel excluded from a conversation lead by women speaking out about male violence. While I would not deny that males experience violence, it is overwhelmingly violence inflicted by other males. What makes #MeToo important is that violence against women and girls is coded into the structural social hierarchy. When women contribute their #MeToo stories, they are doing so as females who have, from childhood, been groomed as objects that exist for male use.

It cannot be overstated that females suffer disproportionate levels of sex-based discrimination and violence, including sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and trafficking. Women are quite aware that they are discriminated against and physically abused because of their sex, regardless of how they may feel, internally, about the gender roles imposed on them. It is entirely insignificant, for example, how the over 200 women who James Toback sexually harassed identified. To demand that #MeToo include non-binary people is to miss the point of the feminist movement: feminism has from its inception been explicitly about breaking the hierarchy and stereotypes reinforced through gender which demanded women not leave the house, not vote, and not work. It is not the “binary” that is the problem so much as it is gender itself, under patriarchy. Men who rape women don’t care whether their victims feel “binary” or not.

What Bustle would like is for women to use a language that is seemingly more neutral, less politically objectionable, and more inclusive… of males. Otherwise there would be no uproar with focusing specifically on women’s voices and experiences in this campaign. Males insisting on being “included” in women’s social protest against sexism is just more of the same sexism — women are being instructed to shut up about their oppression by males unless they include males. Beyond that, under patriarchy, women are always under pressure to be sexually available to men. This new language of “inclusion” that frames “exclusion” as inherently harmful has led to males who identify as transgender to insist that women include them not only in their groups and politics, but in their beds. That this is explicitly sexist is made clear through the fact that I have yet to see any male who identifies as trans pressure heterosexual men into sleeping with him.

A narrative that insists on coercing or goading women into including their oppressor is anything but progressive. Likewise, insisting that the language of gender neutrality is what matters in a conversation about sexual violence is far from revolutionary. Taking up the five-cent terms like “non-binary” and “queer” will have no impact on the facts of sex-based oppression for females. The challenge we face as a society is not to carpet bomb women’s movements with accusations of “exclusivity” and “bigotry” when women recognize that males and females are different and have different needs. Creating linguistic games might seem avant-garde to undergraduates, but the reality is that gender is what prescribes the behavioral cues engrained in females throughout their lives. Gender is what is hammered into females as a class, rendering them subjects of a discourse they have no power to respond to. The notion that gender can ever be neutral is patently absurd since gender is not the solution. It is the problem.

Changing language to be “be more inclusive” is counter-revolutionary and pretending that such language does anything other prevent women from effectively organizing towards their own liberation is delusory. The language of gender inclusivity does nothing to dismantle the social and political inequalities that females face. It does, however, create a lovely illusion (especially for men who want to seem progressive in their attempts to thwart our movement): that saying “genderqueer” makes one a “feminist.”

WitchyWombyn #sexist reddit.com

After a recent discussion on GCdebatesQT I've been thinking about the characteristics male animals demonstrate before being allowed in a group of females. To enter female spaces a male has to:

Demonstrate that every member male who is joining the females is not an active threat to the females or their offspring.

Demonstrate that there is some benefit to the females for allowing males to enter said group.

Demonstrate that they intend on ensuring that they will place no burden on the resources the females use for themselves or their offspring.

In regards to point 1 TIM's have refused to even acknowledge any of the dangers to women if they are allowed in our space. In nature if a male was threatening a female or young member of the in group you wanted to be a member of the males would kill it to protect the females and young.

In regards to point 2 I would say that there is clearly no benefit to women to allow TIM's into our spaces and instead of offering us anything they demand access because they believe we owe them protection from males and validation for their identity.

In regards to point 3 just look at their demands to use women's resources for rape and suicide counselling.

So my question is, setting aside the fact that they are attempting to colonize womanhood, how different would our conversations go if they had cared to meet any of the requirements that any other female would require?

AdamanteusAtrox #sexist reddit.com

If you actually believe this, then you're not paying attention. The current party line of trans activists is that transwomen are biologically female and were indeed born biologically female, and transmen are biologically male and were born biologically male. They have not only erased the definition of "woman," but they have now erased the definition of "female." This has multiple immediate consequences: We can't talk about female genital mutilation because any genitals can be female. MRAs love this because they can swoop in to any article about FGM so much easier to cry about circumcision and do their "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN???"

We can't talk about female reproductive health because that can refer to any reproductive organs. Prostate cancer can be a female reproductive health issue. We can't talk about female infanticide or female-selective abortion because we don't know how those babies or fetuses would have identified -- maybe they were really male? We can't talk about girls being denied education because some of those girls might be boys.

We can't talk about shared female experiences like menstruation because there are none -- males menstruate and females don't menstruate. We can't talk about the poisonous way that females are socialized into the inferior sex caste because some of those females are really males and some of what people think are males are actually females, so there is actually no such thing as female socialization. By extension, there is also no such thing as male socialization, because some of those males are actually females and some of what people think are females are actually males. There can be no female-specific spaces, sports teams, colleges, scholarships, clubs, music groups, work places, jails, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, or rape crisis shelters, because people who appear to be female may identify as male and so be actually biologically male, and those who appear to be male may identify as female and so be actually biologically female.

This fantasy land of magical thinking has made it fully impossible for women to discuss anything related to female oppression. It has made it impossible for women to have anything for ourselves. Your activists come in and trounce on every. fucking. conversation. we try to have and language police, tone police, demand to be centered, and demand that we change actual reality to fit their desires. This is pure male entitlement and it's utter bullshit. We are saying no, and people socialized as male can't handle it when women tell them no. That's why /r/terfisaslur is filled with transwomen threatening women with death, rape, mutilation, assault, and even cannibalism.

And it's not "bad experiences with certain people." It's pretty much all trans activists who behave this way. Trans people outside the activist community are often normal, nice people and many of us call them friends, myself included. But your activists are toxic, poisonous narcissists. They are violent misogynists who are going to eventually tank your whole movement with their increasingly unreasonable, unstable, and ridiculous behavior.

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

E. Kitty Glendower #fundie aroomofourown.wordpress.com

[All bolding in original]

What must you think of yourself, your body if you think that all it takes to become female (biological fact) is for a male (biological fact) to dress up like society’s interpretation of woman (social construct)?

What fucking planet are you on?

Are you stupid?

Or are you so fucking weak and sorry that you will swallow anything, any line of shit in order to have male approval?

Keyword glossary:

Sex: Biological Fact
Female: Biological Fact
Male: Biological Fact
Gender: Social Construct
Masculinity: Social Construct
Femininity: Social Construct

Homophobia/Lesbophobia: When a person is so afraid to present themselves as gay/lesbian that they will instead mutilate their bodies and pretend to be born a sex that they were not born.

When a parent is so afraid to let the world know that their daughter or son is lesbian or gay that they will encourage and consent for that child to have her/his body pumped with corporate-made drugs and mutilated.

Pervert/Freak: When a male thinks just because he likes to wear dresses (thus, not the pervert/freak part of this equation), that he should be able to freely roam females spaces, i.e. female restrooms, female prisons, etc.

When a male thinks just because he likes to wear dresses (thus, not the pervert/freak part of this equation) that lesbians should be made to want to fuck him, whether he has a dick or not.

Gender Addict: A person who thinks that they must perform a specific gender (social construct) because they were born a particular sex (biological fact), and if their desire to perform a particular gender (social construct/performance) does not match the sex (biological fact) they were born, then everyone in the whole world should pay for them to mutilate their body in an attempt to accomplish a biological impossibility.

Someone who demands that everyone believe that sex (biological fact) is gender (social construct/performance). And that a copy (social construct/performance) can become an original (biological fact) with enough wishful thinking and corporate-made drugs.

Someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to wish and/or inflict violence on people who do not pretend that gender (social construct/performance) and sex (biological fact) are synonymous.

Incel Wiki #sexist #transphobia #homophobia #crackpot incels.wiki

Trans-vestigiality hypothesis

The trans-vestigiality hypothesis is similar to the homocel hypothesis and the incel transbian pipeline in that it suggests that a significant segment of the transgender population used to be incel. It suggests that inceldom may cause gender dysmorphia in some people and by extension may lead a person to consider gender transitioning. Anecdotes from incels and studies on non-human animals suggest this may be due to a desire for the transitioning incel to avoid confrontation with stronger men (or disgusted women), to deincelize, and/or simply an attempt to live life on tutorial mode (i.e. as a woman). The case studies depicted on the trannymaxxing page (see trannymaxxing) or other one's depicted below show that transitioning to female can aid in deincelization. However, some incel-turned-transgenders remain incel (or transcel) upon becoming transgender.[1]

Some incel Youtubers have referred to many cases of male to female transsexualism as "advanced inceldom". Female to male transsexualism, which occurs at a slightly lower rate than male to female transsexualism, is also often seen by people in the incelosphere as a voluntary incelizing process, and as such is highly amusing to incels.

That being said, pretending to be a female is unlikely a sexual strategy due to a very low prevalence rate of transgenderism of 0,001% (see the criticism section).

Sexual mimicry in animals

Dr Erica Todd from the University of Otago is a leading researcher in the Trans-vestigiality hypothesis in non-human animals. She calls male animals who take on female imagery to increase mating success as "sneaker males". She explains how "sneaker males" disguise themselves as females to avoid aggression from larger males, and steal mating opportunities.[2] Her work focused a lot on Bluehead Wrasse fish. She found that the "sneaker males" had genes for male sex hormones turned off making them appear feminine but also had much more sperm production and sperm quality control. The "sneaker males" had near identical brain gene expression to females and much different brain gene expression than non-sneaker-males. The "sneaker males" often also changed roles to more masculine fish as they grew larger.

Phillipines

In the Phillipines, where the women are so disgusted by the local men that they pursue relationships with American incels, many native men from the Phillipines undergo fake breast surgery in order to make enough money to survive or move out of the country.

Case studies

There have been a few case studies suggesting that trannymaxxing can actually help one to escape inceldom. See for example:

Leslie case study
Remy case study

Further case-studies

Chris-chan

Criticism and statistics

With a prevalence of only 0.001%, transgenderism is unlikely much more prevalent than mutation-selection balance would predict, hence it is unlikely an evolved sexual strategy.[3] Many transgenders appear to use the protected class status of transgenderism as a means of status ascension (transtrender), which is evidenced by the fact that most revert their sexual orientation after a while. Many show signs of deleterious mutation or adverse social environments.

These claims are corroborated by the statistics below:

About 88% of children who have gender dysphoria do not hold those beliefs when they grow older.[5]
Only 12% of boys who believe they are transsexuals still believe so when they are older.[6]
MRI scans indicate that MtF transsexuals are either men aroused by the thought of possessing female genitalia or homosexuals who want to seduce straight men.[7]
Transsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide.[9]
Only 21% of transsexuals can sucessfully pass as the opposite gender.[14]
53% of mothers of transsexual children have Borderline Personality Disorder, compared to only 6% of mothers of normal children.[15]
16% of transsexuals have been sent to jail or prison, compared to 2.7% of the general population.[16]
Gay and transgender students are half as likely to graduate high school as straight students.[17]
Transsexuals are more likely to have autism than the general population.[25]
20-40% of homeless children are transsexuals.[18]
Children raised by gay couples are twice as likely to be in poverty as children of straight married couples.[20]
“24% of lesbians and bisexual women are poor, compared with only 19% of heterosexual women.”[21]
1/3 transsexuals are being treated for mental health.[22]
85% of transsexuals show signs of psychological distress or have been recently treated for mental health.[23]
44% of transsexuals show signs of clinical depression.[24]

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, guess what.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Pinkpillers #sexist #psycho reddit.com

RE: Is it something wrong with male children now too?

(Consider_The_Horses2)

There absolutely is something wrong with male children. And this something is not just caused by socialization but - at least partly - also by their male biology. Young boys very clearly exhibit the desire to fight, to dominate, and to destroy whom they consider beneath them. It is not uncommon for young boys to rape and abuse - their sisters, for instance. https://i.redd.it/mkwy8ufokm051.jpg Men have basically evolved to rape and kill and male children are already practicing. And these days, they start watching rape porn and calling women "sluts" and "thots" online when they are 10 or 11-years-old already, anyway...

Personally, I've come to hate male children just as much as I hate men: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillFeminism/comments/gnuqgl/ive_come_to_hate_boys_just_as_much_as_i_hate_men/

They should be thaugth to be more friendly

Women are always expected to "help" males and to sacrifice themselves in order to raise males. I am opposed to this. It hasn't worked out in the past, and it won't work out in the future. The only thing it has resulted in - the only thing this argument was designed for - was to make women responsible for the bad actions of men and make women sacrifice their time, their energy, their well-being to "help" the very males who want to oppress and rape them.

You adult men, you go ahead and teach boys not rape, not to objectify women, not to watch porn, not to glorify prostitution, not to oppress women, not to "slut-shame" them, etc.

You know most men in the world wont rape you. "Helping" boys is raising them. Do it right with other people. Give them a positive influence. Teach them about normal feminism and not radical. Let them know how they should be treated and how to treat women.

Normal feminism is nothing but misogyny. Men define "normal" feminism as a feminism that allows them to continue all the shit they've done for centuries - but this time using "woke" rather than Christian vocabulary to justify it.

No it's not misogyny. Normal feminism as that guy said is woman's rights, to become equal to males. Not to kill them all and become a species that will very quickly become extinct because females won't evolve without males. Feminists from the past are the people who got you the rights you have today. So don't dis them because you shouldn't deserve what they gave their life for.

The goal is female liberation from male oppression, not "equality" with rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and oppressors.

(censorshipment)

A chilling story about two 10 year old boys who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered a 2 year old toddler for fun. One of them was arrested as an adult later due to possession of CP(shocker). [NSFW] - https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPillFeminism/comments/h84ulp/a_chilling_story_about_two_10_year_old_boys_who/

I did not know that. I personally think not every 10yr old boy have the instinct to murder and torture young kids. But, What do i know. I can only speak of my experience when i was 10yrs old

The best way to prevent males from harming females is sex-based separation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kayla_Rolland

6 year old boy shot and killed a 6 year old girl at school because she rejected him. Could've been prevented if schools weren't integrated. Sure, you can say could've been prevented if his uncle didn't have guns in the house. But it's just better to separate females from males.

But doesnt females harm males aswell? Think about hoe much more boeing life would become without males. Basically forcing everyone to be lesbian.

Not at the same rate as males who harm females. Heterosexuality is a disease. Women need to evolve.

So you say avery woman on the planet is superior to men?

Fuck off.

(CloacaDiddler)

Boys 10-12 have higher rape statistics than every age of women. Just the preteens. I can barely even retell the story of Junko Furuta kidnapped by a few 14 year old boys and put through the worst torture imaginable for months until she finally died of her injuries. Not to mention little boys tend to be violent, unruly, and show affection by hitting.

You people are deranged. Fuck you and your campaign to feminize little boys. Boys are different than girls, they're not supposed to be these little quiet robots that you shove information into. They're learning machines, they're exploring their environment as all babies do. Just because they're more prone to being unruly (mostly due to the uneven distribution of ADHD among the two sexes), does not mean they are inherently evil.

Citing rare instances of boys doing horrible things is fucking nuts and you know it, I can easily find female equivalents. You people need to delete this sub or honestly just rope, there is no hope for leeches on society who sit on reddit and hate on men, deranged idiots.

Rare instances???

Yes dumbass. Are you really implying that all boys rape someone when they're a preteen?

Why is it all or nothing with you guys.

I’ve already stated that boys between 10-12 rape more people than all age categories of women do...that’s not all, but that’s not rare and it’s so hilarious when y’all try to refute this. Just like how men make up about 24% of teachers nationally but 78% of student sex crimes. Because y’all always love to say how “women rape students just as much as men” but no, they fucking don’t. Women don’t X anything as much as men, not all of them do horrible things but way more do than women do

That's because of the toxic culture that implies young boys should enjoy sex from older women. All the sex scandals from my highschool were exposed not because of reporting, but because someone else found out. Usually it's the parents.

The same way there used to be stigma around women reporting sexual assaults (which is now mitigated by all the awareness movements; sexual assault cases against men have skyrocketed), there is also a stigma against male victims. Once that is broken there will be a surge of reports on female rapists.

But you toxic fuckers make that impossible with your "male violent and bad, woman innocent and pretty amd good" mindset. What a bunch of narcissistic and uneducated jack-offs.

I couldn't count the amount of second-hand embarassment I got whilst reading posts/comments where "pink pilled" psychos were circle jerking about female superiority. And you know what's funny? Mens rights subs don't allow misogyny, yet misandry is the basis of all feminist subs. What an embarassment honestly...

Jesus Christ feminists are the ones against all rape, I’ve only ever heard men encourage students to get with adult teachers. Even had a coworker speak up unprompted to tell me how he believed men could never be raped unless the woman was ugly, and that students were lucky to get with a teacher. If you think it was “just one guy” and are blind to the massive culture of men especially online who feel this way, then obviously you must not believe that all women are the ones supporting this, isn’t that right?

Svarog123 #fundie reddit.com

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

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

1. Children are psychologically damaged by sexual activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Children are essentially asexual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3a. Children lack the ability to make informed consent

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

5. This thread is disgusting and so are you.

This is not an argument.

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

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

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

Tanith Lloyd #sexist medium.com

An open letter to my friend who thinks transwomen are women

I recently sent you an article by a lesbian who has been documenting homophobia within trans activism. You, my otherwise compassionate, patient and warm friend, replied with “sorry, not interested”. You told me that you didn’t want to read an article which referred to transwomen as ‘male’. You said that transwomen suffer from an “accident at birth” — transwomen are women born in the wrong body.

Seeing my principled friend (with a first-class undergraduate and a masters degree) actively adopt such a bizarre, anti-materialist and anti-scientific position really worries me. How can ‘you’ be ‘born into’ a body? You are a body. The ‘born in the wrong body’ idea goes beyond poststructuralist ideas about gender onto quasi-religious terrain. How can anyone have an innate, pre-experience knowledge of what it means to be the other sex? What does that even entail? Being male or female refers to your reproductive sex. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing for gendered souls.

Still, you talk about ‘gender identity’ —an innate sense of whether someone is male or female. Where is the evidence for this? How do we measure it? What does it mean? Even if we were to accept that a part of your brain could get ‘mixed up’ into an ‘incorrectly’ sexed body, why would ‘gender identity’ override all other physical indicators of whether you are male or female? Why would your subjective sense of self ever be privileged over objective physicality in this way? Transgender is not a medical diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, characterised by dissatisfaction with your sexed body and/or assigned gender role. The science behind what causes gender dysphoria is inconclusive, but it is likely caused by different biopsychosocial factors which are unique to each trans person. Gender dysphoria has not been proven to have one ‘cause’ (an ‘accident at birth’ leading to being ‘born in the wrong body’) — there is no normative standard of ‘feeling like a woman’ or ‘feeling like a man’.

Despite this, children who ‘identify’ as the other sex are being given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. The systematic medicalisation of gender non-conforming children should be an unthinkable practice. Little girls are too young to understand that wanting short hair, having crushes on other girls and enjoying football doesn’t make you a boy trapped in a girls body. Studies suggest that 80% of gender dysphoric children desist and grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. One reason why older lesbians are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they recognise that they could easily have been ‘transed’ had they been children today. One reason why mothers are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they know children and their fickleness well.

We are meant to simultaneously believe that gender identity is fixed at around four years old (thus justifying medical intervention in children) but also that trans people don’t all struggle with a lifelong dissatisfaction with their ‘gender’ (thus widening the ‘trans umbrella’ for ‘inclusivity’). How are we to explain ‘genderfluid’, ‘non-binary’ or ‘agender’ identities? If gender has the potential to be fluid, or to change over time, or to not exist, what justification do we have in making permanent changes to a child’s body? Feminists see this practice as being based in gender essentialism?—?a concept you otherwise recognise and reject. What do you make of Jazz Jennings’ book, ‘I am Jazz’, which opens with “for as long as I can remember, my favourite colour has been pink”? She goes on to argue that “I have a girl brain, but a boy body. This is called transgender”. This book is being read in schools in an effort to educate children about what being trans means.

Jazz’ case is interesting, and certainly complexifies issues around sex and gender?—?to what extent can Jazz be considered ‘a man’ if she has never been allowed to go through male puberty? How could it be reasonable to expect Jazz to use male spaces? These are conversations we need to have. But Jazz is a very rare case. ‘Transgender’ is an umbrella term coined in the 1990s to unite a variety of gender non-conforming experiences. What was once ‘transsexual’ is now ‘transgender’. What was once ‘transvestite’ is also ‘transgender’. Both Jazz Jennings and Eddie Izzard have the same claim to the term ‘woman’, because ‘woman’ has been extended to mean ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ (which I guess excludes me, then). Where do you draw the line? Being ‘trans’ is no longer characterised by the material state of having surgically changed your body, but is now characterised by an immaterial, subjective sense of self. Is Danielle Muscato a woman? How about Stonewall activist, Alex Drummond? Again, where do you draw the line? Is it based on ‘passing’? Do women have to look a certain way? What about Jess Bradley, NUS trans spokesperson, who has been suspended from their position for allegedly flashing ‘her’ erect penis in public? Is this a female crime? Are we as a society prepared to accept that it is now possible for a woman to flash her erect penis in public? To extend this further: are we to now accept the possibility of a woman raping another woman with her penis? If nothing else, this is a huge assault on female solidarity and trust. This may be a crude comparison, and I apologise, but consider other animals: would surgically transplanting the feathers of a male peacock onto a female peacock make the latter male? Of course not. Would castrating and shaving the mane of a male lion make him female? Of course not. So why do we accept that surgery has the power to change sex in human beings?

Having said this, we are told by organisations like Stonewall that trans people who do not undergo surgical interventions are still, in all senses, the other sex. This is absurd. What definition of ‘female’ includes the only sex she is not? The female mammal is characterised by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa). No female mammal can fertilize female gametes. No father is a woman. No man is a woman. A woman is an adult human female. Definitions are, necessarily, exclusionary.

Still, in efforts to be more ‘inclusive’, organisations like Bloody Good Period and Cancer Research are reducing women to their biological functions with terms like “menstruators” and “everyone with a cervix”, respectively. Using such passive terms is explicit dehumanisation: other female animals have cervixes and can menstruate. Perhaps the most Orwellian act of ‘inclusivity’ comes from Healthline, who refer to vaginas as “front holes” in sex-education material. This is clearly offensive and ridiculous. You know this. Yet any woman who protests the erasure of ‘woman’ as a meaningful category is smeared as a ‘TERF’. Women who claim ‘women don’t have penises’ are being investigated by the police for hate crime. This is a laughably grotesque form of sexist injustice. As a leftist, surely you can’t defend this.

These new ideas about gender disproportionately affect women who have their own specific spaces, shortlists and movements. These were created not only to promote solidarity and to address historical disadvantages, but also to safeguard against male violence. The absurd climax of gender activism is that male sex offenders are now being housed in female prisons because they ‘identify’ as women. It seems obvious to me not to lock sex offenders in a space with powerless women, but, again, arguing this position gets you smeared with the slur ‘TERF’ (a term I wish you’d stop using). This may be an uncomfortable truth, but around half of UK trans prisoners are incarcerated for sexual crimes (including rape and paedophilia). This is not to argue that all transwomen are sexually violent, merely to point out that this is over double the 19% figure for sexual violence across the prison population as a whole. Why is this? These are questions we need to be free to ask, alongside many other questions: why are gender identity clinics seeing such dramatic increases in teenage girls with mental health issues and autism? Yet events organised by women to discuss these issues are being systematically shut down. Do you defend this assault on women’s democratic right to free speech and assembly?

I know you have many trans friends, some I know and am also very fond of. I understand that you have seen them struggle and that you naturally want to defend them. As with any feminist position, I am not attacking any individual male or denying their struggles. I am trying to objectively point to facts. Someone told me that in taking a gender-critical position, I am viewing trans people as “either mentally ill or immoral” and that this is cruel and unfair. I sympathise with their point, but this isn’t my position. This reminded me of CS Lewis’ argument that Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. Like CS Lewis, this activist excluded another possibility: simply being mistaken, which is where I sit. I worry that a lot of young trans people have misread their gender dysphoria as signalling that they are literally the other sex. But “Trans Women Are Women” was meant to be compassion, not truth.

Robert Lindsay #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Female Rule or Male Rule simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on male views or female views.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society Amidst the Ruins
Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with a woman, looks at a woman or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with women, men looking at women and men asking out women from the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right. This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first. If you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.” If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent, a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing. Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who says he thinks about or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old girl, a “child.”
Being aroused by a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old girl.
Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia” and if minors are caught have such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend minors of either sex. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
A man who speaks to a female minor is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to a female minor is if he is scheming to have sex with her.
In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule which is the rule of Emotion over Logic. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

Paul&sandi #fundie charismanews.com

[regarding the subpoena of the Houston pastors]

DD.......this idea was posted by a Riopaz and written by "Godisgood". If the mayor wants to hear from the Christians, then she should hear from all the Christians......

I've enclosed a note that just needs to be cut and paste into one's mail, signed and then e-mailed to "mayor@houstontx.gov.

Dear Mayor Parker,
We understand that you are a homosexual woman. We respect that you have the freedom to choose to live in whatever way you decide to live.
Christians who follow God's Word / The Bible, know that God considers homosexuality to be very sinful. The Bible is very clear about that, and yet Christians know that people have freedom to live the way they want, and must not insist on people doing as Christians would wish them to do...
You may not be a Christian who sees God's Word as authoritative, but many Christians believe God's Word to be the truth. We will disagree with your choice, and that is our privilege as individuals, don't you agree?
Here are 5 reasons why some people disagree that homosexuality is harmless and/or good:
1) Design – male and female bodies have complimentary sexual organs, where as male and male or female and female are not complimentary;
2) Hurt – the male homosexual actions especially can cause many physical, and mental problems – we do see higher depression and suicide rates among the homosexual community, as compared to the heterosexual one;
3) Lies – the homosexual activists paint homosexuality as a good life, and that it is not a choice, and yet ex-gay individuals very much disagree. One man called homosexuality a cult, as he died of AIDS, abandoned by his homosexual friends;
4) The Bible speaks against homosexuality – See Genesis 2:18-25 & 19:1-38; Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13; Judges 19:22; 1Kings 14:24; Proverbs 14:12; Mark 10:6-9; Romans 1:21-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 & 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:16-21; Ephesians 5:1-21; 1Thessalonians 4:1-8. 2Timothy 1:10-11; Jude 1:7; Revelations 21:8. (Here is one of the verses: Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”;
5) Conscience – many people feel in their consciences that homosexuality is morally wrong.

As a member of the Christian community who is concerned about your welfare, I ask you to first consider your lifestyle choice as being an individual one, that others may not agree with; and second, that you would reconsider your request for records of dialogue and communication between pastors and their congregation members. I really do believe that Christians will never back down on this issue, as it is an issue of truth and integrity for us.

Sincerely,
Your name here"
Let's send her some love from the Christian community. God bless.

thespanishcel & Arthur Copenhauer #sexist incels.co

(thespanishcel)

Incel trait: Autistic rage when you see news of foid teacher fucking male student

-Foid reaction: If he was hot I would do the same teehee
-Chad reaction: This happened to me too
-Normie reaction: Nice lol I wish that was me in middle or high school some guys are lucky
-Soyboy reaction: Yasssss queen so empowering age is just a number don't let society blame you
-Incel reaction: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I wanna die why is the world so unfair

(Arthur Copenhauer)

The reaction is different to male and female predators because of the ingrained societal perception that females are always under threat from male aggression, and that males cannot truly be victims to women. The hilarious irony of this, is that to have these differing reactions, the underlying implication is that males are inherently superior to females, and nothing females can do to males can truly harm them. While females are so pathetic and fragile that any male "aggression" will destroy their lives.

In other words, every NPC who freaks out about a male predator and doesn't care about a female predator, deep-down accepts that males are inherently superior.

Dennis Prager #fundie jewishjournal.com

[T]he Torah prohibits men from wearing women's clothing, and women from wearing male garb. For the Torah, the distinction between men and women is fundamental to creating civilization. When the human being is created, the Torah emphasizes: "Male and female He created them." And that distinction is made manifest in the commandments against men and women wearing the clothing of the opposite sex.

But for most modern Jews, the Torah's male-female distinction is anachronistic at best and bigoted at worst.

That is, of course, what much of secular society now believes. Therefore, men who feel that they are women - even if they remain fully male anatomically and biologically - are now admitted to all-women's colleges. And a biological and anatomical male can play on women's sports teams, thereby depriving a natural woman of a place on the team and giving their team an unfair advantage in almost any sport.

Likewise, a Southern California synagogue has hired as its director of education a biological female rabbi who identifies as male, wears masculine clothing, is referred to as male and insists on being called by her/his given female name. Obviously, the congregation and the rabbi believe that the Torah's view on gender distinction is irrelevant.

So, then, here is the question: How do Jews who support ending gender distinctions - electing boys as homecoming queens, admitting males who believe themselves to be females into high school girls' locker rooms and into all-women colleges, allowing anatomical males to play on women's sports teams, hiring as female rabbis who identify as males and yet insist on being called by a female name - know that they are right?

[...]

They will likely answer "compassion." This is entirely understandable. [...] But compassion, while one of the beautiful traits in personal life, is almost never sufficient to determine social policy.

Take the problem of admitting anatomical males into girls' locker rooms. It may be compassionate to allow the male who identifies as a female to do so - but it isn't compassionate to the girls who do not wish to have a naked male in their bathroom or locker room. Why is their privacy and why are all their feelings of no importance? Is that compassionate?

Or take race-based affirmative action. It seems compassionate to Blacks to lower academic admissions standards on their behalf given America's history of racism. But this policy has hurt far more Black students than it has helped. As study after study, and common sense, have shown - most recently by Stuart Taylor Jr. of the Brookings Institution - too many Black students have been admitted to universities in which academic standards are at a higher level than their K-12 education has prepared them for. One result has been a disproportionately low college graduation rate among Black students. Had these often promising and hard-working young Black men and women been admitted to colleges with academic demands commensurate with their academic background and abilities, they would have prospered.

[...]

If the Torah is not our guide, who or what will be? By dropping the Torah and substituting compassion as standards, we are creating a Brave New World in which definitions of male and female no longer have meaning, are regarded as subjective and are completely interchangeable. If you think this is a better world, the Torah is indeed essentially useless as a guide to life. If, however, you think we are playing with fire and that future generations will pay a big price for this unprecedented experiment, the Torah will have, once again, proven itself indispensable.

E S #transphobia #pratt youtube.com

Around 32:00 - the reason trans lesbians are "cringy" is that they are HETEROSEXUAL MALES with a fetish. They may "identify" as women, but they are MALES. Part of the trans ideology is that those males should be able to obtain legal status as "females" and thus be granted access to spaces heretofore restricted from males because they are spaces where FEMALES are vulnerable. This should creep you and everybody else out; it is cringy. The legal fiction of "males becoming females" and the reverse needs to stop.

Dota #fundie archive.today

A recent incident marks an interesting twist in the God awful culture war that plagues the Anglosphere. A former member of Planet Fitness had her membership cancelled for protesting the presence of a transvestite in the women’s locker room. Planet Fitness pursued the safest (politically correct) route by getting rid of the complaining woman instead of ejecting the transvestite. Social Justice Warriors (Cultural Marxism’s shock troops) promptly and predictably rushed to the gym’s defense for defending transgender rights.

Social Justice Warriors may claim this incident as a victory for their demented cause, however, a large number of women and feminists are quite wary of transvestites invading their spaces.

SJWs risk alienating the left’s most pampered pet class by dismissing their concerns as illiberal. Can feminists keep transvestites from invading female spaces?

Feminists are ill-equipped to fight this battle
I personally do not believe that transvestites should be allowed access to women’s washrooms as it is a genuine safety issue. Having said this, I can’t resist the instinct to bathe in a surging tide of schadenfreude whenever women whine about the invasion of their space. The irony is especially delicious considering that transvestites have begun invading female space using exactly the same language of “Equality” and anti-foundationalist logic that feminists have historically used to invade male spaces. It is utterly amusing to listen to women pine for a safe space that allows them to be women. No such courtesy is extended to men who must endure female incursions into their spaces (whether Golf courses or online game servers) that often result in the feminization of those spaces. Female solipsism is often amusing to observe from a distance.
These developments are ultimately the dead end of feminist ideology. Traditionalists have long held that gender and sex are irrevocably linked, yet feminists in their infinite wisdom have decreed otherwise; thereby sacrificing empiricism and science on the alter of ideology. The Inner Party would be pleased, 2 + 2 = 5. Feminists have long argued that Gender (and not genetics/sex) is instrumental in defining an individual’s personality and being. Gender, according to these ‘intellectuals’, is socially constructed and thus inherently flexible. Biological differences between the sexes (with the possible exception of strength) are dismissed (such as IQ) as Patriarchal controls aimed at suppressing the interests of women. If this ideology, grounded neither in reason nor science, is taken to its logical conclusion it must follow that transvestites are just as female as biologically born females. They are simply exercising their autonomy in choosing to identify as females and thus have every right to access female only spaces.
Feminists that oppose the transvestite incursion (not all of them do) are incapable of ideologically repelling this invasion because their adversaries have effectively used their own ideology against them. Planet Fitness acted well within the bounds of feminist ideology and SJWs acknowledged it with their support. When little 6 year old Suzy gasps at the sight of another woman’s penis in the restroom her mother can knowingly tell her that this is the price they must pay for equality.

Blogger Dalrock said it best: “Feminists get sick on their own dog food.

Bon appétit, feminists.”

Admin #transphobia #kinkshaming feministwiki.org

Transgender ideology

Transgender ideology is a loose catch-all term referring to philosophies, world views, and dogmatic statements adhered to by political activists who see themselves as trying to uphold the human rights of transgender people. The political movement of furthering these ideologies is called the transgender movement. Feminists tend to use these terms critically when pointing out sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic aspects of the movement. Those who support the transgender movement tend to oppose the term transgender ideology, likening it to phrases such as homosexual agenda which is used to ascribe a sinister intent to gay/lesbian/bisexual rights activists.

The practice of supporting transgender ideology is called transgender activism (often shortened trans activism) and a person who follows this practice is called a transgender activist (often shortened trans activist). The word "transgender" in the phrase "transgender activist" is not to be understood as an adjective for the person in question (i.e. "an activist who happens to be transgender") but as a reference to the activism they practice (i.e. "an activist supporting transgender ideology"). Many trans activists are not transgender themselves.

The term trans rights activist (shortened TRA) is sometimes used for its similarity to men's rights activist (shortened MRA). Just like so-called MRAs claim to support men's human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism, TRAs claim to support transgender human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism.

Aspects

Trans women are women

One of the core dogmata of the transgender movement is the statement that trans women are women (and the less often repeated trans men are men). Under this view it's important to write trans woman as two words (adjective and noun) and not transwoman, to stress the fact that so-called trans women are literally a subtype of women, just like white women, black women, short women, tall women, and so on. The statement "trans women are women" is not meant as a vague slogan of moral support, but in a literal sense.
Since the statement contradicts the dictionary definition of the word "woman" (adult human female), it implies that a different definition would be better. When asked about this, transgender activists usually avoid providing an actual definition. Most attempts tend to revolve around a circular definition, such as "anyone who identifies as a woman, is a woman." As such, the statement "trans women are women" is probably best described as a dogma.
The idea that transwomen are literally women is taken as the basis for many problematic conclusions, such as: transwomen deserve to partake in women's sports, transwomen should be seen as part of the natural dating pool of lesbians (see also cotton ceiling), transwomen deserve to use all female facilities, enter female-only spaces and events, speak on women's rights as women, and so on.

Gender identity

The idea that "trans women are women" is usually backed by a belief in an essential, inborn, and immutable "gender identity" that every person supposedly possesses.[6] Transwomen are said to be real women on the grounds that they possess a "female gender identity" which they are said to share with women. Likewise for transmen and a "male gender identity" that is supposedly shared by all men.
Just like transgender activists refuse to provide an objective definition of womanhood, they tend to refuse defining gender identity on any objective terms. Usually, when explaining how a person has discovered their gender identity, one hears references to sexist stereotypes ascribed to womanhood and manhood. When confronted directly however, transgender activists refuse the notion that gender identity is based entirely on those stereotypes. Since no objective measure exists at all, they are effectively forced to accept the claims of anyone and everyone regarding what their gender identity is. Thus we see transwomen with full beards and intact male anatomy, who are said to be literally real women like any other.
Transgender children
Since gender identity is said to be inborn, it follows that some children would be transgender, and only need to find this out. Once it's found out, the only way forward is to support the child in its transgender identification. This leads to the transgender activist "affirm-only" approach towards youth, where for instance a boy who says "I wish I was a girl" or "I'm actually a girl" is from that point on treated as if the child is literally a girl. (Given a female name, referred to by female pronouns, asked to be considered a girl by others, and so on.) Likewise for girls who express that they wish they were a boy, or claim that they are internally a boy. Trans activists are opposed to the alternative "watchful waiting" approach.
The trans activist affirm-only approach has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[7] Parents concerned over this model of treatment published a long criticism and launched a petition reaching 1,200 signatures.[8] Psychologist James Cantor also published a fact-check article criticizing the AAP's decision.
Trans activists usually support giving puberty blocking medication such as Lupron to children who think they are transgender.[7] These children may be as young as 10 years old.

Cisgender people oppress transgender people

Another core tenet of transgender ideology is the notion that cisgender people oppress transgender people, just like how men oppress women, white Americans oppress black Americans, or how straight people oppress gay men and lesbian women.[11][12] As such, when a man identifies as a transwoman, his position relative to that of a woman turns from being her oppressor to someone who is oppressed by her. His male privilege is denied as he is now considered a woman, and the fact that he is a transgender woman means that he is oppressed by so-called cisgender women. Further, being both a woman and transgender means he is considered to suffer under two axes of oppression, akin to how black women suffer both from racism and sexism. This way, a white man suddenly becomes comparable to a black woman with regards to oppressive power dynamics in society.
As per the principle of intersectionality (appropriated from black feminism), transgender activists often say that the feminist movement should not only include transwomen's concerns, but outright center them in many discussions, as otherwise the feminist movement might fail to sufficiently address their concerns.

Collusion with "sex work" activism

For reasons not entirely clear, many if not most transgender activists also seem to support the "sex work" movement.[13] Possible explanations for this collusion might be:
* Both movements stem from queer ideology, which is based on transgression of social norms without regard to ethical concerns
* The transgender movement being dominated by autogynephilic men who are interested in upholding a society in which women exist for male sexual pleasure
* Anti-feminists supporting both the transgender movement and the "sex work" movement, simply because they see both of them as weapons against women's liberation

JD Unwin #fundie returnofkings.com

A few articles on ROK have touched upon basic biblical wisdoms and how they can apply to us here in the manosphere. What they haven’t elaborated upon is just how useful God’s biblical advice is regarding the leadership role of men and what His vision is for the interactions of men and women.

It goes without saying that God views (through his representatives) the phenomena of females controlling males aka feminism as utterly revolting. To that effect, I’m going to list just three verses for your perusal. These are from the Old Testament, so a proper temporal context is recommended.

1. Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

“…thy desire shall be to thy husband…rule over thee” is key. Here in the Old Testament, God himself is essentially saying that a woman’s natural state is to long for a husband, and a man’s natural role is to be a ruler over his wife. She can thank her actions in the Garden of Eden for this little fact (as well as the punishment suffering) which most of us are already familiar with. Paul later adapted this to mean “head” for the New Testament Christian but a leadership role is apparent in either case.

How many examples have we seen in society where females have claimed that they don’t need men, yet in magazines and even within their own bizarre behaviors the truth has shown much to the contrary?

With regard to marriage, the feminist movement (along with homosexuals and the pro-abortion supporters) has long tried to wage war on this religious institution for the purpose of marginalizing the role that heterosexual husbands and fathers have played. This is because when you divorce the natural leadership role of the husband from the relationship, you allow for the female to interpret the roles in marriage, parenting, and sexuality as she sees fit, or more appropriately, as she is told it should fit.

Most females are natural copycats, and possess conformist thinking rather than critical thinking. If this was not the case, Oprah and Dr. Oz would not hold the kind of hypnotic power over females that they financially enjoy today. Today’s elitist feminists (female and male) have learned to tap into that group-think power by indoctrinating other females into their ranks in order to get them to support this SJW cause or that one.

2. Pro 31:3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

What the bible (King Lemuel specifically) is saying here is pretty simple: don’t waste all your energies on the pursuit of females because they will bring about your ruin. Don’t become a beta man who orbits a female like a satellite does a planet.

How many modern day kings have had their downfall financially and otherwise, because they chose to spend too much effort on chasing tail? Gary Hart could be considered an example. His presidential candidacy was torpedoed because of his infidelities. While Bill Clinton proved that venery doesn’t necessarily prevent one from obtaining the presidency, he nonetheless endured much deserved humiliation for his philandering endeavors and he is still considered a joke even today. You are more than the sum of your reproductive parts, brother.

3. Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

This one from Isaiah is pretty profound, and speaks volumes about how things were even back then. It seems that females have been in the business of trying to control men (through themselves and betas) for years. In addition, the modern day interpretation of “children are their oppressors” can easily apply to millennials and how they are led astray by feminist indoctrination in media and of course in social justice schools of so called higher thought.

Regrettably, these millennials end up furthering SJW causes as they advance in age and take up positions of power and influence, perpetuating the cycle of culture rot more and more. Furthermore, allowing a woman or beta male to hold a position of influence within society allows for anti-masculine teachings to become commonplace to the detriment of society as a whole.

“Destroying the way of thy paths” is therefore prophetic with regard to academic institutions, custody cases, and gender-based affirmative action initiatives which all have the common denominator of transforming females into the ersatz dominant sex.

The modern day feminist movement recognizes the red pill wisdom of the Bible as an unacceptable threat, which is why they’ve tried their best to discredit it as misogynistic, dismiss it as irrelevant, and sabotage it through the phenomena of feminized churches. Too many beta Christian males have been molded into religious feminists as a result of that last one.

Regardless of all these circumstances, the Bible is still considered the world’s most popular book and it will withstand social justice fads until the inevitable book burnings that come with a full-scale tyrannical takeover. Even an atheist red piller who frequents ROK or other sites on the manosphere can appreciate what the Bible is talking about here.

Various Commenters #racist #sexist amren.com

RE: Black Rule: Stories from the New South Africa, 2011-2015

(Saul)

South Africa is in freefall. There is nothing that can save it now. Whites can save themselves only by segregating from the negro. If I were the leader of 1 million well armed white men, this negro worship would end. I would hold TV networks responsible for what they broadcast. If they air something that enflames the negro, I would shut them down. In a white homeland, negroes would be forbidden. This is the only way now.

Sweden has passed the Congo and is nipping at the heels of South Africa for rape capital of the world. Why? Because white women have more political power in Sweden than anywhere else in the world. There is no point to a white homeland - literally not worth the moving costs - if women are still allowed to vote, sit on juries, and hold political office. They will simply import Africans and Arabs to rape and murder.

The feminist white woman is the architect of the destruction of the Western world. Still vindictive, shrill, irrational after 50 years and show no signs of wanting to protect it. They have sided with every grievance group against the white hetero male. They show no sign of growing up sadly.

It's simply evolution. It's not something they can avoid. The same behavior is displayed by all sexually dimorphic mammals.

Think of the life cycle of a lion. A male lion will find a mate and have several cubs. The female is always on the lookout for aggressive males outside of her pride. She will entice any that she finds to come and fight her male. If the outsider male wins, he will kill her cubs and mate with her right then and there. The father lion always gathers up the bodies of his dead cubs and lays down beside them to slowly die of blood loss and infection while the mother of those cubs mates with the male who killed them.

When you hear of the Rotherham and Malmo rape gangs, as well as how white women defend them, understand that no words can sway a lioness to fight to save her children. Women are no different. They cannot be convinced.

Repeal the 19th. Repeal the Fifth Reform.

(CMK)

Your analogy is made even more powerful by the fact that the male allows the female to do this: he allows her to sabotage his pride, and risk the death of his children. It's the same in the West today: females only get away with this because the men allow them to. I suspect that, if lions have the mental capacity to think this far, the defeated male lion doesn't resist and kill the subversive female because he believes that it's simply the way things are in the world. Western men are the same: they don't understand that there was a time when women didn't have as much as they do now, and that the problems which exist now were more unimaginable than fantasies then.

I'm not advocating for killing women, but you get the point.

(Robert Kelly)

Sky News went to a township near Johannesburg to do our own impromptu survey asking men whether they had ever forced a woman to have sex. . .

In total, 28 out of the 38 that answered said they had raped a woman, and many even explained how and why. [Sky News, September 19, 2013]

And white men are accused of being the paragon of rapists and sex fiends by feminists everywhere. The only reason why women have rights is because white men have made it possible. If white men disappeared tonight and white women were left at the tender mercies of black and brown men, the above would be the result.

Left to their own devices, I don't think black and brown men see anything wrong with forcing themselves on a woman. To them, rape would only be wrong if another man raped a woman that "belonged" to him and even then, that's because of property rights not because he thinks rape is wrong.

(IstvanIN)

I know we shouldn't judge a book by its cover but look at those pictures above. Or look at the pictures of any of the blacks who have murdered young White people. The White young men and women are beautiful, the blacks not just beastly but clearly unevolved. They are not us. They are not our evolutionary, moral or intellectual equals. How did the charade of equality ever take such a foothold? How could so many White people be convinced of such an absurd idea?

Great Post - I really think their hatred of us and the unspeakable violence directed at us is precisely this - pathological envy or jealousy of our (relative) beauty and we must be destroyed, no matter how successful the black person is, he or she has pretty much told whites they despise them. Their natural enemy is the mirror and we can never make that right. The contrived bravado, arrogance, third - person references, huge gold chains, "grills", speech and dress codes, even the way they hold a glock, screams animus and insecurity.

And that is why, I am sure, so many black women go over the top with hair coloring, make-up, hair styles and clothes. They know they can never look like us no matter how much they repaint the old barn.

(Vir magnus)

In recent years, the white race has been portrayed to be the utmost perpetrators of racism, injustice, misogyny, homophobia, brutality, and genocide; they bring nothing but destruction. If this is all accurate, then one can only assume that South Africa would benefit considerably from the transfer of white power to black power within their government. Contrary to the fallacies that liberal professors convey into the minds of our youth, the complete opposite was true.
No one will discuss the fact that South Africa is now the headquarters of rape and HIV, that "94%" of murderers face no punishment. And that this trend worsens as the white population decreases.
This should come as no surprise, given that the average IQ of Africa as a whole stands at less than 70. It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict a rapid decline in the standard of living of South Africans post Apartheid.

I am curious to know if Robin Diangelo's anti white conceptions would change if she were to take a two year trip to Nyanga, South Africa. Perhaps gang rape would be enough to change her mentality.

(Frank Jones)

A more grotesque outcome one can scarcely imagine. Apartheid was a more humane and eminently more sensible system of governance.

rueangel #fundie disqus.com

rueangel:
Well, certainly, any right thinking person must agree, that, any ,..well rounded,..5 year old should have a working knowledge of ,..male on male anal sex,..but perhaps, the subjects of the use of ,..whips, or fisting,.. should be not be introduced until the child is, at least, 6,..
Ya think,.?

Sally Edwards:
I'm not surprised this story outrages you if that's the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of homosexuality. Let's just take the most extreme sexual practices and define them all by that. By the way, where did you ever get the idea that straight people WEREN'T into all the things you listed?

rueangel:
So,.. where id you ever get the idea that I thought that these practices were limited to gay males,.?
But, anyway, while the perversions listed above are ,..occasionally, practiced by,..some,.. herteros, they are key component among gay males, & I believe that fisting is, pretty much, a gay male practice

Sally Edwards:
Practiced by what, a fraction of a percentage of them? You can't single out an entire group for any specific sexual practice. And no, I Googled "fisting" and there are entire books written about it.

rueangel:
The fact of the matter is, that, male on male anal penetration of the anus , by the penis, is the most common male homosexual activity. And,..
Such male on male anal penetration of the anus , will, in time, cause damage to the anus, & leave a percentage of those who engage in that practice to be left,..' pooing,.. in a bag that is strapped to their leg
And, not to mention the negative health affects of poking a penis around into all of that ,..poo.
But, anyway, I fail to understand why grade schoolers need o be subjected to any description of any homosexual act, whether,..'extreme',.. or not. I mean..what's the point?
But anyway, lets get real here,..In that the ,.'REAL",.. purpose of introducing the subject of homosexuality, into grade schools. & depicting it in such a ,.'positive',.. light, is to,.'brainwash',... a portion of those grade schoolers into,..'becoming',.. homosexual themselves,..which is a part of the ,.'NEW WORLD ORDER',.. agenda which includes the destruction of the family, & population control,..
And,..
I will add to that, the fact that the Zionist owned, media, is pushing this homosexual agenda, to the limit, as a means of destroying the moral fiber of the Goyim, in order to destroy western civilization, & to, thereby, genocide the White race, & thereby leave ,..'World, Zionist Jewry',.. ruling over a world of ,..'brown,.. people, with average IQs of about 70.
I refer you to the,..'KALERGI PLAN',.. which lays out this demonic, Zionist, Rothschild, conspiracy, in detail.
I note, that, while, on one hand, the Zio media, & Zio controlled educational system is pushing this homosexual agenda, in the public schools, I doubt that it is being pushed in ,..'JEWISH',.. schools, & while it is also being pushed by Zionist interests in Europe & Canada, & Australia,. as far as I know, I don't think that it is being pushed on Jewish children in Israel,..
Just turnover any rock, & underneath,it, you will find there lurking a Zionist Jew,..
Google,..'KALERGY PLAN',..

Sally Edwards:
Here’s how we know your information is a crock.
Anal sex is very common between straight couples too. How many women do I see with a bag to crap in? Come to think of it, how many gay men do I ever see who have to “go” in a bag? Zero.

rueangel:
The fact of the matter is, that, the anus is designed for,..one way,..traffic & anal sex can lead to damage that can lead to the necessity of using a ,..bag, that is strapped to the leg, & also it can spread diseas,..Did you ever head of AIDS,.? & just because you never saw such a bag, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
But anyway, back to the issue at hand, which is, whether, of not homosexuality should be pushed onto grade schoolers, in such a way as to encourage it practice, by children that have not yet developed their own ,..'natural, inherent, hertero sexual nature,..
As in my comment above, I point out that there is an agenda afoot, to increase the incidence of homosexuality, as a means of cutting down the birthrates, this agenda, being pushed, largely by Zionist/Rothschild/Soros NWO type entities.

Sally Edwards:
Of course 6 year olds don't need to know the particulars of anal sex, but who's talking about teaching them that in the first place? Especially when you don't teach straight intercourse to 6 year olds, either.
It's like I said to Amos earlier, you teach children about homosexuals by simply saying sometimes a boy will fall in love with another boy or a girl will fall in love with another girl. That's all you need to say.
What you've been taught about people with damaged anuses is a lie. That doesn't happen. Or if it does, it's rare and would not be specific to homosexuals. Many homosexual men don't even engage in anal sex.

rueangel:
Back in the,..'olden days',.. when I wen to grade school,, back in the first half of the last century, we somehow managed to get through K to 12 without the subject of homosexuality ever being brought up in a classroom, but somehow we managed to grow up & get through life, without, such indoctrination,..having learned through the grapevine at about age 10, or so, that there were some guys, that liked to suck on each other's peepee weenies, & we learned that these guys were called queers,..& that was about all we needed to know. It was only , somewhat later that we heard bout anal sex, which we considered to be really,..real;y disgusting.
And, as to the idea that male on male sexual attraction has something to do with ,..'love',.. The fact of the matter is that gay males are notoriously promiscuous, often having hundreds, or even thousands of ,..'partners',.. in their lifetimes.
And male on male anal sex, often has an element of ,..'domination, and/or Sado -masochism involved, especially in rape situations, whether it is male on male, or male on female,..
And
Black males,, especially, , seem to enjoy inflicting pain, and or injury on their victims with their,.. tools.,..which they use as weapons/, of attacks on the anus of their victims..
So sure, I know that herteros also, indulge in anal sex, but that is largely because anal sex is being pushed by the Zio-Media as being, particularly, exciting & ,..'trendy'.
So, I still maintain that there is nothing healthy about anal sex, from either a physical,or a mental point of view,..
And,..
If it is going to be discussed in school, the discussion should consist of warnings against it,..For all of the reasons, mention above & previously,..

HARVARDCRIMSON12 #conspiracy constantsupervision.wordpress.com

The vagina produces a thick fluid known as copulin that has actual mind control effects on a male’s brain. If a man is exposed to a woman’s copulins, over time she will be able to:

1) Change, remove, or insert memories.

2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes.

3) ?Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as “his own ideas” or behavior later.

4) ?Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months).

”Karl Grammer and Elizabeth Oberzaucher, researchers who study how the human scent influences sexual attraction, found that when women are ovulating, they produce pheromones called copulins. Copulins have a distinct smell, which Elizabeth describes as “butter that has gone bad.”

When a man gets a whiff of copulins, his testosterone levels rise. As a result, he secretes androstenone, an odor that repels women who aren’t ovulating.”
Through the process of coupling a female and male will lay relatively still without having sex with the penis inside of the vagina. The process may take up to 15 minutes and works faster and more efficiently when the female is on top of the male. During this period the vagina injects up to 1/2 cup (100 ml) of the copulin fluid into the urethral opening at the tip of the penis, which is chemically attracted to semen, and will follow the semen down the shaft directly into the testicles. After 15 minutes of coupling the copulins will have entered the blood stream and traveled from his testicles up into the hypothalamus (a section of the brain that controls hormones) causing the male to become completely influenced by the needs and suggestions of the female.

Once a hypothalamus is flooded with copulins, the male brain is just sitting on idle, with only the bare minimum of thought process. In this state, the male is probably not thinking of anything at all, but any input from the female will become the male’s singular focus.

After multiple couplings:

the male hypothalamus completely ignores his own polypeptides while her copulins are present, even if the female gives no input. Although the male is not forming many original thoughts, the brain is still communicating ideas back and forth; however, these ideas are completely regulated by what the male already knows the female expects.

Some women report having conflicting issues of morality concerning coupling and the effects of copulins producing a false sense of happiness in the male, and others more boldly state they see no problem with coupling and have ”coupled” their husbands while he was asleep. This is usually done in the morning when the male is naturally erect from a relaxing night of sleep. Women have given testimonies about the influence of coupling has on their husbands. For example, they routinely do all the housework and are more eager to spend time with the children.

Playing the field

”Over time, the presence of a womans distinctive copulins and hormonal scent becomes addictive to the male, which is why a young emperor or prince was often given a large number of females that he could rotate between, never allowing himself to become addicted or under the spell of one womans copulins.”

Warning

Copulins are often sold over the counter and online in 100% concentrated form that comes in a perfume spray. This perfume spray will have the same effects on the male as the coupling process and will enhance her ability to control a male.
Copulin sprays create the highest state of sexual euphoria known to man. So intense they can become mind controlling and last for days. Copulins will excite and entice any man or any woman individually, or both genders at the same time. Beware!

Synopsis

You see, the chemistry of a women is to attract humans [in dangerous ways], specifically males and more specifically the sperm, but the scent of their copulins will mentally weaken a person and systematically works to relax them (regardless of gender), artificially making them seem safe. Whether it be to tell them their secrets (instinctively they gather and pass along information this way) or to distract and sexually arouse someone. That’s just how those chemicals effect the polypeptides in the hypothalamus gland of your brain. The colliding forces of copulins will also cause collective thinking in group of women, especially if they are ovulating at or near the same cycle. Fifteen minutes is all it takes for copulins to take over a majority of the hypothalamus gland. Even less time if you are having sex with them . If you are within 3 feet of an ovulating woman or group of them YOUR polypeptides are being replaced at a rate of 5% a minute with THEIR copulins. Yes, you are being chemically drugged by women, even if you are a woman. Over time the brain becomes addicted to a particular scent of copulins, which is why a young emperor or prince was often given a large number of concubines (female sex workers) that he could rotate between, never allowing himself to become addicted or under the spell of one womans copulins. Lastly, when around 80% of your polypeptides have been replaced they will they are able to:

1) Change, remove, or insert memories.
2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes.
3) Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as “his own ideas” or behavior later.
4) Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months).

Good luck! It’s a jungle out there!

vintologi_se #transphobia #sexist #crackpot #quack docdroid.net

(This is from “Transmaxxing Manifesto”, the whole thing is 36 pages of PDF so there’s a lot of insanity there, this is just a small part.)

People improving their lives by transitioning is a beautiful thing

Usually when someone live a shit life as a male he will just complain about how women are unfair to him or he will spend his time on various copes such as videogames and anime.

It's very rare for miserable males to actually improve themselves via medical transition, it usually takes pretty bad gender dysphoria for them to actually take action and even then many fail to act in time.

1.Males transitioning to female makes the world more beautiful (less disgusting males).

2.People that transition and become beautiful benefit from it

3.people around them will see them improve instead of suffering or killing themselves.

4.males that transition are politically useful for my goals (maybe also your goals).

5.trans girls are high in demand and can allow cis lesbians to have biological children with a partner they find attractive.

6.voluntary chemical castration makes a male less likely to hurt other (and himself in the process).

I find it strange that people rarely object to psychiatry that outright harms people and costs billions of dollars each year but they complain about the government helping trans individuals transition even though it's one of the few mental health interventions that actually works.

Forced feminization

A lot of individuals cannot make it as males and will thus be forced to live as female or suffer the brutalsocial consequences of being male, this is especially true for females with gender dysphoria, they mightnot like their female bodies but medical transition would still be a disaster for them.

Most males are no longer needed in our modern society, technology has made name strength mostly obsolete and most males do not have any mental abilities not commonly found in females. Less than 10% of males are needed for sex and reproduction, most males are just a burden to society and thus we need to increase the number of males that transition to female, especially individuals who would clearlybenefit from changing their biological sex.

Most males hold into their male pride but that will soon crash down as females raise their standards (because they can) and even more males lose their jobs to automation.

Currently forced treatments are justified by "danger to themselves and others", you do not need to be convicted of an actual crime. If we are going to treat people against their will that shall include HRT.

A nurse will regularly visit your home. Your pants will be pulled down and soon you will feel a needle inside your muscle and soon the injection, estradiol valerate, it will be slowly absorbed by your body.

At first it was just pills given orally, now it's injections and at this point hiding the breasts is very difficult. The estrogen will make you more emotional and thus you will probably start crying due to theintense humiliation you received by the new government controlled by believers of vintologi. You crying and begging will of course not stop the nurse from doing the injection.

After a while you will stop resisting and accept your face as a girl. It will become increasingly difficult to hide what's happening to you, your breasts getting bigger, face feminized, brain feminized. Once you have been forced to be on HRT long enough there will not be much left of your old self, the hormones have changed your brain beyond recognition and now there is no longer any going back, not only do you look like a girl now, you are now also like a girl mentally.

There are a lot of males who would benefit from transitioning but they are not willing or able to actually transition, this can be due to social factors but in most cases the issue is ignorance, people simply don't know what's best for them. It's a difficult and scary decision to make to start HRT and this is why a lot of people fantasize about forced feminization, often they try to brainwash themselves via sissy hypno porn.

Chemical castration drastically reduces testosterone and thereby sex drive, sexual desires and aggression. Thus a lot of males that are currently dysfunctional in our society would become functionalif they start on HRT, this would allow them to avoid being jailed

Child molesters have drastically low recidivism rates when chemically castrated (1-4%) vs non castrated (40-65%)

https://www.wfsbp.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Treatment_Guidelines/Paraphilias_Guidelines.pdf

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764552

Currently just being suicidal alone can warrant forced treatments by harmful and dangerous psychiatric drugs, forcing some males to take hormone replacement therapy can thus be justified in an attempt to prevent them from killing themselves using the same standard.

Innate gender identity?

Studies on intersex children show that about 40% will identify as female when raised as one, thus gender identity is only partly due to genetics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421518/

This tells us that a lot of people are able to adapt to living as either sex, the brain is flexible and we can adapt to a lot of things. Whether or not an individual will transition is only partly determined by genetics (33% in the case of MtF)

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

universallyabhorred #sexist incels.co

The Best Solution To Inceldom Is Legalizing Heterosexual Rape

Many people have this extreme aversion towards the act of rape as if there is extreme physical harm or great trauma to the female, even though in most cases there is not because the female is unconscious or tied up. Females certainly want us to believe that rape is a horrible atrocity even though they constantly fantasize about it and love being dominated.

In reality laws against sexual assault/battery are just a systematic form of lookism against men. Females even abuse these laws by falsely accusing men of rape often for money against rich celebrities like Harvey Weinstein, future regret, to justify infidelity or other reasons to suit their own needs. Also it is important to realize a chad or female will almost never be accused of rape or considered a rapist, it is mostly old, ugly or average men.

If we go by the cuck argument of allowing females to sleep around freely this is because it is considered healthy for females to express their sexuality and explore their bodies. The same logic should be applied to unattractive men. How can unattractive males enjoy the gift of their sexuality if every single female rejects them for factors beyond their control such as face, height and ethnicity? It is hypocritical and I believe the only reason these laws exist is to punish and torture us incels to insanity simply because we lost the genetic lottery. It is also worth noting that society prioritizes female happiness and sexual pleasure over males despite the fact that it is us incel males who have contributed the most to the advancement and development of civilization for most of human history.

There must be legislative change regarding this matter, at the very least laws regarding sexual assault which cover a great scope of acts beyond penetrative vaginal sex such as harassment, stalking, kissing, groping and oral/anal sex need to be repealed. What are your thoughts on this matter?

bob #fundie bobstruth.blogspot.ca

Has ANY female EVER been hurt by rape?

When Bob's mother was growing up the advice or rape that women of Bob's grandmother's generation gave them was "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Feminists have decried this age-old female advice. It perpetuates ancient female knowledge that sex is a normal body activity that can be enjoyable, even if it wasn't her idea. Many years later Bob learned that the counselor's training manual at a local Rape Crisis Center contains advice for counselors to deal with women who enjoyed the rape and had screaming wild orgasms during the rape. Often, according to the manual, it leaves them confused about whether or not they are really a "victim" or a beneficiary of the rape.

Over several decades Bob has known several women who supposedly were raped, or legally were raped. For example, Bob once dated a young woman whose first sexual experience was being raped by a Catholic Priest at the age of 19. She was confused about the theological and religious implications, but she liked the sex well enough to give up celibacy and take up with men like me. One of the young females in Bob's high school had been doing sex with her uncle about once a week since she was 11 years old, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Legally, it was one of the most harshly prosecuted kinds of "rape" despite the lack of harm. The last time Bob saw her she was a well adjusted 29 year old wife and mother who still occasionally met her uncle for sex, and still enjoyed every hot fucking bit of it. The fictional rape of Scarlet by Ret Butler made Gone With the Wind into the best selling novel of all time, and rape continues to be a dominant theme in most female's chosen fiction.

Meanwhile the feminazi has condemned rape as the worst possible crime. Their rape-hate propaganda campaign has made virtually all sex into rape and all men into evil rapists. Any man convicted or who pleads guilty to a rape crime is vilified for life. Forever he must register his location with the blue gun thugs, have his neighbors notified, and not live near any normal location. Often he is driven out of town, every town. And the definition of "rape" has been expanded to include every sexual encounter that the female regrets the next day or the next year. Sex with young women is defined as "rape" for the purpose of vilifying young men, even while the woman is the active sexual aggressor. Sex is defined as "rape" by law when the female has had a few drinks for the purpose of vilifying young men, while a man is responsible for all of his actions such as sex or driving, even when he drank more than she did. An encounter where she went to his hotel room at midnight for the purpose of sex is called "rape" for the purpose of vilifying young men, if she didn't enjoy it as much as she hoped she would. And while it's not "rape" the playful or incidental touching of a girl by a 6 year old boy is now prosecuted criminally as "sexual abuse."

Over the past several decades Bob has read probably thousands of news stories about "rape," known several females who claimed to have a "my rapist," but Bob has never met a woman who suffered any actual harm from rape, by any definition. Now we are not talking about murder of battery which are different crimes. All you hysterical femorrhoids who immediately switch mentally from "rape" to serial murder can back off. Murder is a different topic. We are talking about rape, the forced sexual joining of a man and a female. The humping up and down without her controlling the man and the situation.

We are also not talking about the pain that some virgin women feel during their first sex. Virginal pain is normal to being female and sex regardless of the circumstances. Normal sexual feelings are irrelevant to the topic of rape.

In Bob's experience from talking to many females, the female often got hurt feelings from rape, mostly from the loss of control over the man and the situation. Often feminist females hold onto and nurse their hurt feelings for years or decades, refusing to let it go, waiving "my rapist" like a flag for admission to the feminist victimology club, much like DAR applicants pointing to "my ancestor." But were they hurt by the rape? Other than a few hurt feelings, not at all.

The counselor's guide for the Rape Crisis Center teaches counselors how to convince well fucked women that they are "victims!" when they had a good time getting laid. Grandmother's "relax and enjoy it" would be good advice to many who phone the Rape Crisis Center. But the femorrhoids who staff the Center work in the rape-hate industry. Every rape is a fate worse than death and the female is destroyed for life (don't ask them how). There are many urban legends about some female who almost died from the injuries suffered by rape, but like other urban legends nobody is able to track down who or where it actually happened. The so-called victims are encouraged to dwell on their victimhood, to amplify and magnify, to seek counseling in order to wallow in their hurt feelings. Having a good time and letting it go just isn't acceptable to those who use rape as a weapon in their hate war against men.

Bob has never met or known any woman who was hurt by rape other than a few hurt feelings which would go away quickly if they weren't fed and amplified over and over and over. Let's face it. The insertion of a cock into a cunt is a normal, natural body function for both the man and the female. It's how cunts work and what they do. It's their normal function. There are two billion or more women on earth who, on average, enjoy sex ever week or two. That means that a million women somewhere in the world are enjoying the insertion of a cock into their cunts right now as you read this article. It just doesn't cause physical injury to the female no matter who decided that now would be a good time to do it.

How about you readers? Do you know any female who was actually hurt by being raped, by being forced to accept a man's cock in her cunt? If you do please let us know with specifics, not urban legends. Leave out the mass murder scenarios too, that's murder, not rape. Bob just doesn't think rape actually hurts anyone and therefore is not is a serious crime at all. What do you all say?

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

slimshady #conspiracy #crackpot #sexist incels.co

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.

ROBERT JENSEN #fundie feministcurrent.com

The art of avoiding definitions: A review of ‘Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability’

“Let me define the terms, and I’ll win any debate,” a friend told me years ago, an insight I’ve seen confirmed many times in intellectual and political arenas.

But after reading Jack Halberstam’s new book, Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, I would amend that observation: Debates also can be won by making sure a term is never clearly defined. The transgender movement has yet to offer coherent explanations of the concepts on which its policy proposals are based, yet support is nearly universal in left/liberal circles. Whether or not it was the author’s intention, Trans* feels like an attempt at an outline of such explanation, but I’m sorry to report that the book offers neither clarity nor coherence.

I say sorry, because I came to the book hoping to gain greater understanding of the claims of the transgender movement, which I have not found elsewhere. Halberstam — a professor in Department of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Columbia University — has been writing about this subject for more than two decades and is one of the most prominent U.S. trans* intellectuals. The table of contents looked promising, but the book only deepened my belief that a radical feminist and ecological critique of the transgender movement’s ideology is necessary.

Rather than be defensive about the ambiguity of the transgender argument, Halberstam celebrates the lack of definition as a strength of the movement, an indication that trans* offers deep insights for everyone. If we shift our focus from “the housing of the body” and embrace “perpetual transition” then “we can commit to a horizon of possibility where the future is not male or female but transgender,” he writes. Instead of “male-ish” and “female-ish” bodies we can realize “the body is always under construction” and “consider whether the foundational binary of male-female may possibly have run its course.”

The very act of naming and categorizing imposes limits that constrain the imagination, according to Halberstam, hence the use of the asterisk:

“I have selected the term ‘trans*’ for this book precisely to open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance. As we will see, the asterisk modifies the meaning of transitivity by refusing to situate transition in relation to a destination, a final form, a specific shape, or an established configuration of desire and identity. The asterisk holds off the certainty of diagnosis; it keeps at bay any sense of knowing in advance what the meaning of this or that gender variant form may be, and perhaps most importantly, it makes trans* people the authors of their own categorizations. As this book will show, trans* can be a name for expansive forms of difference, haptic [relating to the sense of touch] relations to knowing, uncertain modes of being, and the disaggregation of identity politics predicated upon the separating out of many kinds of experience that actually blend together, intersect, and mix. This terminology, trans*, stands at odds with the history of gender variance, which has been collapsed into concise definitions, sure medical pronouncements, and fierce exclusions.”

I quote at length to demonstrate that in using shorter excerpts from the book I am not cherry-picking a few particularly abstruse phrases to poke fun at a certain form of postmodern academic writing. My concern is not stylistic but about the arguments being presented. After reading that passage a couple of times, I think I can figure out what Halberstam’s trying to say. The problem is that it doesn’t say anything very helpful.

To be fair, Halberstam is correct in pointing out that the instinct to categorize all the world’s life, human and otherwise — “the mania for the godlike function of naming” — went hand in hand with colonialism, part of the overreach of a certain mix of politics and science in attempting to control the world. But like it or not, humans make sense of the world by naming, which need not go forward with claims of imperial domination or divine insight. We define the terms we use in trying to explain the world so that we can meaningfully communicate about that world; when a term means nothing specific, or means everything, or means nothing and everything at the same time, it is of no value unless one wants to obfuscate.

But, if Halberstam is to be believed, this criticism is irrelevant, because transgenderism “has never been simply a new identity among many others competing for space under the rainbow umbrella. Rather, it constitutes radically new knowledge about the experience of being in a body and can be the basis for very different ways of seeing the world.” So, if I don’t get it, the problem apparently is the limits of my imagination — I don’t grasp the radically new knowledge — not because the explanation is lacking.

After reading the book, I continue to believe that the intellectual project of the transgender movement isn’t so much wrong as it is incoherent, and the political project is not liberatory but regressive. What this book “keeps at bay” is a reasonable, honest request: What does any of this mean?

In other writing — here in 2014 and again in 2016, along with a chapter in my 2017 book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men — I’ve asked how we should understand transgenderism if the movement’s claim is that a male human can actually be female (or vice versa) in biological terms. If transgender signals a dissatisfaction with the culturally constructed gender norms of patriarchy — which are rigid, repressive, and reactionary — I’ve suggested it would be more effective to embrace the longstanding radical feminist critique of patriarchy.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, I want to try another approach, stating simply that I have good reason to believe I’m real, that the human species of which I am a member is real, and that the ecosphere of which we are a part is real. That is, there is a material reality to the world within which I, and all other carbon-based life forms, operate. I cannot know everything there is to know about that material world, of course, but I can trust that it is real.

The cultural/political/economic systems that shape human societies make living in the real world complex and confusing, and the ways those systems distribute wealth and power are often morally unacceptable. But to challenge that injustice, it’s necessary to understand that real world and communicate my understanding to others in clear fashion.

In left/liberal circles, especially on college campuses, “trans*” increasingly is where the action is for those concerned with social justice. It offers — for everyone, whether transgender-identified or not — the appearance of serious intellectual work and progressive politics. Endorsing the transgender project is a way to signal one is on the cutting edge, and work like Halberstam’s is embraced in these circles, where support for the transgender movement is required to be truly intersectional.

My challenge to those whose goal is liberation is simple: How does this help us understand the real world we are trying to change? How does it help us understand patriarchy, the system of institutionalized male dominance out of which so much injustice emerges?

Halberstam likely would put me in the category of “transphobic feminism” for “refusing to seriously engage” with transfeminism, but I am not transphobic (if, by that term, we mean one who is afraid of, or hateful toward, people who identify as transgender). Nor do I refuse to seriously engage other views (unless we describe a critique of another intellectual position as de facto evidence of a lack of serious engagement). I am rooted in radical feminism, one of those “versions of feminism that still insist on the centrality of female-bodied women,” according to Halberstam.

On that point, Halberstam is accurate: radical feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and sexuality. Radical feminists distinguish between sex (male XY and female XX, a matter of biology) and gender (masculinity and femininity, a matter of culture and power), which means that there is no way to understand the rigid gender norms of patriarchy without recognizing the relevance of the category of “female-bodied women.” It’s hard to imagine how the binary of male-female could “run its course” given the reality of sexual reproduction.

This is where an ecological perspective, alongside and consistent with a radical feminist critique, reminds us that the world is real and we are living beings, not machines. In discussing his own top surgery (the removal of breasts), Halberstam speaks of working with the doctor:

“Together we were building something in flesh, changing the architecture of my body forever. The procedure was not about building maleness into my body; it was about editing some part of the femaleness that currently defined me. I did not think I would awake as a new self, only that some of my bodily contours would shift in ways that gave me a different bodily abode.”

We all have a right to understand ourselves as we please, and so here’s my response: My body is not a house that was constructed by an architect but rather — like all other life on the planet — is a product of evolution. I resist the suggestion I can “build” myself and recognize that a sustainable human presence on the planet is more likely if we accept that we are part of a larger living world, which has been profoundly damaged when humans treat it as our property to dominate and control.

This is the irony of Halberstam’s book and the transgender project more generally. After labeling the project of categorizing/defining as imperialist and critiquing the “mania for the godlike function of naming,” he has no problem endorsing the “godlike function” of reshaping bodies as if they were construction materials. There’s a deepening ecological sensibility in progressive politics, an awareness of what happens when humans convince ourselves that we can remake the world and ignore the biophysical limits of the ecosphere. While compassionately recognizing the reasons people who identify as transgender may seek surgery and hormone/drug treatments, we shouldn’t suppress concerns about the movement’s embrace of extreme high-tech intervention into the body, including the surgical destruction of healthy tissue and long-term health issues due to cross-sex hormones and hormone-like drugs.

I have long tried to observe what in rhetoric is sometimes called “the principle of charity,” a commitment in debate to formulating an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible version so that one’s critique is on firm footing. I have tried to do that in this review, though I concede that I’m not always sure what Halberstam is arguing, and so I may not be doing his arguments justice. But that is one of my central points: When I read this book — and many other arguments from transgender people and their allies — I routinely find myself confused, unable to understand just what is being proposed. So, again, I’ll quote at length in the hopes of being fair in my assessment, this time the book’s closing paragraph:

“Trans* bodies, in their fragmented, unfinished, broken-beyond-repair forms, remind all of us that the body is always under construction. Whether trans* bodies are policed in bathrooms or seen as killers and loners, as thwarted, lonely, violent, or tormented, they are also a site for invention, imagination, fabulous projection. Trans* bodies represent the art of becoming, the necessity of imagining, and the fleshy insistence of transitivity.”

Once again, after reading that passage a couple of times, I think I understand, sort of, the point. But, once again, I don’t see how it advances our understanding of sex and gender, of patriarchy and power. I am not alone in this assessment; people I know, including some who are sympathetic to the transgender movement’s political project, have shared similar concerns, though they often mute themselves in public to avoid being labeled transphobic.

I’m not asking of the transgender movement some grand theory to explain all the complexity of sex and gender. I just need a clear and coherent place to start. Asking questions is not transphobic, nor is observing that such clarity and coherence are lacking.

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

The essential thrust of heterosexuality in the male is return to the womb. Since the vagina is the only pathway to the uterus, the vagina becomes the center of sexual attention. Sexual concern with other anatomical structures (such as breasts for the rectum) is quite beside the point, and a substantial segment of the heterosexual subculture looks askance at nonvaginal sex. The heterosexual male thrusts fingers, tongue, and penis into the vagina in a desperate, irrational attempt to find again the security of the womb, to return physically to the womb. Since that attempt can never succeed, heterosexuality is inevitably unsatisfying. But to the extent that the male can re-enter the vagina, through which he traveled when he was expelled by his mother at his birth, heterosexual sex approaches satisfaction. This explains why coitus is the preferred form of heterosexual sex: the tongue cannot penetrate very far into the vagina (and besides, the vagina is a very unsatisfactory object of oralism, for the essence of oralism is taking things into the mouth, not straining the tongue to reach out). Nor can a finger penetrate far. Of the parts of the male body, and the thrust into the vagina, the penis reaches farthest toward the ultimate object, the womb. This fact, combined with the fact that many heterosexual males find pleasurable the sensation arising from the penis's contact with the walls of the vagina, works to push coitus as the prime form of heterosexual sex.

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

Sue Bohlin looks a common myths concerning homosexual behavior that are prevalent in our society. These myths prevent us from looking at homosexuality with a biblical worldview and from dealing with this sin in a loving and consistent manner.

In this essay we’ll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas’ excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement.{1} While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn’t just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.

10% of the Population Is Homosexual.

In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average “Joe College” student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual “civil rights” movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}

Kinsey’s figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it’s valid. It’s not.

People Are Born Gay.

Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data’s not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene “linkage” studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn’t have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay’s famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn’t sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn’t know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn’t make it a normal condition.

Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we’re born with something doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s not true that “God makes some people gay.” All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.

What’s Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?

There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention, like being “best friends” with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God’s plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.

Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really “best friend” status, and that does not require legal protection.

Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine “family” any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.

The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won’t make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very “other” beings–the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn’t work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.

Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.

Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn’t specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?

This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John’s gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don’t record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.

We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God’s created intent for human sexuality: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). God’s plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.

The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay theologians argue that the term “abomination” is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.

Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh’s people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today doesn’t mean none of it does.

The argument that the word “abomination” is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn’t hold water.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}

Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.

Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1). The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don’t believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the “Judge not” verse.

When Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another’s sin. There’s no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn’t necessarily judging.

Imagine I’m speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, “You broke the speed limit back there, ma’am.” Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: “Hey, you’re judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'” The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He’s not judging my character, he’s comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It’s not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That’s judging.

The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

Romans 1:26-27 says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it’s not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.

But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between “true” homosexuals and “false” ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn’t the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men “inflamed with lust” for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.

Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.

I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of “internalized homophobia” and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.

San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report’s numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that’s over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, “I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”{16}

The report’s conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}

Gibson didn’t use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson’s report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: “The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.”{18}

That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it’s not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it’s wrong and harmful behavior.

Mark Shephard #fundie barbwire.com

Just as we in the United States were preparing for the annual celebration, marking the most amazing national experiment in liberty, our nation was mortally wounded.

But make no mistake about its source as it was administered by our own hand and is far more devastating than any external adversary could inflict. The very center of our nation raced to embrace ideas completely contrary to the created order. Those entrusted with the stewardship of our government, drank a lie and have now drunkenly dragged our entire nation into deception branded as truth.

Twice in one week our highest court, having no authority to make law, twisted clear meanings of words to create law out of thin air. When words in law are allowed to take on any meaning, none of our rights as Americans are secure. Truly, we live in an “ends justifies the means” time. Our founding documents were not forged to guarantee particular ends, but rather the means by which we may live free lives to forge our own, individual ends. Yet as of last week, the clear meanings of the laws defining our liberty were thrown aside by an “all-powerful” government of humans presuming themselves superior to nature and nature’s God.

A few thousand years ago our Creator God cast a rainbow in the sky as a sign He would never again destroy mankind with a flood. Thus the rainbow signified God’s protection of, patience with, commitment to and love for humankind, His highest creation. Those who mock the very creation of man, by openly parading unnatural, destructive, unbounded sexuality in streets, legislative bodies and courts, have stolen that very symbol and use it to represent defiance against God and His amazing creation. With God’s symbol of love for His creation, the mockers force their out-of-control perverse sensual ways on our entire nation and beyond, trampling over anyone who dares to question the wisdom of their path. The freedom to express rational thought is all but gone in America today.

Prior to the flood, which is solidly supported by fossil records and anthropological findings throughout the world, man was on a suicidal path. The flood saved mankind from extinction when God put Noah, his family and animals of all species on a very literal floating zoo. He put them on as male and female pairs, not male and male or female and female.

The evil so blatantly paraded in recent years by ISIS and other killers of the innocent has helped me understand why God had to wipe out mankind to save mankind. While we strive against such evil, we must come to terms that we as a nation are not without innocent blood on our hands. Indeed we have “legally” snuffed out over 50 million innocent American lives in the past 40 years by abortion. That is equivalent to wiping out twice the population of Vermont every year; almost 3500 little lives every day for forty straight years!

s0wingseas0n #fundie s0wingseas0n.tumblr.com

This whole Lila Perry shit is ridiculous. Why should a male be allowed in female spaces? Why are the 150 girls who felt uncomfortable with a male in their restroom/locker room being told they are wrong? Lila Perry should use a neutral restroom or the men’s and that’s that. This is proof that we can’t have female safe spaces because men will always try and find a way inside of them.

Femitheist Divine #sexist thefemitheist.blogspot.com

The New World: The Rebirth, Castration Day, Breeders and More

I have written about this multiple times in the past, but due to the fact that I have numerous articles, it appears that people are not able to find every bit of information that I have provided, so I will detail it here.

1) Castration Day: The purpose of this day is to pacify males for further processing, meaning, in the end, the majority of them would eventually be terminated, and this holiday would no longer be entirely relevant at a certain point – the day of the True Rebirth, and the dawn of The New World. It is merely a major point in the short-term solutions for the pacification and so forth of all males.

2) The population of males world-wide for the indefinite future after the implementation of the short-term solutions would be around 10%, for the purposes of practicality. The 10% that remained would be used for the sole purpose of breeding, and nothing more. They would be given enough sustenance and so forth to remain alive, while being held in captivity to keep them from posing a threat to the general population outside (women). They would be allowed visitation by their closest female guardian(s) and or relatives if their closest female guardian(s) or relatives wishes to see them.

3) All males, regardless of age, would be eligible (with the consent of their closest female guardian) for castration. However, their closest female guardian (CFG) would be advised to exempt them from castration and sign them up as a future Breeder (someone used for sample-collection) on the basis of supply-and-demand. If the supply was well enough for the foreseeable future, the CFG would likely be advised to go ahead and have the male castrated, and in The New World, the CFG would likely comply with this. There would be no moral qualm about such an issue, because it would be based entirely on practicality and common knowledge (men need to be castrated to keep women safe) – there would be no emotional attachment to such a process. It would be seen as creating civility in the individual male, not as an act of harm.

4) The purpose of Castration Day is not to shame men, but to liberate all people and to civilize men. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is the only way.

5) Until science could be used to create genetically strong female progeny from two female parents (The Rebirth), the world population of males would remain around 10%. Once science was able to complete such a process (The Rebirth), the world-wide population of men would be held at around 1%, just in case. Any males who were born after this would be either disposed of or kept based entirely upon foreseeable practicality and potential for genetic efficiency. No emotional attachment would dictate otherwise, and if it did, the woman with said attachment would be reformed.

6) Some point out the issue of genetic deficiency due to lack of diversity, and a potential for inbreeding. In The New World, however, this would be a non-issue… Genetics would remain strong due to population. Say, for instance, the world-wide population in The New World is 7 billion, and 10% of that population is male, that would mean that there would be 700 million males world-wide. A sustainable population. If you multiply 6,300,000,000 (the number of females) by 700,000,000 (the number of males), you get 4,410,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities for the genetic makeup of future offspring. The population by the time The New World comes will be much larger than 7 billion, meaning that the possibilities will be even greater in number than this. Inbreeding and weakness of DNA will not be an issue.

7) By the time males are old enough to provide sperm samples, at the consent of their CFG, they will be screened for specific traits prior to Castration Day to see if they are viable Breeders. This screening will determine whether or not they are the most suitable contributors genetically. Characteristics will include testing physical symmetry, age-height-weight ratio, mental health, and parasite resistance, or the strength of their immune system. It is based entirely on practicality and efficiency, and nothing more. This would be done until The Rebirth (the day when science has its breakthrough in creating female progeny from two female parents and the male population is reduced to 1% world-wide via termination).

8) Post-Rebirth, Castration Day will be reduced to a smaller set of local screenings and procedures in each city world-wide, they will be uniform and set in stone, and the process will no longer be a celebration by all people, but a way of life for any male. Testing and screening for potential genetic contribution will happen at a male’s birth, and will be more lenient at that time, looking only for typical symmetry and a decent healthiness. This process will then be repeated when the male reaches the age to provide samples (maturity). If a male is born and appears to be weak, it will be disposed of. If a male is sufficient, it will be allowed to reach the age of “maturity”. It will then be screened again, for the aforementioned traits which will be determined by then, and if it is still sufficient, it will be kept as a Breeder. If it is not, it will be terminated. If the amount of males in relation to Post-Rebirth supply-and-demand is sufficient, all newborn males will be terminated based on the age and assumed longevity of the currently existing males, unless the particular male appears to be exceptionally healthy and strong.

It is as simple as that.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,
Femitheist

*Footnote: Breeders and all of the samples that they give would be identified with a set of numbers unique to them as an individual. These numbers would essentially be their name and or identity. Any woman who collects a sample will have her own ID in the system marked with said Breeder-number, and so shall her children's Birth Certificates and IDs be marked with the same Breeder-number. That way, if her children were to return some day to take a sample, they would not (on the off-chance it might occur) be given a sample from the same Breeder that their mother took from. This would be done to avoid any possibility of inbreeding. Sample-collection, retrieval and artificial insemination centers would be dispersed all across the world at local areas, as Breeders too would be dispersed all across the world, in numbers sufficient to the specific area.

Kyrile #sexist #psycho reddit.com

Rape is a reproductive strategy used by males cornered by society. Further that rape doesnt harm the female and the harm we see comes from society telling the females they are harmed by rape. This is because females demand that all sex has a cost and since rape is free to the male the cost must be paid by the female in being traumatised.

Rape is part of male sexual strategies like homosexuality but most men are incapable of rape. Women however want to be impregnated by a rapist because they want their genes to have the ability to rape as a reproductive strategy in case in the future they come close to personal genetic extinction and must rely on rape to perpetuate their genes.

Asiff Hussein #fundie asiffhussein.com

Female Circumcision – The Hidden Truth

How Misogynists and Feminists are feeding upon each other to denigrate an Islamic practice that brings untold benefits to women

The inspiration for writing on this touchy topic arose at a recent week-long workshop held by an international Muslim women’s rights organisation in Kandy which I had the fortune of attending thanks to its local organisers.

This group had a lot of nice things to say about women’s rights in Islam and I must say I agreed with much of it, like the rights of Muslim women to enter into marriage with their free consent and even contract marriages on their own accord or their rights to divorce or pre-nuptial agreements to safeguard their freedoms, all well and good, because Islam concedes all these rights to women, on which topics I too have written extensively.

But there was one topic I begged to differ when they brought up the matter, and that was female circumcision. They asked us to discuss a recent Fatwa issued by Malaysia’s National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs in 2009 that declared that the practice was mandatory for Muslim women. They expected us to rip it to pieces, but I differed. Why, because I could not find anything objectionable in it. Reading it carefully, I noticed that those who had drafted it were not at all motivated by a negative attitude towards women’s rights. Rather it clearly stated that all forms of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) found by the WHO to be harmful to women such as clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation (a still more barbaric practice where the female’s external genitalia including the labia minora and clitoris are removed and stitched) were against the Shariah. But it made an exception, stating that all that was necessary in the case of women was to remove the skin covering the clitoris, which it declared to be obligatory, pointing out that a majority of the classical scholars of Islam including Imam Shafi and Imam Hanbali thought it to be so.

I plainly told the sister who was moderating the show, I could see nothing wrong with it, since all they said that was required was to remove the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure very much like male circumcision which like it might confer some health benefits as well. That raised a few eyebrows, probably because none of them had heard such a novel idea before.

Of course there’s really nothing so novel about it. Much has been written about it even by Western Doctors but these studies have been conveniently overlooked to conform to Islamophobic sentiments expressed by a largely Jewish controlled media. This media machine works in different ways. For one thing, it will say that Islam advocates genitally mutilating women to curb their sexuality, citing examples of barbaric forms of FGM practiced in sub-Saharan Africa, thereby associating Islam with a misogynistic attitude. But of late, we see another trend, one that seeks to disassociate female circumcision altogether from Islam without differentiating the proper Islamic form from the rest. Why, you may ask? It’s very simple really. There is a strong body of evidence emerging to support the view that the proper Islamic procedure involving the removal of the clitoral prepuce is beneficial to women and not detrimental to them.

So there you are. It is in the interests of the Jews to criticize female circumcision while promoting male circumcision. Why, because male circumcision is a Jewish practice and female circumcision is not. The medical benefits of male circumcision was established as a fact when the Americans adopted it for hygienic reasons in the early part of the 20th century so that even to this day the majority of male infants born in the US are circumcised.

The practice was shown to confer significant health benefits as borne out by numerous studies that showed a reduction in urinary tract infections, penile cancer, HIV and other STDs as well as a reduction in Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infections in female partners of circumcised men which could lead to cervical cancer when passed on to women (In favour of circumcision. Brian Morris.1999). The US due to its strong Judeo-Christian background thus came to see male circumcision in a favourable light, but altogether neglected its female equivalent as they did not have such a tradition. Moreover it was an Islamic tradition, not a Judeo-Christian one. It was not until about the early part of the twentieth century that some daring US doctors, reasoned that since women too had a prepuce (the equivalent of the foreskin in males) some of the health benefits conferred on males through circumcision could be enjoyed by women. Moreover they discovered another interesting fact, that the procedure could in fact increase sexual gratification in women since it exposed the surface area of the clitoris to greater stimulation during the sex act as well as in oral sex. Shire Hite’s groundbreaking study on the importance of the clitoris in the arousal and satisfaction of the female led to further interest in this until then rather insignificant part of the female anatomy. To keep a long story short, it is in the interests of the Jews to hide the facts about the benefits of female circumcision, because if it is shown that it is indeed an Islamic practice, and that what Islam advocates is only the removal of the clitoral prepuce and no more, it will be another feather in the cap of Islam. Islamic tradition then becomes a double-edged sword, where both the male and female circumcision it upholds are shown to be beneficial, in contrast to the single-edged sword of the Judaic tradition.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: On how the only aspects of "womanhood" that are valued are the ones males can buy into

image

(lacubana)
Yesssss thissssss

Wanna know when I felt most “like a woman”? I can tell you I sure wasn’t wearing makeup or heels or having a pillow fight. I wasn’t delicate in the slightest.

It was when I was pushing another human I had made out of my body. Oh yeah that.

(earthgarden)
and if you're not pushing a human out, or in the process of growing a human, you get a monthly reminder by your body (for at least 4 f!cking decades of your life!) that it had to tear down the nest it built just in case you set one to growing. I swear to god!! If men could experience a period ONCE they would leave us TF alone! That would be an end to the oppression because their pity would know no bounds, they'd experience massive shame at the treatment men have inflicted upon female humanity these long millennia. because then they'd realize nature already oppresses us just fine, thank you very much

(LadyCeer)
My dad used to be really sweet about it and let me sleep a lot and he fed me eggs and ibuprofen and was just very kind when I was being shot down by my period. He also used to talk to women in the form of long, friendly, non-sexual conversations....But then, he never tried to become a woman. Maybe that's a connection.

(shortstroll)
I don't know about your theory but I think it's one of two options.

The first is that some of them are just gay men who in their formative years internalised gender roles. So since they like clothes, have a crush on a dude and their penis isnt a major erogenous zones they think they are girls. It's also sub conscious sexual strategy. There's a greater selection of partners for them if they can fake being a woman. In fact you now see them pushing the idea that genuine heterosexual males would knowingly copulate with a tim.

The second is that some of them are straight men who just have a weird fetishism of womanhood. They don't just want to have sex with women, they want to be them. This isn't dissimilar from the cannibals who get sexual gratification from eating their sexual partners. Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of this. He slowly turned himself into a male version of his wife and the closer he got to his goal the greater his resentment of her grew. Once he had completed his transition, he didn't just discard her, he tried to destroy her in the media. I'm convinced that in a different world, he would have murdered her. That would have been his version of a perfect conclusion.

(TerribleConfusion)
I saw Graham Linehan retweeted a man suggesting something similar. It’s hard to empathise with this, as a woman, but it seemed to make sense to him and the other guy. And I suppose when you think about it, a lot of men do get INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when discussing ways in which men oppress women. Even decent guys don’t want to think about it. So I can kind of imagine how that discomfort might feed in to autogynephilia. Maybe when you feel like your desire is oppressive you want to be the object of desire instead of the subject.

It’s very hard to reconcile this with how misogynistic many TIMs are, though. But I suppose maybe they feel like they’re allowed to hate and bully women because they’re “women” too, and they’re more special and oppressed than any other kind of woman blah blah etc. And maybe it’s the most misogynistic and shitty of men who are most uncomfortable with themselves deep down so they transition to escape their own shittiness. Spoiler: they don’t escape it, they just found a different method than other misogynists to project their shittiness on to (actual) women.

(witchy_xx)
actually this is the exact reason given when my ex came out as trans. he wanted to escape the role of oppressor. what a load of shit.

it's also an easy power grab. for example that asshat Hailey Heartless was a no one politically before and now everyone knows his name.

(griffxx)
We have seen TIMs along with their Handmaidens, trying to dislocate all things female, from the definition of of woman, womanhood and female. I'm truly fascinated, in a psychologically clinical way, the TIMs asserting that they have Bloodless Periods. This a whole other level of Delusion.

Why on Earth did these Feminized White Men, think they could dictate WOMEN diminished our Womanhood, for their OBSESSIVE NARCISSISTIC NEED FOR THE VALIDATION OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITIES!!!!!

The minute these Prostate Havers and their Handmaidens said point blank that, "FEMALE BIOLOGY AND THE EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN THE BODY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMANHOOD" this Misogynistic, Homophobic and Racist Movement should have been REELED/REALED in to what it was supposed to be:

Lobbying and advocating for laws that reassert Civil Rights protections against various forms of discrimination.

They have framed as "A FIGHT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE" this is categorically A LIE.

And to make the claim there are plenty of Lesbians that will date and fuck them; Bisexual leaning women more like. If this were true the Cotton Ceiling War Against Lesbian Sexuality would have ended 5 years ago. Instead it's still continues, and we are at 7.5 year mark.

We need to build on the momentum, we currently have. We need to explain to the Civilian class of women--> not part of the Feminist or LGBTQ Communities, how White TIMs are engaged in the process of erasing their sex-based protections, in the name of attaining their Civil Rights

(scienceisarealthing)

I have no way of knowing whether most pass or not. I’ve never seen a study. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

I've seen a lot of trans-identified males in real life as well as in photo & it's very rare for them to pass. The few who do pass visually are clockable as male as soon as you hear their voice, see their body shape, or see how large their bone structure is when they are next to a female person. This is not meant as an "insult" btw, bc there's nothing wrong with being a feminine male (as long as they arent sexist, etc...)

Transmisogyny is intrinsically illogical bc either the trans-ID'd male passes as female (and experiences some forms of misogyny) or he is clocked as male & faces homophobia/ transphobia/ whatever you wanna call hatred/ disgust against gnc males. It's the reason why drunk guys will sometimes hit on a trans-ID'd male, then the moment they find out he's actually male will scream things like "Fggot! Trnny!!" and sometimes resort to physical violence. That is NOT an example of misogyny bc it wouldn't happen to a female.

How would you know you saw a trans person if they did pass though?

I've never seen a trans-ID'd male who passes in real life, only in photos. There's just no getting around the differences in bone structure, voice, and movements between males and females when you observe people in real life. As someone who is involved in the natural sciences & figure drawing, it is easy to determine someone's natal sex & tell if they are trans or not.

edit: I mean, even when you look at the transpassing sub, few pass even in photo. It does a disservice to trans people to lie to them by telling them they pass when they don't. I see women and other trans people do this all the time & it makes me cringe, because it's so obviously.. not true. In fact, it comes across as cruel to lie to someone like that. It should be ok for people to look/ dress however they want without striving for the unattainable goal of passing completely as the opposite sex.

If a trans woman passes as female, what forms of misogyny would they not face? Honest question. Is it just from medical professionals who would know about someone’s private health details? If they pass, then why would it come up in conversation?

Side question, why does it matter if someone is facing violence due to misogyny or transphobia? Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences under the same system?

It is impossible to say definitively whether or not most trans women can pass based on one person’s interaction with the public. You can definitely say that you’ve seen some trans people not passing. Why would anyone reveal their medical history to a stranger?

Jesus christ, seriously? They wouldn't face:

-limited birth control access, abortion access, reproductive rights battles

-the pain of pregnancy/ discrimination against pregnant women

-dying in childbirth

-the fear of becoming pregnant

-menstrual pain/ stigma/ menstrual huts

-female genital mutilation

-femicide/ sex selective abortion

-medical stigma against female health concerns like PCOS, uterine cysts, endometriosis, severe PMS, menopause, etc... (the list goes on & on)

-sex trafficking & rape (most men want to rape females, not trans-ID'd males)

-being sold as a child bride

-limited access to education bc of being female

-breast ironing

-bride burning

-foot binding (though this only happened to females in the past, as far as i know)

I'm leaving off so much more I can't think of right now. Trans men, nonbinary females, women.. we all face these issues based on what part of the world we live in. It matters whether someone faces misogyny vs. homophobia/ transphobia because those are different forms of oppression! By your same logic, we could include men who face racism under the branch of feminism because (as you said) "Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences?"

FEMinism is the only political movement that is exclusively for FEMales. It's horrible that other people face different forms of oppression, but they can form their own movements to address their needs. Black women & black men both face racism but ONLY black women are welcome in feminism. Poor men & poor women are both economically oppressed, but ONLY the poor woman is welcome in feminism. A woman & a passing trans-ID'd male may both be catcalled, but ONLY the woman is welcome in feminism.

Trans-ID'd males are welcome to (and in fact, already have) formed their own political movements against the unique problems they face. It is narcissistic and unreasonable to demand that women dismantle the ONLY political movement that we have to ourselves. Can female people seriously have nothing to ourselves?Do we have to give in to every group who wants "in"? We can be allies with each other to overcome some similar problems we may face (if any), but we are not the same, and that distinction in lived reality matters.

Isn’t feminism for anyone who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of women? Everyone is welcome. That is a great point about not including everyone who is oppressed ever, but the type of oppression we are talking about is targeted at people who present as female. What I find disturbing by your response is that you aren’t inclusive. Why do you need to say that someone is not welcome if they are experiencing something as common as cat calling or workplace harassment? Would it be so bad if a trans woman was in your circle? Would you not feel safe? I don’t understand what benefit there is to being so specific in membership? It seems to me that it would be best to differentiate by who is suffering a type of discrimination. For example, a trans woman might be subject to being talked down to in public (there is a great TEDtalk by a trans woman who knows what it is like to walk around in society as an adult male and an adult female. She passes btw). A trans male might have not had access to birth control prior to transitioning. I would think both types of people would be welcome.

Feminism is Liberation of females from male oppression. We are already equal, stating that is redundant and offensive.

Eren Jäger #racist occidentinvicta.wordpress.com

Also, yes, Asian males; with neotenic features, small genitals, and fragile build are pretty much on the bottom of the barrel. White females would rather choose a 80 IQ nappy-haired Black man than go to bed with one of those baby-faced hyperneotenic Asian males. Black females do better with exotic males than Asian males do with exotic females. Nobody wants an Asian male, but this hurts the pride of sorry Asian introverts like Huax and Hacienda. It strikes too close to home for them.

bo1375 #sexist reddit.com

Well, my "peak trans" wasn't any one thing that I can remember. I never really lied to myself about people being able to change sex, but I didn't and still don't see a problem with folks dressing how they want, being called what they want etc. Is it a little insulting as a woman, a female, that men and males use their distorted view of us to define us? Of course. But it's hardly new. I suppose if I could pinpoint one too far moment, it would be the first time I heard someone say if you recognise biological reality, you're a bigot. I just can't understand what is wrong with saying "yeah, I'm male but I want to be a woman so I'm going to live my life as if I was one". How is that insulting to TW? It's their reality.

I'm also very worried by their tendency to lie and fudge figures to support their victimhood.The thing is, TRAs are alienating ppl who would otherwise support them by being grossly misogynistic, bullying and unaccepting of reality. I support them being free to live their lives in the open. I support them having safe spaces of their own. But that's not what they want. They don't want a safe space; they want OUR safe space. Well I'm sorry, that is not on. And if they stopped being so damn selfish they'd see how unreasonable a request (DEMAND) it is. Wanting ppl with penises (obv MALES) in female-only spaces is just too far for me.

vintologi_se #transphobia #sexist #crackpot #quack docdroid.net

(This is from “Transmaxxing Manifesto”, the whole thing is 36 pages of PDF so there’s a lot of insanity there, this is just a small part.)

The male gender role is broken

Let's face it, if you present as male, there's exactly one personality that will earn you social approval: Chad. Assertive, dominant, successful. Nobody will be impressed by a male that is meek, submissive and struggling. Such males are not considered gender trailblazers; they're just derided as incel NEETs.Nobody is offering an actual solution to this. Tradcons tell you to just man up. TERFs tell you to just abolish gender. Liberals deny this reality altogether.

By embracing girlmode, you actually become free to be your authentic self without shame. Society at large requires men to keep grinding and struggling to keep the lights on, so obviously no serious and respectable person will encourage you to just drop down the pink vortex, but it's possibly the only thingthat will actually help you if you're stuck being a shitty male with no prospects.

Life outcomes of people that transition

Trans-women will benefit from the increasing female privilege, thus in the future more males will benefit from transitioning while it becomes less beneficial for females to transition to male despite trans-men becoming more accepted by society. Trans-women that are supported by their parents have good life outcomes as society becomes more accepting of trans-women the outcomes of people that transition from male to female will improve.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284551812_Impacts_of_Strong_Parental_Support_for_Trans_Youth

But what if people around you are not supportive of you transitioning?

Avoiding social difficulties while transitioning

The focus of transitioning should be on changing your secondary sexual characteristics (hormones, surgery, etc.). You should regard it as a body modification similar to “bodybuilding”. This is the only sensible approach if you value your social life, integrity, and self-respect.

If you believe that there is an “innate gender” which is unrelated to biology or society then you will inevitably create social problems for yourself. People might understand that one might want to be (or look like) a woman, but almost everyone takes “born in the wrong body” as a joke, especially if you were not previously flamboyant.

If you do not look and are socially regarded as a woman, claiming that you are a woman in the inside and that people should respect your innate gender regardless of how you look is meaningless and futile.

This at best makes people pity you and at worst makes them mock and bully you. The situation worsens if you dress in women's clothing but still look like a man. This should be avoided first and foremost out of self-respect, and second out of respect for fellow trannies. You will also hurt yourself for thinking that people do not treat you the way you should be treated.

You do not have to come out in any way to your family or other people who know your real identity.

Whether or not you should transition isn't something you should discuss with people who have not properly researched these topics, most people including your family will be utterly ignorant and thus they will not be able to give you any real help. If you announce that you plan or think about transitioning people around you may push or outright coerce you into not doing so even though it would be beneficial for you.

Thus the solution is to start medication without telling anyone about it that knows your real identity, later if/when they start noticing changes you can tell them that you are transitioning.

If you currently live in a transphobic environment you may want to relocate before socially transitioning. You may want to just leave everything behind to start a new better life if/when you can pass fully as a girl, being stealth allows you to escape transphobia and be treated just like another girl.

How society benefits from people transitioning

People that wish to transition usually have comorbid mental disorders 105106 thus future generations are likely to benefit from letting these women transition and sterilize themselves in the process, this comes with the cost of using tax-money for these medical expenses and losing women that could provide sexual satisfaction to other people.

Males transitioning to female is beneficial for society since it would allow people to have fun fucking them. Incels transitioning to female is good for society since they will become less likely to develop or maintain problematic political beliefs or become violent, they will instead benefit from accelerated hypergamy and gynocentrism.

Less incels trying to force females to waste themselves on losers is a good thing.

It has been proven safe to allow trans-women inside spaces reserved for women 01 trying to exclude them would harm natal women too 234

Not using tax-money to pay for medical transition would be dysgenic since it would make it more difficult for poor people to transition.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


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

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

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

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

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

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

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

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

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

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

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

Nicole Russel #transphobia thefederalist.com

The U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case on gender identity and sex Tuesday, in oral arguments for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. James Shupe offered his perspective in an amicus brief for that case.
The following is an interview between me and Shupe, who made waves for being the first “legally non-binary person” in the United States. Shupe achieved clarity through therapy, and returned to life as his birth sex even though the LGBT community shunned him. He’s begun to share his story and speak out against the dangers of transgender medicine.

In 2016, an Oregon circuit court ruled Shupe could change his gender to nonbinary, the first legal ruling of his kind. LGBT activists lauded it as a landmark decision that now plagues Shupe.
Here’s a closer look at his experience living as the opposite sex, regretting it, returning to live as his birth sex, and becoming a vocal opponent of transgender medicine altogether. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
For readers who may be unaware of your journey, describe why you decided to become the “first legally non-binary person” in the United States?
I experienced a major mental health crisis at age 49. I began researching psychiatric issues on the internet. It didn’t take very long for me to stumble upon gender identity disorder, transgenderism, and transsexualism.
At first, I was skeptical that I could actually be a female based on this newly discovered thing called “gender identity,” something I’d never heard of before because I’d always understood myself to be a male. But numerous medical and media articles describing mental health issues disappearing after undergoing a gender transition quickly convinced me that I was a woman and that transition would fix me. I also discovered the Department of Veterans Affairs had a newly launched transgender medical care program [that] erased all of my doubts completely.

At the time, I was especially vulnerable to being duped into believing that I was actually a female trapped in a male body despite not feeling like one for two reasons. 1) I had fragile mental health and was desperate for a cure. 2) During my military career, I’d often cross-dressed for sexual pleasure and had an attraction for men while dressed as a woman, a problem I’d acted out on during several occasions.
So this newly discovered information about being a female because of gender identity based on “feeling like a woman” was a much more palatable explanation for what I had previously understood my behavior to be per military regulations: transvestism.
So, armed with this new information and false beliefs about myself, I immediately began identifying as a transgender woman, mimicking the role of a stereotypical female, and taking female hormones. I also planned to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery to have my penis cosmetically reshaped into a vagina. I was born in 1963, so I’m older than the theory of gender identity, a term first used for transsexuals in 1966 when John Hopkins opened their gender clinic.
Unfortunately, all of this turned out to be delusional thinking. By the end of the charade, I’d come to the realization that my sex change was a failure and a hoax and by then I was just as desperate to escape being legally classified as female as I was previously was to solve my mental health problems.

After a good-faith period of participation in the grand gender experiment, I came to believe the whole thing was smoke and mirrors, complete quackery. By then I knew I wasn’t a female and like others before me, I had similarly discovered by trial and error that changing your sex is impossible. You could say that becoming non-binary gave me the means to save face and as a byproduct, I became famous for doing so.
What does it mean to become non-binary?
Like everything else with gender, non-binary is a made-up term. It’s a “catch-all” terminology for all of the transgender identities that fall outside of male and female. It can mean anything from you think of yourself as transmasculine or transfeminine, or neither male or female, or even a combination of the two.
How long did it take before you realized your quest to become non-binary was actually a result of trauma?
It wasn’t until late 2018 and early 2019 after two psychiatric hospitalizations that I was able to face up to the truth about myself and my sexual behaviors. Once I was willing to do that, I became familiarized with what Dr. Ray Blanchard had correctly theorized about men like me decades ago: that I am sexually attracted and aroused by the idea of myself as a female.
Dr. Blanchard claims there are two types of transgender women: homosexuals attracted to men, and men who are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as females. The latter is the most prominent population group in western countries, and sadly that’s the motivation for all of these middle-aged men such as myself who begin to believe they are women after what’s essentially a sexual fetish has been undiagnosed, gone untreated, or been misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and has then escalated and developed into an alter ego female personality.

First, my sexual behaviors were a coping mechanism for my very painful mental health issues that were rooted in the trauma of my childhood sexual abuse as well as violence I’d experienced and witnessed. Second, I was also now feeding what had become an escalating sexual addiction that was being fueled by pornography and yet another sexual paraphilia I’d developed: masochism. Experts in these fields of expertise state that sexual paraphilias are often comorbid and I agree.
Who bears the blame for your transition? You? Your doctors?
I’ve gotten feedback that insinuates that I got exactly what I asked for from my medical providers during my two gender transitions. But the truth is my doctors and mental health professionals bear significant blame, because the work of Blanchard and others on autogynephilia was published all the way back in the 1980s, yet most psychologists and psychiatrists either know nothing about it or intentionally chose ignorance. It’s framed as an unpopular diagnosis.
When I confronted my caregivers at the VA that had rubber-stamped me with gender dysphoria instead of a sexual paraphilia and asked to be reevaluated, their response was to fire me as a patient and then claim that they had no experience treating sexual paraphilias. However, the VA has already done studies explaining why people like me are acting out sexually but the folks treating me didn’t put two and two together. Instead, they fed and enabled the delusion that I was a woman, making them the most culpable.
Describe when and how you realized you needed to “de-transition.”
Becoming non-binary was like redoing the whole gender experiment all over again with different parameters and then getting the same outcome. I didn’t stop taking hormones and by then I had an even bigger mess to walk back because I was no longer a relatively obscure transgender woman. I now had international fame associated with the landmark court decision to cope with, making reclaiming my birth sex much more difficult.
But admitting and accepting the truth about myself gave me the strength to reclaim my male birth sex. And after I did, I began treatment for my correct diagnosis: a transvestic disorder with autogynephilia.
What does “de-transitioning” feel like? Is there a feeling of loss? Anger? Relief? Is it harder than transitioning?
There was no sense of loss and it’s certainly easier than transitioning because you’re not fighting against your biological reality, societal pushback, and forcing others to indulge your delusion.
I do have plenty of anger about having been medically experimented on by people with advanced degrees who should have known better, leaving me feeling duped about having fallen for the quack theory that I have a gender identity. I now realize that I don’t.
I was falsely led by mental health practitioners to believe that my feelings decided my sex, but that’s neither scientific, measurable, nor enduring because my feelings can and have changed. I’ve come to realize and accept that the only thing capable of reliably grounding me to reality is my male chromosomes and reproductive system.
All of this legal fiction and outright fraud has indeed left me very bitter and angry. I want the people who have caused me physical and mental harm held accountable for their actions and roles in the medical experimentation that was perpetrated against me.
Do you believe most people who have decided they are transgender would have been better off remaining their biological sex?
Yes, I believe everyone would be better off being recognized solely as their biological sex. The medical procedures being touted as “gender transitions,” if they work at all, are in fact nothing more than cosmetic changes to people’s bodies. I’m proof of that.
But here’s the biggest thing: even if you could somehow argue the medical treatments are legitimate hormonal and surgical procedures, lying to the patient about being another sex based on the pseudoscience of gender identity and forcing everyone else to play along is nothing short of medical malpractice and legal fiction.
How did you decide to go from a non-binary person who has de-transitioned to somewhat of a public critic? Is your personal story well received?
First and foremost I had to do so because people were continuing to use my court decision to put more and more non-binary sex markers on state driver’s licenses, and they were also continuing to write about my court case in academic and legal journals. And this was occurring against a backdrop of readily available information on the internet, my Wikipedia page, and on my personal website explaining that I had reclaimed my birth sex. Some of these folks were intentionally casting me in a false light to advance gender ideology.
What are your expectations for the case SCOTUS is about to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as it relates to your personal journey? Should gender identity be protected under the law like sex?
I think the justices will rule in favor of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes and protect religious freedom because the male plaintiff, who claims to be a female is, in my opinion, the exact same thing as I am: A cross-dressing man that is sexually aroused by the image of himself as a woman. I sincerely believe that he and I both suffer from a transvestic disorder and with what Dr. Blanchard refers to as autogynephilia.
While I believe that autogynephilia is a mental health problem worthy of treatment and compassion, based on my experience I think it’s unworthy of public or employment accommodation, even if it has progressed to gender dysphoria.
Like myself, because the man in the case who now identifies as a woman’s transvestic disorder has apparently gone untreated for probably decades, and because quack theories about gender have been allowed to proliferate and infiltrate society and law, his sexual identity problem has apparently gotten so out of control that he now believes he’s a female. That’s unfortunate, but he’s not a woman and neither was I. So I feel the Supreme Court needs to set the nation straight about that in order to protect females and religious freedom.
We need to quit wasting so much time and resources and return to a clear-cut definition of biological sex because a lot of children are now being harmed by gender ideology too. As to whether gender should be protected under the law? The answer is no, because it’s based on nothing more than personal feelings, perceptions, stereotypes, and pseudoscience.

itisamuh #fundie mmo-champion.com

The only reason marriage gives financial benefits is because it's working under the assumption that they're preparing to raise a family. A gay couple can't have kids, and shouldn't be allowed to adopt, so that's out. Those financial benefits are also the only reason, aside from preparing a family, to get married in the first place. So if they were doing that, that's pretty much screwing over all single people. You'd have people, who aren't gay or in a relationship at all, just friends, getting married for those legal benefits. That's not right. It's taking something that's supposed to be meaningful and abusing it for personal gain. Oh, and because homosexuality is an unnatural taboo, and taboos shouldn't be supported or encouraged legally or socially. Standards in general seem to be losing their meaning in today's society.


what?
1) that's not the only reason, if you think it is, i'd like to see some backup. you make the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
2) why shouldn't gays be allowed to adopt again?
3) straight people DO do that all the time, hell i knew people that would get married just so they could move off-base when they were in the military.
4) how is homosexuality unnatural again?
5) how is it a universal taboo? you're aware that taboos are a culturally distinctive thing, right? every culture has a different s


These threads always seem to get me in trouble, or at least annoyed, so this will probably be my last post. If you respond, I won't see it.

1. Don't spout off the burden of proof crap. I can turn that around and say prove that it's not the only reason. I can tell just by your lingo that you're probably an atheist.

2. They shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it's raising a kid in an improper environment by default. They'll be getting exposed to a lack of standards from the start. Sure, they may be nice people and mean well, but the child won't be receiving the full perspective. Granted, that often happens anyway, but that can't always be controlled. Adoption can be controlled, however. Since you like using scientific lingo, maybe you should check out the snowball effect. That's exactly what will happen if this kind of stuff gets encouraged and accepted more and more.

3. Yes, they do. It's unfortunate, but again, it's not always avoidable. That doesn't mean that we should promote something that's an exploitation literally every single time. Because, until you prove to me what other legitimate reasons there can be for a gay couple getting married, I'm standing by that statement.

4. Look around you. Whether you're religious or not, just look. Basically the entire world shows it. Males and females mate to continue their respective species. They pal around with their own gender, if they pal around at all, but when it comes to mating, they find the other. Sure, there are the occasional defects, but whether it's God's plan or nature's design, males and females were meant to mate. If everyone turned gay, there's the end of our species. That alone should be enough to prove it's wrong. Obviously not everyone will turn gay, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged as okay. Sometimes standards should be upheld, even if some people don't like them. Not everything should be okay, and the line of what is and isn't shouldn't be so blurred. This has nothing to do with religion, just general principle and common sense. If people are gay regardless of it being unnatural, that's their call. People can be attracted to kids or their own siblings if they want to as well. That doesn't mean it should be supported.

5. In my society, up until this ridiculous social liberal movement, it was a taboo. It still is, in a lot of people's minds, including mine. I really don't care if other cultures agree, the one I live in is the only one that's relevant to me. Besides, as stated above, I'm basing my views off of obvious nature and common sense, not what society tells me is okay.

This is what baffles me about the liberal mentality. Not necessarily you, cause obviously I don't know you, in fact I don't even know that you're liberal, but their general attitude as a whole. They preach that nobody should be judged negatively for their beliefs, or preferences, or values, or anything else. No matter what. And on paper that's a good ideal, but then they turn around and negatively judge anyone who believes in upholding traditional standards. I'm sorry, if you're offended by my beliefs, agree to disagree I guess, but I will never change my mind on this. The fact that, if everyone was gay, the species would die out in a generation, is enough for me to decide that it's wrong. The fact that basically every species on the planet with male and female counterparts thrives on male and female mating is enough for me to decide that that's the way it's supposed to be, whether designed by nature or by God, whatever. It's got nothing to do with religion, at all. Drugs don't hurt anyone except the person using them, and that's their choice, but it's still illegal because common sense says it's wrong. Same thing here. But no, we're too worried about offending someone to have a right and wrong, beyond discouraging murder.

BigEarthBear #sexist reddit.com

Ever since a recent discussion, I have had a frustration with POMO activism and how incorrect it is in regards to feminism. Another person and I were talking to the group about the need for sex-based hate crime legislation. What we find is it is nearly impossible to get valid and correct hate crime data on the percentage of hate crimes against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. Here is how sex-based hate crime legislation is necessary as a category for LGBT.

Violence against lesbians is generally NOT classified as a hate crime because lesbians are classified as "female or "woman" in police reports therefore not subject to hate crime laws. So reports of corrective rape or gay bashing are instead put in the "women dead files". Sex-based hate crime laws would also put an end to "the women's dead files" because they can not ignore hate crimes in the same manner they do other crimes. This is why trans activists demand that trans women are reported as being TRANSWOMEN, not men or women.

It sparked the usual pomo crap. sex-based laws are noninclusive of trans people "TERFs" even though, like same-sex marriage, transgender people are already protected by the law, it is women who excluded from these protections based on their sex.

The conversation changed into the same old argument. My fellow activist is a "TERF." , "Trans women are women", "She's not a real feminist because her feminism does not include trans women." blah blah blah. Please note: There was no mention of trans men being men or trans men at all. Intersexed people were brought up out of context. The co-presenter was not attacked at all, I'm male, what a shock except to point out incorrectly that I am an alleged male feminist... people keep calling me a male feminist when there is no such thing as a male feminist.

I corrected them on two points during this discussion. 1) Feminism since it's beginning only focussed on female oppression. 2) Males cannot be feminists because it is a female movement. Feminism can affect how a male thinks or moves through the world but we can not claim feminism.

They immediately went to an explosion of talking a feminist theory or feminist writings out of context. Dworkin is the only 2nd waver I can recall that included transexuals. They even quoted the heretic Germaine Greer out of context. What I realized quickly is the misuse of the words woman and gender in regards to POMO TRA/ SJW/ Liberal Feminism vs feminism. At the time of those writings starting with the founding of feminism, being a woman was defined as adult human FEMALE the reproductive sex that produces large gametes and bares children. Gender was discussed as; men (males) patriarchal (male) oppression of women (females). So contextually it has always been solely about fighting female oppression. Trans women are males and trans men are females. Nothing that they quoted proved that feminism is about the inclusion of trans women and therefore the exclusion of trans men. It has always been focussed on reproductive biology if you take a serious thoughtful look at it.

Side note: Apparently I am a frustrating transphobic fag, according to that part of the group. They always call me a faggot.

Offended By Their Existence Award

HarvesterOfInceldom #sexist incels.co

[Venting] Nowhere to go without having to deal with the female.

Unless you want to stay in your room all day, something which I already do. However, for years females have been encroaching on the personal space of males; whether it be integrating co-ed universities, or the recent foray of women into gaming and card games, which were for a long time male-dominated hobbies. It seems like the female will not stop until she has completely forced and oppressed the male into having to be in her exalted presence for as long as he lives.

It's time for incels and men to stand up against this oppression. We need to make it clear that females are not to be allowed in our spaces - this site is a good start, even though I wish we could do more to limit the viewing privileges of female guests and snuff out female infiltrators who are larping as men. The musical genre of progressive rock is still overwhelmingly male, even though I have started to see the females get into the more mainstream groups such as Floyd or Dream Theater. We need to preserve male identity in gaming, and that means excluding women from servers and other activities. Do not socialize with women in school, refuse to let them into your group until they have to go the university and use the government or law to make you cave. Be relentless.

If we do not stop the female invasion of our privacy, men will start becoming trans and more feminine en masse, and eventually all androcentric identity will be destroyed, leaving us with the world of the female. This is the only shred of dignity we have left; we cannot lose it.

dfghdghd & Mr-Mercedes- #sexist reddit.com

(dfghdghd)
They think saying women mostly care about looks is misogynistic, when it's really one of the most feminist things you can say. Men also mostly care about looks, so to say women are the same is to say men and women are equal, at least in this respect. The reason they feel offended is because they know in their heart of hearts how shallow they are, but instead of accepting this as part of their human condition, they get pissy and start accusing us of being misogynistic potential spree killers who want to enslave women and groom children for sexual slavery.

And they call us delusional.

(Mr-Mercedes-)
I've thought up a theory along those lines before.

Firstly, it's based on an argument I've been making that there really is nothing inherently wrong with appreciating a person for their physical beauty, and that females are just as given to admiring and swooning over males when they find them beautiful.

Though, in the real world receiving admiration often provokes frustration or anger in women. Why are the females frustrated? Usually it's because they are not as attracted to the male as he is to her. Had he been a 'Chad', the girl would almost certainly had reacted differently. You could try to write this down as an isolated incident, and just say the girl didn't like the guy, but that doesn't quite encapsulate the situation. What occurred with the girl is not unique, it's wide-spread and encompasses human nature. More females are Chads in males' eyes.

Thus we can say that the frustration and anger of females stems from the fact that females have an inferior ability to feel physical attraction to the opposite sex.

My theory is that at least some part of the feminist rage comes from their lesser ability to as easily experience this purely positive aspect of human nature: call it an inferiority complex, 'penis-envy', 'brain-envy', whatever, it really doesn't matter.

The blackpilled fact is that females all get bent out of shape because they don't feel what males are able to feel.

What males feel is positive, females feel as a negative. They really are more negative creatures overall.

unknown radfem #sexist i.redd.it

image

Transcript of the image: friendly reminder

a transwoman is a male with a female brain.

a transman is a female with a male brain.

all "women" who commit violent crimes have male brains, whether they admit it or not.

all "men" who commit violent crimes have female brains, whether they admit it or not.

real women are not violent.

real men are.

there are no exceptions.

#men #women #transmen #transwomen #yesallmen #misandry #male #female #killallmen #feminism #feminist #anti men

Angrybirdroar #sexist angrybirdroar.wordpress.com

How many is okay?

In light of the revelations still being unearthed about the depravity that occurred within the Challenor house and the recent study that shows the increase in sexual assaults occurring in mixed sex changing rooms, I have realised the narrative has shifted.

Instead of women having to justify why they don’t want men in their safe spaces, the activists have to prove why they should. Women have never been anti-trans but pro-safeguarding. The Challoner case has proved that there will aways be depraved men ready to pounce, given half a chance, and we were clearly stating that.

So if you are still going to lie and say ‘trans women are women’ without acknowledging that trans no longer means transsexual, but includes a myriad of sexual fetishes, then we have the right to assume your motives are nefarious. And from now on we will. Every. Single. Time.

So before you jump on Twitter demanding that women allow male bodies into their safe spaces you must:

Prove that NOT ONE single extra rape or sexual assault will occur. Ever.

Explain to rape victims why they are being transphobic for being terrified of male bodies in their spaces.

Explain to every female why it’s ok that they will never be able to win at sports, because men have decided to cheat.

Explain why men should be on women’s shortlists?

Go on. Prove that there is absolutely no increase in risk. Because all I hear is how dangerous it is for trans in men’s spaces, but zero empathy for the sex that has had to factor in male violence, every second of every day since they were born.

Women have a right to set their own boundaries.

Women have a right to define woman.

Women spend their lives being told how to prevent their own rapes, but are deemed bigots when they try.

Well, we’re telling you now that we don’t believe men can actually become women. Telling us we must is gaslighting and abusive. I don’t subscribe to your bollocks gender religion. Gender (stereotypes) is a cancer and feminism is the chemo.

Watching the gender wars playing out, I have seen too many dangerous creepy perverts, living out their sexual fantasies. Sinister, women hating, fuckers preying on kids and abusing women. We knew men hated us and watching the dude bros defend the Buffalo Bills over women has confirmed this.

You call us TERFS and transphobes? We now know this means you are definitely either a misogynist, a rapist or a paedophile. Probably all three.

Anyone demanding women allow men into their changing rooms, toilets, refuges or prisons is a rapist. If it’s a woman saying it then she wants women to be raped and children to be abused. This is now fact.

You’ve labelled us to further your sick agenda. I’m throwing it back in your twisted little faces.

Any lawyers out there – you might want to offer your services to any victims of the illegal practice of mixed sex facilities and kids who have been experimented on by the trans-munchhausens.

Any politicians out there – we are watching. One more child or woman gets hurt because of your inability to defend females we will come for you so hard you won’t know what’s hit you.

Women are angry. We are defending our sisters and our cubs. Mess with us at your peril, perverts.

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

When the LGBT and those who support the gay agenda celebrate 'free love' and 'love wins,' THIS is what you are really supporting. This is what homosexuality REALLY looks like.

Because when you engage in, practice or support any element of the LGBT lifestyle, you're really supporting Baphomet

Baphomet is simply another term or name for Lucifer... better known as the Serpent, Satan and the Devil.

Below is a description of Baphomet. You'll notice that he has female breasts.

This is because from ancient times until the present, Satan has always been depicted as being both male AND female, with BOTH genitalia (female breasts and a male penis).

While going through different images for the new book, it suddenly dawned on me: THIS is why there is such an interest in transsexuals, lesbians and bisexuals in our society today.

Notice how Baphomet, aka Satan, appears to be BOTH genders: as evidenced by the female breasts?

Satan is depicted as bi-gender in 99% of the images you'll run across. Which officially makes the devil the very first transsexual in history!

Now you see why the Bruce Jenner transformation was such a huge story. This world is run and literally controlled by devil worshipers. They control 90% of the media, music, movies, tv, news outlets and even some social media outlets.

The only agenda these flunkies of Satan promote is their own: which is really Satan's agenda. Hence why television seems so slanted when you watch it, and obviously programming a pro-gay anti-God agenda.

And when you see LGBT being promoted and supported on a wide scale, these are followers of Satan bringing their god out of hiding and into the light. Coming out of the closet was never meant for homosexuals: it was actually meant for Satan!

The Bible even seems to hint that the Anti-Christ will be of a homosexual nature when he arrives on the scene.

"Neither shall he (the antichrist) regard the God of his fathers, NOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." *Daniel 11:37

As we get closer to the closing of this age before Jesus Christ returns to take over the world, expect to see more of Satan and his antics on open display like never before. Like the unveiling of Satanic statues in places like Detroit or Oklahoma City.

The designer of those statues very cleverly hid the female breast part of the statues, so it wouldn't be too obvious or offensive to the unsuspecting public. As if a big statue of Satan wasn't already offensive enough...

The Bible says that Satan knows his time is short.

"Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!" *Rev 12:12

Meaning that any chance he has to delay or prevent the return of Christ, he has to take it now. (He knows he cannot stop it: but his hope is in delaying Jesus' return for as long as possible: thus extending his inevitable torment and punishment).

Transexualism and bisexuality is promoted as openly as it is today because these are characteristics and trademarks of the Devil's very own nature.

His nature is bisexuality, homosexuality and confusing the different genders, and mixing the holy with the profane. It's how he defiles people and keeps them from ever being able to connect with God and live a life of sexual cleanliness and holiness.

Just be aware that his tremendous push to normalize homosexual/bisexual and transsexual behavior is more evidence that the appearance of the anti-Christ is near. It's evidence of an old ancient devil-worshiping religion making a comeback in so-called "Christian" America.

I've been telling people for some time now that America's real religion is Individualism: the religion of self-interest above everything and everyone else.

And the religion of Individualism is driving American consumerism and the US economy today. This is what Satanism is at its core.

Self-interest is what led the founding fathers of America to violate every Christian principle in the book.

•by enslaving black people,
•raping black women;
•raping and murdering Native women and their children,
•enslaving Irish immigrants;
•and later by installing Jim Crow, then modifying Jim Crow today through crafty laws and cunning legislation that still deprives a huge segment of the population of its God-granted rights.

Sidenote: Have you ever noticed that whenever you see old lynching photos of a Black Man his pants have been 'pulled down?' How'd they get that way? And what was the fascination the lynchers had with pulling down another man's pants? I'm not trying to suggest anything, or maybe I am... but that's another article for another day.

Even the layout for Washington D.C. was designed off of occult symbolism as seen below. Not the Baphomet Star, the Masonic compass, and the so-called 'Star of David': which is NOT a godly symbol at all, but was really an occult symbol used by King Solomon to conjure demons with.

Anton Levay, the founder of the Church of Satan, said in so many words that most Americans were really Satanists too: they just hadn't realized it yet.

This is because Satanism is basically a religion of self-pleasure, self-fulfillment and self-indulgence.

It's the forbidden fruit Satan used to trick Eve and Adam to indulge in. And it's the doorway that led us to this very point in America today, where a man is confused about his own gender and role, and so are many women.

Sadly, too many churches have become Satanist in doctrine and creed. Why else would flaming homosexual men and women feel comfortable sitting in church without changing?

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:24-27

It's time for Christians to stand up for Jesus Christ like never before.

The strong delusion has already been released. And if you're not careful, you'll get sucked right into the vortex.

Christians say they would never bow the knee to Satan. But the truth is: if you're all about self-love and self-pleasure anyway, you're already following his belief system.

[...]

If you're someone who is struggling with homosexuality, there is powerful deliverance in store for you. Jesus Christ is a MIGHTY deliverer.

There is no sin so powerful or dirty that His blood cannot overpower and cleanse it completely.

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Isa 1:18

"I, even I am, he who blots out your trangressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Isa 43:25

Jesus will give you a brand new life, a new heart and help you to develop a new mindset. You can literally become a NEW person through Jesus Christ! All you have to do is sincerely want it, and be willing to leave your former LGBT lifestyle (or whatever sinful lifestyle) behind, in favor of the brand new life that Jesus has in store for you.

sockmonkey #conspiracy wnd.com

This is for the dissenters that are forever posting their snarky remarks that lack any substance.

I am a law enforcement investigator with a large metropolitan police department. I have held that position for many years. In fact I am looking at retirement in the near future. I an a court recognized expert in many fields. I am however, not an expert document examiner. I do teach and train many new police officers, college students, and I train new investigators. I predominantly work homicides but have worked a variety of cases over the years. I have written policy and training guidelines for my department.

When I first heard the rumblings of the "birthers" I laughed and thought there was no way that the FEC wouldn't do their homework in vetting a candidate for the presidency. I felt you were just being sore losers. I never voted for Mr. Obama nor would I based on his radical politics.

However, when the long form birth certificate was posted on the White House website, I thought for laughs I would take a look at it. Much to my surprise, within minutes, I realized that it was a fake. Now again I am not a court recognized documents examiner. I have however in my many years looked at many forged documents and this was an obvious fraud.

I fretted what to do and decided to take my findings to a person that is a much trusted documents expert. I have worked on various cases with him over the years. When I entered his office and presented my findings to him, you could hear a pin drop in the office. He rushed my out of the office and explained to me that his boss had already told the entire office that they were not to discuss anything about the BC. He works for a federal agency and they do answer to the DOJ and in a way to Mr. Obama. Right then I realized I was onto something.

I fretted over this for several days and then realized I was obligated to contact someone. I began calling and emailing several members of Congress. Most refused to answer and the ones that did essentially told me that the FEC had vetted Mr. Obama already. Well they obviously didn't.

I have since come to realize that many in my field have reached the same conclusion that I have. I am very happy to see Sheriff Arpaio not let this go to the wayside. So instead of making fun of those that now realize the obvious, take a look at the video presented by Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse. It will only take around 90 minutes of your time.

Galaxygirl #conspiracy rr-bb.com

Masonic Teachings?

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...efreemason.htm

Kenneth Copeland chants the words "I AM" which is a Masonic initiation term.
"And I say this with all respect, so that it don't upset you too bad. But I say it anyway: When I read in the Bible where He says, "I AM," I just smile and say, "Yes, I AM, too." Believers Voice of Victory broadcast July 9 1987
During the ceremonies of the Masonic ritual for the Royal Arch degree, the candidate is asked, "Brother Inspector, what are you?" and he replies, "I AM THAT I AM."
When Jesus told the jews before Abraham was "I AM" he was claming to be the God of Moses who went by that name. This is why they tried to kill him immediately. Kenneth is claiming to be a God.

33rd Degree Freemason Robert Schuller also endorses his followers to chant "I AM"
"The most effective mantras employ the "M" sound. You can get the feel of it by repeating the words, "I am, I am," many times over.... Transendental Meditation or TM... is not a religion nor is it necessarily anti-Christian."
Peace of Mind Through Possibility Thinking, pp. 131-32

Benny Hinn whom I suspect is a Freemason, also tells Christians to chant "I AM."
"Don't tell me you have Jesus. You are everything He was and everything He is and ever shall be.....Don't say, 'I have.' Say , 'I AM, I AM, I AM, I AM, I AM.' Our Position in Christ #2-The Word Made Flesh audiotape Side 2 1991

Kenneth Copeland has stated that Jehovah means Half Male/ Half Female and that God is as much female as he is male.
He amplifies this strange teaching by also saying that Adam was originally half male and half female.
According to the book "The Secret Teachings Of Freemasonry" by Gordon Mohr this is exactly what the Masonic Lodge teaches:- (on pages 107-108)

In his first initiation stages he (the Freemason) learns: 1 - That the rite of initation for Apprentice Masons represents in dramatic fashion the origin or birth of Nature's god - the Great All. It signifies the non-existence of a supernatural person God, such as that of Christianity. It signifies that the two principles of "matter" and "form", "male" and "female," are always eternally generating," (reproducing). It looks on God as a hermaphrodite, and creation as the beginning of the "generation process." Taken from: Speculative Masonry, by Brother J. Yorke, Grand Master of the Ancient Rite pages 3 & 54

2 - The initation rite into the Second Degree, represents the moral condition of nature's god, always in labor, always reproducing. Again it looks on God as hermaphroditic, and states that his name JEHOVAH, means "generation." Meaning to say, HE-SHE, the two sexes in one. From Speculative Masonry page 14 & Mackey's Lexion pages 126-129

The dual principle of "male" and "female" is represented by the "square and compass." The "compass" represents OSIRIS, the male god of the Egyptians, while the "square" is the symbol representing ISIS, the female goddess of Egypt - both are sexual symbols. Taken from: Ragon's Cours. Philosophique page 102
This reference to the square and compass is significant as Copeland has placed these symbols on one of his tape covers.
Copeland teaches similar things that the early Mormons leaders who were also Freemasons taught.
While the Mormons teach that God lives on a planet near the star Kolob, Copeland says that his hermaphroditic god also lives on a Mother Planet:-

"Heaven has a north and a south and an east and a west. Consequently, it must be a planet."
Spirit, Soul and Body I 1985 audiotape #01-0601, side 1

"You don't think earth was first, do you? Huh? Well, you don't think that God made man in His image, and then made earth in some other image? There is not anything under this whole sun that's new. Are you hearing what I'm saying? This is all a copy. It's a copy of home. It's a copy of the Mother Planet. Where God lives, He made a little one just like His and put us on it." Following the Faith of Abraham I, 1989 audiotape #01-3001, side 1

Compare what Freemason-Mormon Brigham Young stated "Adam is our father and our God" with Copeland's quote:-
"Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh."
Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 1

Also compare Freemason-Mormon founder Joseph Smith's teaching that if you were to see God today "you would see him like a man in form - like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." with Copeland's following description of his god:-

Copeland decribes God as "a being that is very uncanny the way he's very much like you and me. A being that stands somewhere around 6'2", 6'3", that weighs somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred pounds or a little better, has a span of 9 inches across." Spirit, Soul and Body I audiotape Side 1 1985

God spoke Adam into existence in authority with words. These words struck Adam's body in the face. His body and God were exactly the same size."
Holy Bible, Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition 1991, 45, emphasis in original

"[Adam] was the copy, looked just like [God]. If you stood Adam upside God, they look exactly alike. If you stood Jesus and Adam side by side, they would look and sound exactly alike."
Authority of the Believer IV 1987, audiotape #01-0304, side 1
On the cover for Copeland's audiotape series entitled 'How To Build Your Firm Foundation.' Remember the main definition of Masonry as being 'Freemasonry is a peculiar system of Morality, veiled in Allegory, and illustrated by Symbols.'
This is exactly what we have right here. Copeland has placed the chief Masonic symbols of the square and compass here that to most people the true meaning is veiled in an allegorical style.

ALLEGORY, fictional literary narrative or artistic expression that conveys a symbolic meaning parallel to but distinct from, and more important than, the literal meaning. Allegory has also been defined as an extended metaphor. The symbolic meaning is usually expressed through personifications and other symbols. In art, an allegorical painting or sculpture is one that has a symbolic meaning underlying the surface image.

More symbols of Freemasonry are incorporated into Copeland's 'Shout' magazine for kids. Around Kenneth's neck is an eagle above an inverted triangle. I have seen this symbol on a Masonic certificate before. The female has an inverted 5 pointed star placed on her shirt. This symbol represents the 'Order of the Eastern Star' which is a Masonic order for women! Is this a coincidence? Now Copeland has placed the main symbols of Masonry and the Eastern Star on his covers. When 33rd Degree Freemason Robert Schuller wanted to express his secret membership in the Lodge he used the 33rd Degree symbol of a double headed eagle and sent it out to many people without them realizing what he was declaring to his Masonic brothers worldwide. 33rd Degree Freemason Oral Roberts used the inverted triangle in his University logo which has a hidden Masonic design to it. Another odd element is that the Freemasons veiled the symbols of the square, compass, inverted star and triangle into the street layout of Washington D.C. These are the 3 symbols that Copeland has placed on the 2 mentioned covers. As I write this he is also presently in Washington conducting a rally.

To summarize:-
Kenneth Copeland started work under a 33rd Degree Freemason whom he has a strong friendship with. He claims to be 'I AM' which is a Masonic initiation term. His teaching about his hermaphroditic god match up exactly with what Masonry teaches and his teaching on the size and likeness of God match up with what the early Freemason-Mormon leaders also taught. Add to this the veiled symbols of Freemasonry that he has placed on 2 covers, possibly more.

I would have never suspected Copeland of being a Freemason if it were not for his heretical teachings including his belief that God was gang raped and sodomised by homosexual Roman soldiers. If so then God's blood would be impure and unable to redeem. Please click on the link below for more information on Copeland's false teachings and strange beliefs.

The deciding factor to publish this information came after a friend of mine received information from an ex-Mason that stated that he has been in attendance in Masonic meeting when Copeland was present. At the moment this man wishes not to reveal himself. He possibly has some firm documented evidence that we will try to obtain. I do not know who this man is but my friend is trying to obtain more information. Another thing that helped verify these facts is a research project in the US that has gained some proof of these allegations. I am currently trying to contact these men so I can add their research to this page. What I do know is that they are both 'Born-again' Christian ministers whose credentials have been checked out. I will amplify on these details later.

Bev Jo, Linda Strega and Ruston #fundie bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com

The Power of Names — Our Definitions

Dyke: We use this term for the most Lesbian-identified of Lesbians. It’s important to remember that it was originally used only for Butches.

Lesbian: A female who loves and falls in love with other females, makes love only with females, and never relates sexually to males or injects semen into herself. When Lesbians are single and celibate, we’re very different from celibate het women, who are still sexually, emotionally, socially, and culturally focused on men.

Lesbianism is far more than a “sexual preference” or “sexual orientation.” It is a choice of women loving women. Everything we feel and do in our lives we do as Lesbians. Our political and creative work is Lesbian. Our friendships are Lesbian relationships.

No male can become a Lesbian. “Transwomen” are simply men perving, fetishizing, and caricaturing women and Lesbians.

Female: The term we use for our sex, since it’s not age-specific and is less identified with heterosexuality than “woman.” Also, it’s a reminder of our link with other female animals on earth, who are generally called “female,” rather than “women.” And, as Julia Penelope said in The Mystery of Lesbians, “female” is derived from the French “femelle,” with no connection to the word “male,” while (crediting the writings of Monique Wittig and ideas of Ariane Brunet and Louise Turcotte) “woman” comes from “wif” (wife) and “man.”

Woman, Womyn, Wimmin, etc.: For many of us, “woman” has meant heterosexual — a “real” woman by men’s standards. It’s a male definition imposed on females and isn’t our natural state. The many feminist variations are closet terms for “Lesbian,” and we refuse to support that trend. When we say “Lesbian,” we mean it. It’s understandable that Lesbians in unsafe situations use a code name like “womyn” to make contact with other Lesbians, but when Lesbians use those terms instead of “Dyke” or “Lesbian” among ourselves, it weakens Lesbian identity. “The womyn’s community” is het-identified, not Lesbian-identified.

Some Lesbians embraced “woman” because that term is denied to many females, especially Lesbians. Men call us “girls” to demean us. However, some Lesbians prefer the term “girl” to “woman” for other reasons. For some African-descent females, poor and working-class females, Lesbians who came out before the Women’s Liberation Movement, and young females, “girl” is a familiar, affectionate term. After all, we’ve all been girls for a long time, while “woman” is a term laden with images of “adult” females who are heterosexually active, wifely, and motherly. For many of us, girlhood was the time when many girls we knew were most clear about loving other girls and rejecting boys. We support girls who call themselves “girls” as a statement of pride, and we support adult females who call themselves “girls” as part of their culture and heritage.

We also don’t call ourselves Gay women since that associates us with Gay men. That term has been a dividing line between Lesbian Feminists and non-feminists or Lesbians who felt afraid to use the term Lesbian.

Gally #racist eivindberge.blogspot.no

What follows is a guest post by a man who has recently joined the Men's Rights Movement after a run-in with one of the laws we fight to abolish because it constitutes an evil criminalization of male sexuality. His experience also highlights the importance of the emerging alliance between the MRA and MAP communities. We are in this together, because while most men are not primarily attracted to minors, most men are certainly attracted to minors to some extent well under the age of consent, down to and including what is sometimes called hebephilia. And it is just common human decency to oppose bad laws and persecution of pedophiles just for existing. Or should be.

My name is Gally.

I take this online handle in homage of "the greatest warrior who has ever lived," "Battle Angel Alita" (Yoko von der Rasierklinge), whose story of epic struggles with coming to terms with her past, understanding herself, and accepting what she is and also what she is not, has provided me with more inspiration than any other story I have ever read, real or fictional. It is a great manga, better even than Evangelion in my opinion, and for those interested you can find it here: https://www.mangareader.net/battle-angel-alita-last-order.

As such, I have a few reflections that I would like to share with you. First a disclaimer though: I am a minor-attracted person and most would consider me a pedophile. Although that is technically inaccurate; pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children and I am attracted to pubescent minors, so the more precise term would be "hebephile," but in lieu of distinguishing the term "Minor Attracted Person" (MAP) is recommended.

So, if this upsets or triggers you, you are welcome to not read any further, but I would respectfully request that if you chose to comment, you do so after having read through what I have to say.
I would like to add though, that MAPs basically either think that contact with minors is okay or they don't think contact with minors is okay, and I'm mostly in the latter camp as I have found that personally it's hard for me to hide that I like somebody, and therefore I advice other MAPs to also not get too socially involved with minors that they find themselves having an attraction to, given that it might lead to contact that is too intimate and/or age-inappropriate.

So please consider that people can be and act sensibly and responsibly -- in fact, most people do act responsibly and considerately regardless of sexual orientation, kinks, or mere fantasies, fetishes, or paraphilias.

That aside, in a related issue it has been said that we are what we do, but I would argue that we are also information.

The DNA in all the cells in our body (only ten percent of which are actually human; 90% of "our" cells are bacteria without which we would be unable to digest carbohydrate-based food such as proteins, but only fat and sugar), if unraveled to a string, would reach to Pluto and back. Eleven times. The DNA of all human beings currently alive on our planet Earth could encircle the Milky Way (which is 130,000 light-years in diameter) 20 times over. The combinations of any one pairing of a sperm cell and an egg holds the potential of randomly mixing 43 chromosomes -- one half from the sperm, the other half from the egg -- in two to the power of 43 different ways (2^43).

The number of humans who have ever lived on our planet is thought to be only about 20 billion (counting from the last 10 million years of Homo sapiens thought to be a genetically distinct species), meaning that just by chromosomal pairing alone, only 1/3500-part of what we as a species, what humans are, has ever surfaced from the vast sea of potential humans that can be brought into existence.

The real number may be incalculable, considering that recent research has revealed that our DNA is actually not static, set from birth to death, but changes according to our environment -- and possibly even according to our experiences, influenced by brain chemistry -- our mood, whether we are happy or depressed, at peace or subjected to violence, if we experience freedom or oppression.

What was once thought to be mostly "junk DNA" may not be so after all, but like medical conditions such as heart disease, does not always manifest itself at all times but could be triggered by unknown, hitherto unpredictable and unimaginable combinations of events.

No longitudinal studies have been carried out on this as of yet, but as DNA sequencing becomes exponentially cheaper, we might discover connections between the environment and our evolutionary process that could be as shocking to science as the theory of evolution once was.

To quote a clip from the computer game Alpha Centauri (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Secret Project: The Human Genome Project):
"To map the very stuff of life; to look into the genetic mirror and watch a million generations march past. That, friends, is both our curse and our proudest achievement. For it is in reaching to our beginnings that we begin to learn who we truly are."
Genetic analysis (comparison of actual mutations to known rate of mutation of male and female chromosomes) has already revealed that throughout human history, only half of males have succeeded in reproducing, whilst almost all females have. Which, one could argue, means that evolution -- and thus, progress -- is almost exclusively a male endeavor. Which also explains why males have more variation -- there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, and more males who never find a mating partner (1/3 of all men in Norway) than females who never find a mating partner (1/6 of all females in Norway).

We are information above all, and there is nothing that is more Holy of Holies than Knowledge, for only knowledge can bring understanding, and only understanding can create with intent -- with a goal in mind. Be that evil, to gain power over the weak, or good, to bestow powers upon them.
To quote the science-fiction author Peter Watts:
Evolution has no foresight. Complex machinery develops its own agendas. Brains — cheat. Feedback loops evolve to promote stable heartbeats and then stumble upon the temptation of rhythm and music. The rush evoked by fractal imagery, the algorithms used for habitat selection, metastasize into art. Thrills that once had to be earned in increments of fitness can now be had from pointless introspection. Aesthetics rise unbidden from a trillion dopamine receptors, and the system moves beyond modeling the organism. It begins to model the very process of modeling. It consumes evermore computational resources, bogs itself down with endless recursion and irrelevant simulations. Like the parasitic DNA that accretes in every natural genome, it persists and proliferates and produces nothing but itself. Metaprocesses bloom like cancer, and awaken, and call themselves I.
Our interactions shape others, as theirs in turn also shape us.

Our identities, therefore, are in constant flux, as noted by many religions -- from the Bible's "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another" to Buddhism's reflections on the transitory nature of man, to the Native American story of the struggle between the "good" wolf and the "bad" wolf that lives inside of our hearts, and how feeding the "good wolf" that is cultivating constructive and positive habits and behavior is recommended if you want him to win the struggle with the "bad wolf."

My point being, behavior is changeable, we are creatures of habit, we can change and we can improve ourselves and the lives of others and even the course of history by our participation in it.

We can learn from our mistakes, and for many this is the primary way of learning -- trying, failing, and improving -- but we cannot learn from mistakes that we are not able to make -- or that we are not allowed to make, as we fear an ever-watching, ominous presence of mass surveillance by people whose only intentions is to punish and harm us.

We can do good towards one another. But only if we understand the difference between good and bad. And we can seek peaceful, ethical solutions to problems that in the past may have seemed almost intractable, impossible to solve. We can think; not just feel. We can understand -- or at least accept -- reality as it is, not just condemn others, and by doing so, through proxy curse our common humanity. We can be generous; not just selfish. We can seek what is best for others, not just what we desire.
And we can have progress. Real, tangible, measurable progress, social growth, care for the weak and the confused and even for those with little self-control or ability to reflect upon consequences.

One of the oldest recorded stories is that of the "Fall from Grace," or as it is also called, the "Original Sin." Woman rebelled against a meaningless command by a dictatorial authority, allied with Man, and in the story it is said that God himself admitted that now they had both "become like God, knowing good and evil" -- by gaining experience-based knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil, through rejection of a meaningless "evil" as the eating of a piece of fruit from a particular tree was.

The price paid was to be cast out, and living a life of hardships and struggles.

A high price, that not many are willing to pay, but instead bend their knee and accept commandments to not think for oneself, but obey unquestioningly, even to meaningless absurdities.

Right now the world is in a dire state.

The level of freedom and independence of the press has never been lower, at the same time as we are manipulated by fake news, politically controlled propaganda, and an almost insane denial of the truth and a blatantly open disregard for empirically provable, reproducible, peer-reviewable scientific facts. Surveillance equipment is exported from western nations to repressive regimes all over the world, and Human Rights that were introduced after the second world war are being gradually rolled back for carefully selected minorities.

The ones whom it is easy to portray as evil.

As sick.

As disgusting.

As dangerous.

As abominations that are inhuman and must be purged, or locked away for as long as possible, as a way to frighten others not to commit similar crimes, rather than be offered any meaningful preventative therapy or harmless outlets.

People like me, whose crime is being different in that I am more attracted to teenagers than to women my own age, and whose rights to the liberal progress that other minorities have enjoyed to the betterment of society in general (such as homosexuals and transgenders), are being denied.

Many who experience such a degree of hatred, kill themselves -- especially young pedophiles, who would rather die than ever risk harming a child.

Others suffer through recurring depression, a feeling of alienation from society, despair and fear, and engage in substance abuse.

And then there are those whom the authorities succeed in convincing that they are evil, not in control of themselves, sick and destined to commit crimes sooner or later, and who chose to do so, fulfilling the only role that society prescribes for them.

They -- we minor-attracted people -- are being used as a spearhead to drive through changes in our societies that makes the rule of law become less based on objective and established principles, but more on subjective abuses of power. The argument being, exceptions must be made to the way the law is practiced, and one must punish harder because the current harsh punishment is clearly not working and therefore, the "logic" goes, it isn't harsh enough, because of course punishment -- in the eyes of those who see punishment as preferable -- is the only thing that helps.

They say that "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and also that "if you truly believe you can compensate for incompetence by increasing your efforts, there is no end to what you cannot do."

In the same vein, "Military Idiocy" is defined as "It didn't work, so we need to do more of it," and "Police Idiocy" isn't much different: "It doesn't work, so we need to continue doing it."

So with their incompetence the only solutions they understand are punitive, violent, cruel and sociopathically sadistic, and as a result they are in the process of causing changes that make governance of the people be more about control under the threat of punishment, than about preventative measures through guidance, acceptance, and inclusiveness. Changes that alienate us from each other, that make us wary of speaking our minds, thinking our independent thoughts and questioning others', and make us fear expressing ourselves in ways that we are uncertain could be used against us at some point in time.

Changes that are even measurable in how far from home children have been allowed to roam, as documented at http://freerangekids.com/. "Stranger danger" is a divisive tactic that splits local communities, and Divide & Conquer is the oldest strategy in the book. Make people fear their neighbors, and they will never be able to cooperate sufficiently to protest against exploitation.

In addition, surveillance makes everybody who is not rich enough to not have to work or obtain an education and build a career in cooperation with others too concerned with their employer's reputation and angsty about making mistakes, which makes it harder for the 99% of the population who are not born rich to ever learn from their mistakes and understand elementary facts of life such as that we cannot just eat cake if we do not have bread, and thus gain life experiences that makes us compassionate of others, tolerant, forgiving, and wise.

In comparison, the one percent who are born filthy rich can write books like Chicks O'hoi where they describe how they have an entire suitcase full of sex toys and love having their asshole rimmed and how their jaw is almost cramped from sucking dick for so long. The author of that book is anonymous, by the way, but let's just say I have a very strong suspicion I believe I know who she is. And if she is reading this: stylometric analysis revealed that J.K. Rowling was the author of a book she didn't want people to know she wrote, and your entire Instagram-account has been downloaded and I have no problems finding the programs that can do such an analysis.

The ignorance of the rich -- and their self-satisfaction from being "better" than others through having more money -- has always been a great comfort for the state, since if they really understood how others suffered from hardships that they themselves have never experienced, they could have made meaningful change towards and actually contributed to the betterment of society.

For the other 99% who are not as docile and indolent due to being spoilt rotten, surveillance is in effect a way for governments to be dumbing down the people, make them fearful and obedient, and above all: not protest against injustices and abuses of power. Lest our own lives comes under scrutiny, and every word we have ever written is combed through and analyzed, taken out of context or misrepresented, and used against us.

The plan is well underway to turn human beings back from free citizens with rights, to serfs who are under the control of whatever local official is effectively lording his power to define what "law" means and whom it applies to, under his personal jurisdiction.

The police and the military welcome this return to serfdom, as it caters to their psychopathic delusions of grandeur and dreams of powers over even the thoughts and feelings of others.

I recently had the pleasure of attending such a display of police psychopathy, as I was accused of downloading child pornography, what the police wants to define as "documentation of sexual abuse against children," while including cartoons, written stories, and defines "children" to include those over the legal age of consent.

One thing even the police managed to testify truthfully was that the vast, vast majority of the material in my possession involved teenagers posing in the nude. Pictures produced by a professional photo model studio, with the parents' consent, as documented at https://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn.

In other words, at the very lowest level of what the law considers child pornography, and in my personal opinion very comparable to mere nudism -- which is not now, nor ever can, be made illegal.

Unless, of course, we adopt standards for morals that are applied in countries which have been the most reluctant to adopt human rights, to the point of actively working against their acceptance in their particular region of the world -- where workers are exploited as slaves and people in practice have no rights or protection under the law.

In the Western world, we have enjoyed human rights because we have been needed as workers in industry and production of commercial goods, and our labor and creativity has caused an economic growth of 3-4% annually since public education was instituted in Great Britain in 1876.

This is changing with the coming of the second machine age, where human cognitive labor is gradually being replaced by machines.

We are becoming less needed, and people without jobs are said to "have the Devil's idle hands," as they have time to think about the crimes, incompetence, and illegitimacy of those in power.

And question why we allow them to rule over us in all things, instead of being allowed to make decisions for ourselves.

Why some small group of people decide that our country (Norway) should support a war halfway across the world, why we should be subjected to decisions made by other countries (The EU, which we are not a part of but still subjected to), why our resources should be exploited at our loss (our country's hydropower generation exported at European market price), why we should invest in activities with no certain profitability (opening up of polar-circle oil fields) that contribute to environmental degradation (at least for the fisheries there and in turn the local communities).

It is easy to make people obey other, incompetent people in power, and accept their illegitimate rule.
Just tell them you are the only ones who can protect them from monsters.

Find some "useful Jews" that you can pretend are the monsters.

Pick out the worst of those who commit crimes, and relentlessly proclaim that they are representative of all of them, then crank up the propaganda and claim that you are now finding it to be even worse than what the public has been told in the past.

Describe the hideous crimes of the extremely few in as graphic, gory, and tabloid detail as possible. Do not encourage reflection by mentioning numbers such as how many percent of men are attracted to pubescent teenagers, and yet never do any harm.

Fuel the outrage and ride the waves of the moral panic. When people panic, they lose the ability to carefully think things through in a calm and rational manner.

And people will obey.

Because you will have convinced them that you are their Savior.

While in reality, behind the scenes a surveillance apparatus is being created that will put an end to social growth, destroy the middle class, and end human progress as we have known it.

A totalitarian police state is emerging, ruled by psychopaths and the most infantile, ignorant, incompetent, imbecilic, inept, insular, and spoilt rotten selfish rich people, positioning themselves to return society to a state of aristocracy and serfs, and we are letting it happen because in reality, we don't really care about the rights of others as long as we can have shiny things to play with.

How blind we have become. And how childish.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler.

I was born on the 6th of March, 2017, as that was when I decided to set my foot upon this battlefield. I did that with the full knowledge and acceptance that nobody voluntarily goes to war, expecting a long, prosperous, or happy life.

I still chose.

It has now been a year; I have met the Enemy, and He has taught me much.

I have risen from a mere "Lehrling" to now just recently, becoming a "Krieger" (http://battleangel.wikia.com/wiki/Panzer_Kunst).

I am now officially at war.

I do not expect my life to be a happy one.

Or long.

But I decided of my own free will, to join this battle, after hearing a story.

You can find it yourself, if you go look for it.

At the time, I used the handle "LytaHall" on quora.com.

The story was told to me by a retired police investigator, who for twenty years had specialized in cases involving the sexual abuse of children.

He told me of a man who had lured a ten-year-old girl from the neighborhood into his bedroom, where apparently he had made inappropriate advances that had been rejected, and due to the harsh punishments -- this was in the US -- he killed the girl out of desperation that she would tell on him.

I have never in my life experienced anything like what I experienced when I realized what an ABYSS of helplessness and powerlessness I was standing in front. There was nothing I could do, or say, that would change that innocent child's death, the investigator was retired and was only interested in idle conversation, the police are not in themselves drivers for policy or social changes, and if the development of the kind of harsh punishments for such crimes reach Norway, motivated by political posturing and moralistic-based virtue signaling, instead of us looking to nations such as Germany with their successful "Dunkelfeld" program, then that is going to happen in Norway too.

I can change that.

I can read books, I can argue the case for offering free mental health care and harmless outlets before somebody commits a crime, rather than merely waiting for them to do something wrong and then punish them afterwards.

And I am willing to do so.

Even at the cost of my own happiness and health.

Because I wish to do good.

I wish to help make this world a better place, and I am smart and knowledgeable enough to make a difference.

My enemy has taught me much.

I am still learning.

But although I may make mistakes, the true sign of a warrior is not to never suffer defeat, and not to never strike a blow that misses, but to keep on fighting, and to get up again after being defeated.
And to grow stronger.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler, klasse Krieger.

And I shall now use what I have left of my life to try my very best to prevent the kind of abominable, perverted criminal "justice" system that they have in America (Filling Up Prisons Without Fighting Crime: Mark Kleiman on America's Criminal Justice System), from reaching Norway.

Because looking at the numbers, in the US 13 times more children are killed than in Germany (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1658-5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html), and part of that is undoubtedly that "two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

To quote parts of the philosophy of panzerkunst:
Panzer Kunst also provides a definite tactical advantage, since it gives its user the ability to analyze an opponent's fighting style and to retaliate accordingly. Therefore, a Künstler will rarely be defeated in a second combat with a given enemy. Künstlers also seem to have been imbued with a sense of fanaticism and willingness to sacrifice themselves if necessary to carry out a mission.
I am Gally.

And I am now (and until my death) at WAR.

Defiance. Because my Conscience does not allow me to stand idly by, as People in Power hurts others for their Personal Careers (Two Steps From Hell - Freedom Fighters).

Michael Augustus #fundie returnofkings.com

Women Would Rather Be Raped By Invaders Than Stuck With Beta Males

She is dying for you to put her in her place, beneath you. A woman wants to be conquered, she wants to submit to power, she wants to give up control, but first she has to test to see if “it” exists within you. To submit to a lesser man is rape, to submit to a superior man is harmony. Feminism and other female SJW endeavors are societal shit tests. If you fail, they’ll push the boundary again, and again, and again… If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

The female imperative was never supposed to be 100% successful, though. Eventually, some man somewhere is supposed to not put up with her shit and put her in her proper place: beneath him and one half-step back. A woman’s job is to see you fail. For if you fail, you were never “worthy” in the first place. Western culture is now embracing that very failure.

The Beta That Broke The Western Cultures’ Back

Betas occur naturally in the wild, but over the past several decades, governments, corporations, media, and academia have attempted to artificially manufacture them en masse beyond natural levels with the assistance of female nature (stated earlier). They’ve indoctrinated man into believing blue pill sexual strategy that women despise. They’ve stripped fathers from the home and had females infiltrate male spaces containing masculine role models. And they’ve legally restrained a man’s ability to discipline and properly set boundaries in the home, the very same discipline and boundaries that women instinctively seek. All with the proud help of women.

So what’s left? A whole generation of men raised by women and the state, taught to be pussies and supplicate to females and authority.

Now, the feminization of man has hit critical mass and women’s amygdalas notice. Women are unknowingly witnessing their own creation and are left disgusted, wondering, “Where have all the ‘good men’ gone?” Now women are seeking another tribe…

The Invaders

“[…] women actually want strong male authority figures in their life.

But will deny it until the day they die.

If they admitted to it, it would allow non male authority figures (beta men) to emulate alpha qualities.

They want men that just get it. Even if that means takeover of Western European / u.s. Culture by Islamic militants.”

— /u/antariusz (Source)

Europe is currently witnessing female nature being expressed freely on a societal level without a civilized, masculine balancing factor. The truth of the matter is, women have no in-group loyalties. Whoever the powerful are in that moment, women drift their way with their asses bent over, knees quivering, and legs dripping with tingle juice. They want to be conquered, but they don’t care by who. Whether it’s daddy government, her father, a boyfriend, Chad Thundercock, violent criminals, or a horde of rapefugees doesn’t matter.

In times of war, women are constants. Men and boys are killed off, but women are simply transferred and assimilated into the new tribe to be the sperm receptacles of the victors.

Observing the weakness of many European men, women want a different set of male suitors. They call this initiative “diversity” or “multiculturalism.” In plain terms, women want to import men they perceive to be powerful and masculine to replace the weaklings they are stuck with. Women LOVE playing multiple men against each other to battle for her vaginal affections. It’s basically the plot of a every rom-com and romance novel.

Thanks to the 1984 police state, politicians and social media titans like Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerburg, that new tribe so happens to be the biggest group in history to never reform itself to Western society: Muslims (over 2 billion of them). They give absolutely zero fucks about Western Civilization and their inhabitants. They never back down. These people are not just willing to die and be imprisoned to defend their beliefs, but kill: “There is no law, but that of Allah.”

This is attractive to women. Women LOVE violent males. Women love their conviction. It’s extremely arousing to them. The fact that it’s backed by a mental illness doesn’t matter. These Muslim immigrants are violent, they don’t break frame, and are becoming powerful. That’s seen as masculine. That’s sexy.

Most modern Western man doesn’t stand a chance. Rape and sexual assault has skyrocketed since immigrants have been allowed to settle into Europe, yet women and feminists were silent on the subject. Why? Because they would rather live under the threat of rape by invaders than settle with skinny beta manginas protesting at slut walks and minoring in gender studies. There are even instances where European girls refused to report their immigrant sexual assailants in the name of multiculturalism and fighting Islamophobia or just because they felt bad for them. But that’s bullshit. The power of the rapists gave her tingles and then she tried to rationalize it.

Conclusion

With Open Gates: The forced collective Suicide of European Nations - Watch with Audio below

You see that, betas of Europe? That’s your future.

The only thing saving North America from being Cologne, Sweden, or Britain is that there are two oceans separating us from Africa and the Middle East. But Obama seeks to change that by importing thousands of Syrians into small traditional family towns (view: Roosh’s video). Not to mention the education system, specifically the colleges here, are getting brainwashed to the max with anti-white “diversity.”

Betas of the United States and Canada? Keep it up, and women will encourage the same thing to happen here, embracing the enemy with open legs.

Some MRAs #sexist #fundie reddit.com

Post-Gamergate Study Blows Up Conventional Wisdom – Finds Female Gamers Are the Real Sexists

(xNOM)

The results confirmed their hypothesis “that the level of online sexual harassment behavior, especially toward women, will increase after playing a sexualized video game.” Harassment of men did not increase after playing the sexualized video game.

wtf does "especially toward women" mean?

However, in a surprise twist, the female gamers in both groups turned out to be significantly more likely to engage to send sexist jokes to their partner, and most of the sexual harassment was of men.

"especially toward women?"

The admittedly surprised researchers came up with a theory for their findings. They posited that the women sent more sexist jokes because they saw harassing each other as harmless fun and harassing men as a form of revenge.

Hey retards, that's exactly why men sexually harass women as well. There is no evil patriarchy full of toxic masculinity.

(ExpendableOne)

It's always been pretty clear to me that many, if not most, female gamers are far more sexist than your average male gamers. You see it on reddit all the time, grown women trying to victimize themselves because they received male attention; all the while glorifying attention from other women themselves(especially blatant when you look at "female only" subs like girl gamers which is deliberately discriminative) or demonstrating the exact same time of attention seeking behaviour(basically jumping on this "look at me, woe is me, i'm an oppressed female gamer" narrative for attention).

They will cry that lonely, depraved and awkward teenage boys will sexualize or romanticize them online, even when they are literally adult women in a position of power and privilege over them(both offline and online). There is a major empathy gap there not just in where at attention might be coming from but a major negative bias and hostile predisposition towards male attention in general(a dehumanizing and irrational disdain that I could only describe as toxic femininity). If men complained about female attention the way women do about male attention, it would be labelled as misogynous gate-keeping.

So many times, I see female gamers make everything about gender, when gender isn't necessarily a relevant factor, but neglect gender as a factor when it is actually relevant. Male to female sexual attention from a heterosexual man relates to gender, but female gamers will try to present this as misogyny because apparently all boys should act like eunuchs and treat girls no differently than boys(despite biology, sexual market value and romantic gender role expectations all being relevant factors). When a guy insults a girl online, even with it's totally warranted and in the most gender neutral manner, female gamers will make this a gender issue, and try to label the situation as misogyny(this is especially true if gendered terms like "bitch" are used, despite the context in which they are used had nothing to do with gender).

And that's not even going into the number of women who are absolutely toxic, hostile and condescending online, often explicitly so towards men/boys, just because they can(and, because they are women, there is very little to no accountability for their actions because most people wouldn't tell them they are wrong or would just automatically side with them because they are women). Or the fact that men seem far more open/comfortable with the idea of playing female protagonists than women seem to be with male protagonists.

(DJ-Roukan)

"Reality can be whatever I want" -Feminazis

Where proof and truth are subject to interpretation.

A team of scientists placed a frog on a table and ordered it to jump. it jumped

They then cut of it's legs and ordered it to jump, it did not.

They concluded that a frog with no legs cannot hear.

"Reality is often... disappointing" - Thanos

Exactly.

There is one glaring truth exposed in this study that they seem to either have missed or do not want to admit.

Women commit sexual harassment more than men because we hold men accountable, and we do not hold women accountable, but encourage it.

Does not take a team of scientist to understand that, and it seems they do not.

(omegaphallic)

It's fucking disgusting that people can't joke with each anymore, it's callled msygony or whatever now. The SJWs are fighting to make this a soulless, joyless world, utterly passionless and sterile. I'd rather be offended and just talk it out now and against this live like that, eggs all the time.

These Gamer Girls aren't sexist, they are just joking around like normal people do all the fucking time, this shit is just getting down right oppressive. You can't flirt safely anymore, you can't joke with friends, ect... Enough.

Some incels #transphobia reddit.com

Re: 90% of /r/detrans are female-to-male, because women realize quickly that being a short weak framed man is HELL. BLACKPILLED

image

(HighIQPakiCel)

Imagine a 5'4 feminist type deciding to become a man, thinking she'll get "male privilege". She takes testosterone and gets her tits cut off and becomes a weak framed 5'4 incel that no woman wants to date. LMAO LIFE FEUL.

They want their female privilege back immediately. They thought they wanted male privilege, what they really wanted was CHAD PRIVILEGE.

And the ugly fat balding man who has never gotten a date in his life puts on a skirt and bra & has guys lining up to fuck him. Transgenderism is a huge blackpill.

Men who become women can be put in 2 categories.

Transwomen who like men/trannies: In this case they have immediate access to infinite sex with men and other trannies.

Transwomen who like women: In this case it's fucking over lmao. Lesbian women don't want to date a fucking manly tranny. This is where the "high suicide" is. These trannys realize that real women want nothing to do with them, they either suicide or settle for other trannys. Almost no trannies pass, 99.9% look like freaks without fakeup

Interesting. Now that you mention de-transitioning, I'm really curious about the percentages now. I know more transitions are MtF, but it sounds right that FtM would have more quitters.

It seems 90%~ of detrans people are FTM, even though the vast majority of trans people are MTF. These numbers are staggering, even moreso when you adjust for population of ftm vs mtf

(gloomcel)

And unless they are Asians usually they will never pass. Asian have narrowed shoulders and small bones which help with finding clothes

There’s a chance for a male to female transgender to improve their life. It’s small, and most trannies don’t pass for real women but when they do it’s a good improvement.

Female to male is like someone giving you a large pizza and chicken wings for free and you throwing that perfectly good food into the garbage. The same person buys you the pizza and wings every day.... only for you to throw it away.

Seriously. Being a man is brutal and based on how much money you have and how big and strong you are.

Women say men have the winning ticket. Only Chad does.

Exactly, they never wanted to be male, they wanted to be Chad

Being Chad means people take you seriously. Incel like me can speak the truth but I am not attractive so people won’t accept it

(whimDEE)

there should be more debate about this topic. i wonder WHY women change back to women after they had a taste of what it was like being a man.

i wonder what the suicide/depression rates are for FtM as well. i bet it’s a lot higher than MtF. KEK

And this is despite the fact that women can look more convincingly like a man than vice versa, minus the height.

Some TERFs #sexist #transphobia reddit.com

(sophiedk)

2 types of trans

Interesting group. I have this fetish to some extent, but no confusion about identity. To my mind, there seems to be 2 different sets of people involved here. There are people with genuine identity issues or those who are biological outliers, a small minority. And then there is the new wave of hyperexualised folks who are being enabled by blankslate ideas about gender. Maybe feminism took a wrong turn when it started indentifying gender with culture rather than biology? Gender is multilayered, culture and roles are a layer on top of biology, but biology is real. There have always been people a bit closer to the middle of the bell curves, but society seemed able to cope with that.

(sosososhocking)

I think quite a lot of AGPers/trans are motivated by a combination of their desire to go full-time with the fetish, and an aversion to being called a pervert. Nobody in their right mind would want to be seen as a perverted guy in a dress. It's much more palatable to be a "trans woman", especially because in many circles anyone who refuses to play along will suffer repercussions.

Sure, there are intersex people but they literally make up about a half percent of the population at best. They are often used by trans activists to claim that gender isn't clear cut, but (1) it is for 99.95% of the population and (2) you guys aren't intersex anyway.

(GinFoss)

You're right, but your number might be wrong. It's estimated at 1/1500 to 1/2000 births according to the North American Intersex Society. So it's actually more like 99.99933% of the population does not fall under the umbrella of intersex. As a matter of statistics, just purely mathematically, that's statistically insignificant, and definitely doesn't prove that sex is a spectrum.

That's why it's so, so, so, so, so stupid to say "assigned male" or "assigned female" at birth. It's not assigned, it's observed. Bringing up the rare case of intersex to challenge that is like saying it's incorrect to say humans have 5 fingers on each hand simply because you can cite a rare mutation causing supernumerary digits. That doesn't mean the number of fingers is a bloody spectrum.

And as another person said, many of those cases don't involve ambiguous genitalia (Klinefelter syndrome, and Complete Androgen Insensitivity are two good examples of males and females respectively who are genetically intersex, but have unambiguous genitals)

(Poolooloo)

A lot of “intersex” people fall clearly on one side or another and might even go their whole lives not knowing they are anything other than an XX female or XY male. People say “intersex” and think someone either completely androgynous with a penis and vagina, or just nothing down there like a Ken doll but it includes a lot of conditions, only a few of which would really make someone’s gender indeterminate.

Even when intersex people are born with ambiguous genitalia, which they often are, they still fall into one sex or another as determined by their chromosomes. For example Kline-felters males have XXY chromosomes. They are still considered male. There is no such thing as a true hermaphrodite because of these reasons and you will never find an intersex person with working female and male reproductive organs.

It’s also really a misnomer to compare people born with such a serious physical condition to a mental condition which being gender dysphoric is.

It would be a bit like saying humans don’t actually have 2 arms because every 10,000 births someone is born with a missing arm, hand, or finger, therefore the number of limbs on a human body is a “spectrum”.

(palerthanrice)

Was it feminists though? To be honest not up to speed on how this shit show started. I know libfems sure to push this junk science.

Some people just want to feel radical. For a lot of women, they start out with feminism because it’s a fight for their own people. If you’re a woman, it feels natural to be involved in this cause, it makes sense that this is something you’d care about, and it feels good to be fighting for something.

But once that feeling of fighting wears off, some people switch causes. Gay rights was another natural progression. Many women are gay and are further discriminated due to that, so fighting for gay rights still feels like fighting for your own people.

I think most normal people saw this coming, but after gay marriage was legalized nationwide, that cause also grew stale. Women who had been chasing that high latched onto the next progression from gay rights, which was trans rights. While the vast majority of trans people are men trying to be women, these habitual radicals believe it’s related to women’s rights because most trans people believe that they are “women on the inside.” So by fighting for the rights of these people, they believe that they’re fighting for the rights of their fellow woman.

All in all, the root of the whole trans issue is AGP men taking advantage of the empathetic nature of women and men being too afraid of ostracization to stick up for what they know is right. As a man, when I talk to any straight man about trans people in a one on one environment, every single time their opinion is between “Fuck that” or “I believe people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but that stuff is clearly mental illness.” I get varying responses when it comes up in one on one conversations with my friends who are women EXCEPT the most “radical” women I know all support it fully.

(Ohhiohyo)

Women’s subjugation is because of gender. Women are not naturally the property of men. It’s not feminist’s fault that men get off on thinking otherwise. Transgenderism is just the newest form of men’s desire to control the power of naming. Some men have now inverted their desire for a big titty sexbot/anime loli/whatever they think a women is in their heads because they don’t have the power to turn a real women into their fantasy.

(palerthanrice)

This is definitely on the right track. I think the submissiveness of trans people is evidence of how they view women should be to men.

I think there’s a lot of deluded feminists who got tired of women’s rights and moved to gay rights (to fight for fellow gay women). Then after gay marriage got legalized nationwide, they moved to trans rights because they were told that these men were actually “women on the inside.”

So it’s not really a problem with feminism or feminists in general, but rather women who just want to feel radical and got fooled into supporting junk science. Luckily, many of these women spend a few years supporting this movement but eventually bail out because it becomes obvious that these people are just mentally ill and not “women on the inside.”

Unknown #fundie missinguniversemuseum.com

Exhibit 16: Reproductive Systems (Sex)

Sex is a great problem for Evolution! Per evolution, all living things had a common ancestor. If this is true, every living thing should be sexually compatible and able to produce fertile offspring! That's because if any new specie did come about by mutation, it would have to mate with its parent specie. Yet, none of the major kinds of life can be crossed to produce a fertile offspring!

The reproductive system is a faithful reproducer of its parent kind. You never see an elephant giving birth to a horse or anything other than an elephant. When there is an error in reproduction, it is almost always harmful or at best neutral. Any mutation would have to be included in the genes in order to be passed on to future generations.

The Bible says that God created all living things, male and female to reproduce after their kind. He did this within the 6 days of Creation. If you don't believe God created all males and females within 6 days, how many millions of years was it between the first male and the first female?

reynoldsg #racist stormfront.org

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

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

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

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

Sharia_Now #sexist #transphobia incelistan.net

Don’t transition. You’ll be a lot more depressed and suicidal when you do.
It’s just women trying to convince us to “transition” because they love nothing more than seeing a guy get his penis and testicles cut off. It’s their primary fantasy. Don’t let those cunts win.

It’s clear they have a strong drive to produce children though. So they don’t want every man to cut his dick off. Just most of them. If you aren’t Chad then they literally want you to cut your dick off.

There’s no instinctive female desire to see any male have his penis and testicles attached precisely because one man can impregnate a thousand women. So women could evolve hatred and disgust towards these male parts because those parts would always exist in overabundance no matter how many were cut off. In fact you could castrate 95% of Chads and there’d still be more than enough Chads to impregnate every female.

sex-change only inverts penis. Penis is not removed. A vagina is simply a penis pointed inward. Most women are in love with themselves primarily, a man secondarily. A mans penis entering a womans vagina provides validation, a penis in harmony, a double penis, a penis touching a penis.

As far as transitioning goes, women are 2x as bigoted against trans as men, 3% of men are willing to have sex with trans, but only 1½% of women are willing to have sex with trans. That may sound like low odds, but that’s still better odds than incels have, which is something like 0.1% or less. Also, 30% of lesbians (supposedly) will fuck you, but only if you are a passing beautiful transsexual (odds are not likely to happen if you are incel and autistic as well.)

Women are only against dating a transman because they want a meal ticket.
A transman does not have the biological brain of a real male so will not accept being a worthless slave working for some woman’s welfare for the rest of his life. The average biological male is programmed to view himself as less valuable than a female, that’s why most men are white knights.
When it comes to sex, whatever little desire women have is entirely towards other women.

Most of the penis is chopped off during these “transitions”, as well as the testicles.

Administrative_Worth & jeremyjimmy #sexist reddit.com

Re: FTM blackpill

image

(Administrative_Worth)
A small selection of men have it very well made. The rest wallow in a sea of desperation. As many writers and philosphers have remarked.

I wouldn't be surprised if she ropes soon. Trannies have a high sucide rate afterall, because most of them don't pass as the gender they wish to be.

Women turning into men look a lot better than the opposite. It's pretty damn hard to undo the effects of testosterone and increased human growth hormone. Hell a lot of females turning into males get ripped fast, because they are basically on IFBB pro steroids, medicial grade ones with endocronilogists there to make sure it all goes well.

Men turning into women. God help me. Not to mention the disproprortionate amount of male to female transgenders, (another sing it's being over diagnosed)Sadly a lto of those male to females are fellow brocels, at the very least mentalcels who got sucked and udped into the alluring tranny trap, that all the negatives and bad feeligns they experience, isn't your fault. It's that you were born in the wrong body. Now wear this tape over your occk and balls permenantly damaging them, and start a diet of phytoestrogens Before we find you a "sympathetic" psychiatrist who will give you a diagnosis and we can start chopping bits off and pumping you with hormones.

This is why there are way more MTF trannies than FTM ones. Most foids would never want to experience the hardships of a man while many men want to experience the much easier life of a woman.

Sadly true. So many copers, especially mentalcels falling in the tranny trap.

Legit transgenders do exist. They are so rare though. Hardly existing on the scale we're seeing mentally ill, often vulnerable lonely, damaged by trauma or bullying, people being pumped full of hormones and having cocks lopped off today. Damn fucking sad

This is like changing the difficulty level of a game from Easy to a Legend.

SUddenly I'm a creep unless I say the exact right words with the right body language and keeping the right diatance from everyone else. And there are always other fellow "bros" pushing me around, excluding me fro conversations with their shoulders. I thought we were all bros in this club, wtf. Being born a male is struggle from womb to tomb. It's why so many kill themselves, or check out as rannies, or mgtow, or run off to hippie communes of "free love" where it's their partner just fucking hippie chads and they get to stop worrying and competing and get fed, and live basically.

The struggle and will is all.

(jeremyjimmy)

The foid is starting to realize that she gave up her privilege just to become a manlet. JFL at her stupidity.

You'd think they would've realized this a lot earlier? If I was transitioning I'd be THOROUGHLY researching shit women go through and putting myself mentally in their place day to... oh wait I'm a guy, I already do that naturally without thinking, it's called empathy.

That's how this place predicted the blackpill and can predict posts like this, because we have empathy and a generally objective understanding of how people and the world works.

Apex fallacy

Exactly. A LOT of women have it made vs how many men have it made. Men have it made by having the luck of being born good looking, born with enough drive to work hard enough to make a nice amount of money and / or be born into money.

wtf is fun about larping as a man? Took t shots too, dry bagina here we come

There were 3 articles about exactly this a few months ago. All female to male, all saying life has become a cold, lonely nightmare compared to the friendly, safe world they lived in as a woman. They now say they feel invisible and like if they mess up they're on their own.

Yeah, no shit. Welcome to being a man. Did they think we were lying about this stuff?

I've heard this a million times from female to male. Another complaint is that "they suddenly feel alone in the world like if something goes wrong nobody will help" they ALSO all tend to say something along the lines of "before transitioning I didn't really think about men's issues or what they go through or care about them but now I realize life is a lot harder for them."

They basically admit everything. Funny because when I was told about women's issues I felt empathy for them and I would alter my behavior to make their lives a little easier. Meanwhile they didn't even consider men human.

Stephen A. Coston, Sr #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

"Royalty, Rumors and Racists"

BY STEPHEN A. COSTON, SR.

AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK:

KING JAMES
The VI Of Scotland & I Of England
Unjustly Accused?

The character assassination of His Majesty King James VI & I is an ongoing evolving process that has matured in this present day to a sort of "open season" of differing opinions variously setting forth different theories and hypotheses on the whys, hows, and ifs of the alleged "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Part of the reason for so many differing opinions is that many historians and would-be historians have forsaken fact for fictional accounts on the life of King James VI & I. Without facts to restrain the imagination the investigative process turns into a rumor mill and as such is an aberration of the historical process. Often these highly speculative accounts, contemporary or modern, are based not on the actual life and words of King James VI & I but on what these individuals THINK what King James VI & I said and did meant. Honest professional historians are beginning to admit this and this is most welcome; however, King James VI & I still has his ardent critics.

More often than not even when actual facts of King James VI & I are presented they are subjected to interpretive twists designed to give the reader the impression that the words and deeds of King James VI & I support the allegations commonly leveled against him. Case in point, it is a known fact King James VI & I was handicapped from birth with weak limbs and injured himself many times. This caused him to have an unsteady gait. To compensate for this King James VI & I often leaned on his most trusted councilors and friends which also happened to be members of his personal staff, individuals critics freely term "favorites." It is often stated that "James was fond of leaning all over his beautiful young favorites" giving the reader the impression King James VI & I did so not because of a physical handicap but because of sexual attraction to same. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Further, it is also freely alleged that King James VI & I "passionately kissed" his "favorites" in public.

Critics of King James VI & I are fond of inferring from the above that King James VI & I engaged in the "French kissing" of his "favorites." They then use this assumption as yet another "proof" to support their contention that King James VI & I was indeed truly a "homosexual."

What the detractors of King James VI & I utterly fail to realize; however, (to their detriment) is the fact that the accounts responsible for popularizing this characterization were penned by individuals who hated not only King James VI & I as a Scot, but the whole country of Scotland as well. They were some of the most militant racists of the time of the most vicious type. Some of their contemporaries knew this and railed against them and defended King James VI & I and it is quite the mystery why modern critics seem not to know this.

Another point that critics of King James VI & I fail to recognize relative to this issue of kissing is that King James VI & I "slobbered" when he ate his food, consumed his drink, or even when he "kissed" someone's hand or cheek. Are we to infer then that King James VI & I passionately kissed inanimate objects, foods and drinks and bodily extremities? What about the widely accepted practice of a monarch's kiss at court to show the King's favor upon an individual? Besides that what of the British acceptance of public kissing for all kinds of events and circumstances. Are we then to infer that the whole island of Great Britain was a hot bed of homosexuality?

It is also inferred that because some individuals rejoiced to have King James VI & I's "legs soon in their arms" upon their return to court that this is somehow indicative of a reference to a sexual position. However, there exist many woodcuts depicting just this position of many noble and common men in with King James VI & I at court. It was customary to prostrate oneself at the feet of the monarch when allowed so close to His Majesty's person to receive a welcome, greeting or honor. King James VI & I's own son, the future King Charles I, himself was in just this position at the feet of his father when he returned from Spain. It is amazing that such shallow reasoning can be allowed to be pawned off as legitimate historical analysis.

Finally, much is made of King James VI & I articulating in his writing that he "loved" someone of the same gender giving the reader the mistaken belief that "love" stood for a sexual attraction and thus yet another "proof" of the "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Also, it is alleged that King James VI & I "justified homosexuality many times" in his writings.

The most common offered "proof" of this mistaken assertion is a quotation from King James VI & I's speech to Parliament which is violently ripped from its intended meaning and context. For an in- depth refutation of this form of argument the diligent reader is referred to my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused.

The Reverend Barrie Williams sums up the desperation of this reasoning:

"... there must be many besides myself for whom nine short words of the King are sufficient: 'Jesus had His John, and I have my George.' King James was in every estimate a devout protestant, and anyone who can believe that he would cast aspersions on the moral integrity of Our Saviour would have no difficulty in believing that the world is flat."

The sheer etymological ignorance of this type of argument is astounding! In my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused I examine the widespread and commonly accepted practice of men and women writing to each other in loving terms and expressing their "love" for one another. Such Jacobean stylistic expressions of this kind were in no way indicative of sexual attraction or homosexuality.

I believe Lucius Annaeus Seneca said it best when he wrote:

"... they refute their case by means of the very passages which lead them to infer it."

Certain revisionist historians would have you believe otherwise and advocate the use this method to prove Biblical characters were likewise "homosexuals" to include Jesus Christ, David and Jonathan. These types of evidences, if you can call them that, are the types of things that critics of King James VI & I use to validate their claims. When they can't force King James VI & I to say what they want they simply make him "mean" what they want. Or, in other words, what they can't find stated they simply infer is there and place between the lines even though it is not "in the lines." However, if King James VI & I did not mean what he wrote then who is anyone to tell us what he actually meant?

As far as "witnesses" go, critics can only cite a handful of contemporaries of King James VI & I and most of these were men fired from office (sour grapes), or were political or religious enemies of the King, or they were otherwise disgruntled courtiers with an ax to grind and none ever were eye witness to any overt sexual acts on the part of King James VI & I.

Not only this but I have not found one yet that ever formally accused King James VI & I of directly being a homosexual and brought his case before any legal or religious body not to mention attempting to obey the precepts of Scripture in making such outlandish claims. For an in- depth examination of the charges commonly leveled at King James VI & I the careful reader is referred to my book mentioned previously.

It is obvious that myriad are the claims leveled at James Charles Stuart's (King James VI & I) moral character or lack thereof. However, out of this great sea of negative opinion the tide is fortunately turning away from the shores of libel and gossip and heading towards the calm home port of objectivity and evidentiary concerns.

Historians like the rest of our society are not immune from the influences of modern faddish trends and regrettably King James VI & I has suffered more than his share of diatribes that are directly due to a falling away from classical objective interpretive methods that were long indicative of the traditional historical method. Recent trends have captivated modern historians and led them to experiment with eisegetical techniques and to put it colloquially "tabloid style journalism." Therefore, much that has been written regarding His Majesty King James VI & I has not been the result of a balanced exegetical method.

Further complicating the situation and making matters worse has been the regrettable over reliance by historians on certain scurrilous sources that were produced in an era when libels of the Stuarts and the Monarchy were at a premium in general and whose opinions were motivated by a distrust and outright hostility to the noble Scots as a nation and King James VI & I in particular. King James VI & I being the first Scot to sit on the English throne and the natural father of the last Stuart King to reign in England before the regicide of The Royal Martyr, King Charles I, King James VI & I was naturally a prime target for abuse.

Making an easy target for his pursuit of peace and his many physical handicaps, King James VI & I was and is ill treated by many who venture to put pen to paper with a view to ruminating on the character of this much misunderstood Monarch. Like all of us in the course of King James VI & I's life he made enemies, and as king he had more than his share. Not only this but King James VI & I had to deal and overcome outright racism against his home of birth, Scotland. It is a sad fact that most of King James VI & I's contemporary critics were either disgruntled courtiers who were removed from office by King James VI & I himself or otherwise suffered loss of political or peerage advancement under King James VI & I or were haters of the whole Scottish nation!

Much indeed has been written on King James VI & I and because of this plethora of information a few researchers when doing analysis on King James VI & I simply refer back to past popular and easily obtainable sources rather than expending time and effort in obtaining rare and difficult to find first hand accounts of either the critical or ameliorative sources. Most indeed who have written about King James VI & I have never actually sat down to read what he actually wrote. This environment has created a prime climate for the kind of slanders and libels King James VI & I has been subjected to.

In my years of research on the life and character of King James VI & I, I have found that there is a great reluctance on the part of some of the more militant and bellicose of modern day critics of King James VI & I who claim to have facts to prove (beyond what they assert in their books) King James VI & I was a homosexual.

They seem unwilling to stand up to investigative criticism of their conclusions. They speak of research but balk at detailing the fruits thereof. They are fond of citing whole volumes of books and articles which they claim validate their assertions but refuse to justify any conclusions or data found therein. Some of the more extreme "Christian" critics of King James VI & I are extremely reticent about applying Biblical injunctions against gossip and rumor to their sources or even allow King James VI & I the protection of Scripture as found in Deut. 19:15 or I Tim. 5:19. Further, some are found to deny King James VI & I even professed to be a Christian! I find this extremely curious that such individuals who claim to be "Christians" would ignore Biblical injunctions on falsely accusing a brother and the evidentiary requirements to sustain charges of the type they advocate.

Thankfully, modern secular critical opinion on King James VI & I is reevaluating the negative assertions of his moral character and moderate critics of King James VI & I are now admitting that these charges are basically OPINION not historical facts! As noted above, only a few extremist and militant and the most ardent of King James VI & I's critics are espousing some of the most vociferous and invectively rancorous libels of King James VI & I.

I have also found in the course of my research a most curious phenomenon, that there is almost a total vacuum of consideration of what King James VI & I actually wrote or what he believed outside of a few brief excerpts of his writings which are more often than not stripped from their context or misinterpreted almost beyond recognition. Great weight almost to the point of complete dependence is attached to the writings of a few disgruntled courtiers, racists and bigots (Sir Anthony Weldon, Francis Osborne and Sir Edward Peyton and a few others).

The writings of Peter Heylyn, Sir William Sanderson, Bishop Godfrey Goodman and Anthony A. Wood and others (not to mention King James VI & I himself) are almost totally forsaken thus creating an unbalanced view of King James VI & I as viewed from contemporary accounts. Similarly, most modern works which discount the critical view of King James VI & I are also almost completely ignored by those who wish to paint King James VI & I as a homosexual.

When authors are unduly influenced by the scandal value of such poor sources they tend to rely on them in extreme and thus forsake detailed historical research and ignore the principles of evidentiary preponderance of evidence and thus sacrifice this for the propensity of our frail human nature in its attraction for dirt and scandal. Contradictory applications of principles and imbalanced research techniques can only result from a defective research method. Unfortunately this type of phenomenon has run rampant and caused many such evaluations to run amuck of the facts concerning King James VI & I.

I have not found any persons yet who libel King James VI & I as being a homosexual who are willing to allow themselves to be judged based on the same lines of evidence and principles upon which they unjustly convict King James VI & I .

All these factors coupled with the cultural and etymological ignorance prevailing in our day and the outright historical bias of some against King James VI & I have produced a situation where King James VI & I's accusers have played free with the actual historical facts and in some cases invented more ingenious eisegetical interpretations than any stretching of the imagination could ever produce. Thus the facts of history have been traded for the inventions of the imagination and regrettably there has of yet been no limitation to the unbridled attacks on the ever blessed memory and reputation of His Majesty, King James VI & I. When such pseudo-history is accepted for the real thing and we refuse to be bound to actual historical facts and opinions are masqueraded in place of reality then no valid conclusions can ever be reached.

In my attempts to request evidence that is commonly purported to exist by the sternest critics of King James VI & I sadly I have found that this evidence is often elusive and at best highly speculative. Instead what I have been offered in place of hard data from King James VI & I's militant and extremist critics is sarcasm, evasion, ridicule, rudeness and outright refusal to provide the requested information.

From King James VI & I's more mild critics they are at least recognizing the fact that their opinions have led to incorrect assumptions that accusations of homosexuality leveled at King James VI & I are factual, which they are not, and are based on speculation and opinion. Many are even willing to entertain the belief that King James VI & I might not have been homosexual at all. This is something that King James VI & I's hard line critics have yet to do and seem dead set against.

The personal slanders and racially motivated innuendoes and epithets were indicative more of the declarant's anti-Scottish bias and resultant dislike of King James VI & I than they were etiologically the result of actual facts. Thus, the scandalous artifacts which have been so carefully exhumed setting forth the "dirt" of the matter are in need not of study but of burial. These slurs are only allegorically and vaguely implying misdeeds on the part of King James VI & I in the most indirect manner and should be highly suspect. Often by their own account imagination played a key role in their assertions and this was based on their own particular interpretation (not provable facts) of the actions of King James VI & I. It is highly coincidental that the promoters of the charges were those who either bore no good will to the Scots or otherwise had a grudge to bear against their King. So, like irreverent grave robbers having no respect for the dead they attempt to steal that which does not belong to them and not content with desecrating the memory and honor of King James VI & I they also trample under foot his blessed memory. This ought not be so!

There seems to be a divergence of opinion amongst King James VI & I's critics. This is indicative of the fact that modern attitudes on King James VI & I are changing and the hard liners are refusing to budge. So far factual rebuttals of the hard line opponents of King James VI & I have had little effect as the pugnacious critics are refusing to yield to the actual evidence and are holding on to the rumors of the past. Such is the decline and decay of our society when we will allow the least of us, those who cannot defend themselves, to be thrown to the wolves if you will and be unjustly accused. In our passive acceptance of this injustice I see the fate of us all in that one day we may all find ourselves the target of false accusers. Where have moral and historical ethics gone!

The sheer bankruptcy of the critical case should be evident to any sincere lover of history. To those who will convict King James VI & I on the scantiest of evidence it must be seen that these individuals will thus embody the demise of all true history. The plethora of moral indictments and claims against King James VI & I's character are not historical facts but rather in all actuality primarily unjust criticisms which are commonly mistaken for facts.

Serious dialogue seems to have been relegated to the museum of ancient history and fallen into disuse. However, the criticisms of King James VI & I actually reveal more about our society's preoccupation with scandal and dirt than they do about the life and character of King James VI & I . We can no longer allow lopsided research to overpower the facts of history.

The best advise and observation on this sad situation ironically comes from King James VI & I himself. As His Majesty King James VI & I noted almost prophetically long ago:

"And principally exercise true wisdom in discerning wisely between true and false reports. First concerning the nature of the person reporter; next, what effect he can have in the well or evil of him whom of he maketh the report; thirdly, the likelihood of the purpose itself, and the last the nature and past life of the delated person ... "

And:

"They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."

His Majesty King James VI & I,

Basilicon Doron

neetrobot #sexist reddit.com

Re: No srsly u guise plz feminism is about equality guise....

image

There are two kinds of feminists: misandrists who want revenge for not getting asked to prom, and...wait no that's the only kind.

Cope...even the lowest smv roastie has 5 dudes fighting to be her prom date.

Modern day feminists are people whose better predecessors have already achieved equality, and are now seeing how far cucks will let them go with this.

Actually humans were equal initially due to instinct to take care of women and children. They were not really meant to have equal rights for obvious reasons. Because we naturally want to be nice to them feminist movements has no resistance. Back in the day women were a mouth to feed and pretty useless too so they weren't treated so nice before things got so plentiful.

Ehhhh. In some societies, women have equal rights, and nobody cares about equality of outcome. In an ideal society, I'd still want women to have rights since I still consider them vaguely human and equally deserving of rights even though they abuse them.

You can't abuse rights. Men letting them get away with what you call abuse is why they never needed rights to begin with because they automatically were getting special treatment. Giving a female equal rights throws the whole system off for very obvious reasons.

Ragefuel. I wonder what IT thinks about this.

I'm sure they are capable of hand waiving and saying it's cherry picking you know or would ask for sources to make it seem fake and no one there would be motivated to find a source on it for obvious reasons.

It's actually not cherry picking though as men are prosecuted over sex crimes, just literally because they are male, at much higher rates than females and have more harsh punishments too statistically. But then they throw excuses around like when males commit suicide at three times the rates of females they ''''''try''''' to do it eve moar often than males ''''''attempt'''''' to an hero and an example of a trick they could do is mention that males are guilty of ten times the rate of any violent crime and are incarcerated at thrice the rate of females for general crimes so males are le evil. Of course, females in actuality are just pitied hence the 'attempted' an heroing being a pity party and them not being prosecuted as often is due to the pity instinct. Males are arrested initially before prosecution at ridiculously higher rates than they even stay locked up in comparison to females due to the instinct not to harm wamin.

But from a female perspective you'll just be delusional to say any rant like this. It's just 'obvious' that men are evil because most people say so and sheep gonna sheep.

various TERFs #fundie independent.co.uk

FEMINISTS JOIN MEN-ONLY SWIM IN PROTEST OF PROPOSED LAW TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO SELF-IDENTIFY AS MALE OR FEMALE

Female activists took a group of male swimmers by surprise on Friday evening when they attended a men-only swim session wearing just swimming trunks and pink swimming caps.

Amy Desir, 30, was one of the two women to gain access to the South London pool session as part of a protest against proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would enable men and women to choose their own gender.

Both women explained their attendance to staff at Dulwich Leisure Centre by saying they “identified as male” and subsequently had the right to be there.

They also used the male changing rooms before going into the session and were later asked by an elderly man if they realised this was a male-only session.

Their actions form part of a nationwide campaign formed on Mumsnet called #ManFriday which encourages women to “self-identify” as men every Friday in protest of the proposed amendments to gender laws that would enable people to self-identify as men or women.

“The aim of the group is to raise awareness among men of the misogynistic and homophobic pro-self-ID policies that are allowing men to appropriate women’s spaces, services and positions,” Desir told The Independent.

“Most men either aren’t aware of the issue or don’t think it has anything to do with them.”

There are currently 91 women taking part in #ManFriday, revealed the mother-of-two, all of whom self-ID as men every Friday to access men-only spaces.

“We don’t change anything about our appearance, or pretend to be in the process of transitioning, just state that we are men.”

Desir and her fellow campaigners are concerned that the proposed legislation would enable predatory men to abuse women in single sex spaces by self-identifying as female.

“We want to challenge the idea that sex and gender are interchangeable and for organisations to use the lawful exemptions in the Equality Act to protect the rights, safety, dignity and privacy of women,” Desir added.

“We also want women’s organisations to be consulted on proposed changes to the law.”

Desir has launched an online petition calling for these concerns to be considered; it currently has more than 5,700 signatures.

Matt Forney #sexist mattforney.com

It’s time to stop beating around the bush: feminists want to be raped.

It’s the only logical explanation for how they behave. It’s the only way to understand why they can cheer on hordes of Muslim “refugees” swarming into Europe to rape and pillage. It’s the only way to comprehend why they can whip themselves up into a frenzy over masculine men meeting up for a beer and smearing them as leading “pro-rape rallies.”

Everything feminists do, from holding up “Refugees Welcome” signs at airports to passing affirmative consent laws, is geared around encouraging men to assault them.

This isn’t a conscious urge. No feminist wakes up in the morning and thinks to herself, “I’m gonna try and get raped today!” There’s no Protocols of the Elders of Seneca Falls laying out a secret plot to turn females into walking fuckdolls for rapist men.

But deep in the recesses of her lizard hindbrain, the average feminist wants nothing more than for a man to shove her into a wall and force himself deep inside her.

Here are the reasons why feminists want to be sexually assaulted, and why they’re working around the clock to aid rapists.

1. Feminism is an r-selected ideology, and rape is an r-selected sexual strategy.

As Anonymous Conservative has shown repeatedly, leftism and conservatism are merely expressions of two competing reproductive strategies: r-selection and K-selection. To review quickly, K-selection breeds children to compete in a world of limited resources through a two-parent upbringing, defined by high sexual dimorphism, monogamy, late sexual maturation, and loyalty to the in-group (i.e. wolves). R-selection breeds children for a world of abundant resources through a single-mother upbringing, defined by low sexual dimorphism, promiscuity, early sexual maturation, and disloyalty to the tribe (i.e. rabbits).

The conflict between leftism (of which feminism is a subset) and conservatism is the conflict between r and K. K-selected individuals want a world that encourages competition and meritocracy, while r-selected individuals want a world of free resources: free food, free money, free shelter and free sex. In a K-selected world, men and girls have to compete to earn the right to mate with one another; in an r-selected world, men and girls have sex with no thought as to the consequences.

What does this have to do with feminism and rape? Simple: rape is the ultimate r-selected sexual strategy.

By its very definition, rape is an act of entitlement: forcing yourself on someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you, whom you haven’t earned the right to sleep with. Much in the same way leftists feel entitled to take other peoples’ money away through taxation and welfare, rapists feel entitled to stick their penises in girls’ vaginas. In fact, you could say that rape is an inherently leftist form of sex, which would explain why so many male feminists, such as Jian Ghomeshi and Hugo Schwyzer, enjoy assaulting and abusing girls.

Sexual assault is sexual socialism: redistributing nookie to the least privileged in society.

Feminists, being leftists, are r-strategists themselves. The purpose of feminism is to eliminate restrictions on female sexuality: allow girls to sleep around without getting pregnant, let them legally kill their unborn babies when they do get knocked up, and have it all funded by the taxpayer.

From an r-strategist’s perspective, rape is a good thing, because it allows a female to have children without having to do anything, aside from breathe.

It’s well-known that a great many girls have rape fantasies, and a significant number of rape victims claim to have orgasmed during their assaults. Both these points serve as evidence that a portion of the female population—the r-selected, leftist portion—not only wants to be raped, but is physiologically adapted for it.
Once you accept the premise that feminists subconsciously desire to have their vaginal walls torn up by psychopathic men, their behavior suddenly makes sense. For example, feminists are unwilling to condemn the Muslim “refugees” who have been assaulting girls in Germany and other European countries (and indeed, have accused those who talk about the story of “racism” and/or “Islamophobia”) because they want those refugees to keep raping.

The Muslim “refugees” streaming into Europe from the Middle East are the consummate r-selected cowards. Instead of fighting for their families back home, they’re fleeing to safe countries where they can live off government benefits. Instead of being grateful that Europeans are willing to take them in, they throw temper tantrums because their Internet isn’t fast enough, their food isn’t tasty enough, or they don’t have enough to do, showing that they are parasites looking for someone to leech off of.

Muslims rape European girls for the same reason that they riot over slow WiFi: they believe they deserve to get something for nothing.

Some right-wing personalities have tried to explain the left’s embrace of Muslim “rapefugees” with such nebulous concepts as “pathological altruism,” but the reality is much bleaker. In the darkest recesses of their minds, feminists want swarthy refugees to punch them in the face, tear their clothes off, and spit roast them like plump, juicy swine. Don’t expect them to suddenly realize the truth, either, because…

2. Feminists encourage girls to get raped, then deny all responsibility for their actions.

In the past few years, even the slightest suggestion that girls have a responsibility for their own safety is met with a chorus of “MISOGYNIST!” “DON’T BLAME THE VICTIM!” The oft-repeated feminist chant, “Don’t teach women not to get raped, teach men to not rape,” is an explicit call for girls to place themselves into situations where they’re likely to get sexually assaulted, then dodge all blame.

While some feminists are no doubt doing this out of naivete, the subconscious motivator for many of them is their r-selected psychology.

Personal responsibility is a K-strategist concept; in the rabbit warren, things just happen. By discouraging girls from protecting themselves, feminists are implicitly encouraging them to get violated, then pinning the blame on an undefinable “rape culture.” Which brings me to my next point…

3. Feminists talk about the West having a “rape culture” because they want a rape culture.

As mentioned above, the worldwide leftist outrage against Roosh and the Return of Kings tribal meetups far outstripped their reaction to the Muslim gang rape attacks in Germany and Sweden during New Years’ Eve. This isn’t just because of hysteria and slander: r-selected leftists are more threatened by masculine men than by cowardly Muslim rapists.

One of the most laughable claims feminists make about game/red pill/PUA culture is that it encourages men to feel “entitled” to sex and female companionship. Even skimming a manosphere blog will show that this is the opposite of the truth. “Game” and “red pill” philosophy teaches men that they have to earn girls by improving themselves: lifting, dressing better, having interesting hobbies, and being entertaining conversationalists.

If a morbidly obese basement dweller came onto the Roosh V Forum and started whining about how he couldn’t get laid, he’d be laughed at and told to hit the gym and get a life.

The reason why there’s always been an overlap between the seemingly hedonistic manosphere and the more traditionalist alternative right is because both groups have the same view of sexual relationships: men and women need to earn the right to sleep with and marry each other. The end destinations may be different, but the road is the same.

Feminists oppose this because leftists oppose competition in general. Feminist obscurantism in regards to sexual relationships (e.g. their claims that the “friendzone” doesn’t exist or claiming that men just need to “treat women like human beings” if they want to get laid) is about stripping men of their ability to compete for a mate. Similarly, pushing “fat acceptance,” tattoos and piercings, and encouraging girls to be “bossy” and sarcastic is about crippling females’ ability to compete for men.

To make matters worse, feminists have been trying to train men to rape girls for years. Their constant claim that the West has a “rape culture” is just wishful thinking: in actuality, rape has been on the decline for decades. Because of this, feminists have tried to legislate masculinity away through “affirmative consent” and “yes means yes” laws, which force men to explicitly beg for permission at every step of a sexual encounter, branding them “rapists” if they don’t comply.
Affirmative consent laws and “rape culture” claims are a two-pronged attack on masculinity, designed to advantage sneaky males and hurt masculine men, and there’s no sneakier male than a rapist.

Unfortunately, despite all the rape hoaxes the mainstream media conjures up, the “rape culture” that feminists screech about has yet to materialize.

The UVA rape story, for example, turned out to be a lurid, masturbatory fantasy passed off as “news.”

Because feminists couldn’t create a rape culture, they imported one from the Middle East.

From here, all the pieces fall into place. We see clearly why the European Union is debating banning one man from their borders and libeling him as a “rape advocate,” while letting millions of actual Muslim rapists flood their countries.

We see why leftists are driven to protest masculine men but not sneaky “refugee” cowards who abandon their families in search of government freebies and “easy” white women.

The goal of feminism is to turn women into rape-meat.

Every feminist, deep down, wants nothing more than a rapist’s baby in her belly. The armada of horny, restless, greedy Muslims storming into Europe is a bounty for the r-selected feminist. Leftists will wave “Refugees Welcome” signs no matter how many girls are forcibly DP’ed by angry Arab invaders, because Europe’s skyrocketing rape rates are a feature, not a bug.

The only thing that will stop the rape-lust of feminists and their poorly-endowed Muslim abusers is Western men having the courage to call it out.

There can be no compromise, no peace with these traitors inside the walls. While more moderate women can be saved, no one will ever be able to convince the termagents of the left that they should be more afraid of Muslim rapists than white “racists.”

They are our enemies, just as much as the dusky hordes planting their flags on our soil

Bob Livingston #conspiracy freerepublic.com

Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly today.

The case in question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly Taitz. The case calls into question many of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not have received the State’s electoral votes.

Four of the nine Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.

Meantime, on Feb. 4, Kathleen O’Leary, presiding judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal, reinstated the appeal of Taitz v. Obama et al filed by Taitz when she ran for Senate. That case involves evidence of 1.5 million invalid voter registrations in the State of California. The appeal also involves Obama’s lack of legitimacy to hold the office of President based on his forged IDs, stolen Connecticut Social Security number, the fact the last name he’s using is not legally his and his fraudulent claim to be the U.S. citizen.

Evidence in the case includes:

A certified copy of the passport records of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, showing her son’s legal last name to be Soebarkah, not Obama.
Obama’s school records from Indonesia, showing his citizenship to be Indonesian.
Sworn affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators, showing Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service certificate are forgeries and that the Social Security number used by Obama on his 2009 tax returns as posted on WhiteHouse.gov was fraudulent. (The SSN failed when checked through both E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service.)

On another legal front, Obama defaulted in the case of Grinols et al v. Obama et al on Jan. 30 when he failed to file a response within 21 days of being served notice of the suit. This case also involves Obama’s phony SSN.

The suit states:

nvestigator Albert Hendershot found in the database of http://www.acxiom.com/identity-solutions/acxiom-identity-batch-solutions/ the name of the individual whose Social Security Obama is using. Acxciom-batch-solutions showed (Exhibit 1) that Harry J Bounel with the same Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 at 5046 S Greenwood Ave in Chicago, home address of Barack Obama, Database shows Bounel with the same address and Social Security number as Barack Obama himself. According to the databases last changes to the information on Harrison (Harry) J Bounel were made in and around November 2009 by Michelle Obama, who is listed as Bounel’s relative. Database changes can involve entering the information or deletion of information. It appears that changes made by relative Michelle Obama included deletion of information, which was done at a time when Taitz brought to Federal court in the Central District of California before Judge David O. Carter a case of election challenge by her client, former U.S. ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and 40 state Representatives and high ranked members of the U.S. military.

Recently obtained results of the 1940 census, Exhibit 2, provided the last missing link, link (sic) between Harry J. Bounel and the date of birth of 1890. Exhibit 2 shows the printout of the U.S. census, showing Harry J Bounel, immigrant from Russia, residing at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY, age 50 during the 1940 census, meaning he was born in 1890, as shown in the affidavit of Investigators Daniels and Sankey.

There is a pattern of Obstruction of Justice and tampering with the official records and falsification/forgery of the official records related to Obama. This happens in particular when [George W.] Bush employees leave their positions and are replaced by Obama appointees.

Taitz has asked for expedited default judgment and post judgment discovery in this case out of fear that any records on hand at the Social Security office will be destroyed when George W. Bush-appointed Commissioner Michael Astrue leaves office in February. Records that might have proven Obama’s Selective Service registration was a forgery were destroyed in 2009 after Bush-appointed Selective Service Director William Chatfield resigned, Taitz alleges.

Atavisionary #sexist atavisionary.com

Women have a much stronger preference for security and safety than men, and vote that way. They like social safety nets and related things because of an instinctual fear that they may end up as single mothers and in poverty. There is also a component of “cat-lady syndrome” to this where women more often suffer from excessive altruistic desire without having access to enough wisdom to do so in a sustainable or pragmatic manner. They also tend to pay a lot less in taxes, so they don’t have to worry about that particular harm as much. The result is that this creates an unaffordable social entitlement structure and it creates very bad incentives for family dissolution. Every western country currently has massive amounts of debt thanks to excessively generous social welfare benefits. The only partial exceptions to this occurs when there is a substantial cache of natural resources which can be used to supplement insufficient taxes. The entitlement bubbles get more extreme and more ready to pop every year.

Women’s suffrage was certainly a massive mistake. I wouldn’t say, however, that women’s suffrage is the root of the problem. Suffrage of any form is the root of the problem. Women’s suffrage merely served as an accelerative catalyst. Men can and will also vote themselves free stuff if given the opportunity, but a greater proportion of that population has more to lose from increased taxation so the overall rate of entitlement related government degeneration is significantly slower. Yet Cthulhu still swims left. Let’s not also forget that it was men who voted and decided to grant women’s suffrage in the first place. And universal male suffrage was a result of granting only propertied men suffrage. Once the franchise is given on a partial basis it is basically inevitable that it will be gradually and continually expanded to include less and less suited populations until the strain is so high and unsupportable there is a collapse and/or balkanization. Typically this is goaded forth by cynical politicians who (usually rightly) believe they will be more secure in their power thanks to the newly introduced voting population being much more in favor of them. Even today, a major motivation for unlimited immigration is the cynical understanding by current democrats that their political positions are more secure when they elect a new electorate. This is actually a recipe for disaster, however, because at some point legacy Americans are going to, and currently are coming to the realization that they have no interest in being told what and how to do things by alien ethnic groups. Hence the waning support for universal suffrage democracy. Open civil war is not at all unlikely if the current trends continue. The desire for self determination has been both strong and consistent throughout history.

In my book, smart and sexy, I have literally hundreds of citations from scientific papers going over the biologically based differences in intelligence and psychology between men and women. In short, intelligence is substantially an X chromosome linked trait and many intelligence boosting (and lowering) genes are recessive. The result, which is easily viewable in IQ test data, is that males are substantially more variable than females. On one end, this means you have many more mentally handicapped males. On the other, you have many more very intelligent males. Since intelligence is necessary for competence in essentially every occupation that exists, including in government, you are going to have far more males competent and suited to the highest level positions than females.

You could say that probabilistically speaking, there are going to be some number of suitable women and on that basis argue that even if we can accept that there will always be a smaller absolute number of women, we should still leave the doors open for the exceptions that come about. There are a couple of problems with this. First, a population requires a certain minimum birth rate to stay stable. It has been estimated that this rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman. Encouraging women to prioritize anything above motherhood is thus detrimental to the society as a whole and should not be generally tolerated. Allowing exceptions means allowing the existence of poor role-models for the average girl. Careerism in women also seems to be harmful to the women themselves. Despite all the “advances” made by feminism in the last 100 years or so, women are more unhappy than they have ever been and a huge number are now on anti-depressants and other psychiatric medications. A large number of women are completely ignorant of the biological foundations of their fertility and its rapid decline after the age of 30. Many women who wanted to be mothers thus now find themselves unable to have children because they wasted their time pursuing unfulfilling careers instead of arranging for their families during the optimum window. It is quite sad actually to see some of these lonely, old, cat-lady spinsters. A realistic understanding and teaching could have prevented the vast majority of these cases. Instead we have a growing class of middle aged or older women who have an iredeemable life regret and thus are rendered completely miserable.

http://atavisionary.com/it-just-didnt-happen/

http://atavisionary.com/career-women-are-dysgenic/

Then lastly for this interview, workforce and employment statistics strongly indicate that even very intellectually talented women have a strong tendency to leave the workforce early or only work part-time. In general, women don’t actually want to work the same long hours that men do and this can be very detrimental for important jobs that society needs to be filled. For example, part (obviously not the only part) of the problem with our medical system being so expensive is a relative shortage of doctors. Well, this doctor shortage is largely a result of pushing women into medicine combined with their much greater rate of leaving the workforce.

APieceOfFemShit #sexist reddit.com

Disclaimer: I already know NAMALT

Do you really believe that the male imperative is sex, and sex alone. That there's nothing else that men want/need from women, besides being a human Fleshlight?

I'm asking because most men want to get married and have families. That differs from the sex imperative, because men can get sex without getting married. Marriage requires relationship building, and every guy knows that, so why go through all that hassle if your only interest is sex? This is a verboten idea on this board, but men want relationships just as much as women do. The process is different, but the goal is the same

Marriage is actually androcentric. Women and girls have been indoctrinated into thinking that marriage, LTRs, etc. is a female/feminine idea "Mr.Right", "obsessions with power", but it is not. It is men that created this through sexism and inferiority complex. Hate to agree with the red pill religion, but the male imperative involves religiosity around women, whether it be sex or relationships - almost impulsively that they cannot help - while the female imperative just revolves around reproduction and protection of offspring, with no interest in males to the extent that males are obsessed with females. Females are just shamed by society and men that their imperative is "unnatural" or immoral - so we have taken on more masculine attitudes and preferences, such as "settling down and getting married". This is ulitmately why The Red Pill clergy women are some of the saddest women in history to look at. In reality, we can select any male in nature we want and reproduce with them and spread genetics easily. This naturally ties males to their offspring, so there is no need to "marry one" for 50 years or be stuck with some man for 50 years. This is why women leave marriages early and remarry a lot less. Men continue to shame women that "divorce" shit men or love claiming "women are incapable of love" just because they aren't brainwashed into male imperatives, and etc for a reason. Like marriage/divorce are some natural thing. Stats continue to report decreased happiness that this causes women, which is not so for the male.

"Prince Charming," Disney, "Damsel in distress" "Provider," , relationships, marriage, etc etc etc was all androcentric and mostly only benefits the male. We can see in history women did not agree with these ideas. They did not agree with marriage. Women have marched since the 1600s way before feminism. These were socially established to compensate for male expendability in nature. The female on the other hand can mate and spread her genes as much as she wants, needs no male for protection nor financial means, and can also function at full cognitive capacity as the male, while also having the ability to reproduce. Males know the potential of women and how useless they are in comparison to the female, which is why they are obsessed with "keeping them somewhere" and indoctrinating them into "needing men" to the point of infantilization and benevolent sexism brainwashing. Most of this stuff is just male projection and envy. Freud was a big one. He made penis envy a thing which is just all projection, envy and jealousy and proven to be insane and made up (like most male things and fake male "academia" that demonstrably made of lies about female anatomy and women for ages), like the rest of his theories that were all projection, such "everyone is obsessed with sex" from birth.

Males worship and obession of women goes back to the very beginning with Goddess religions, and in nature. What we see today is all made up androcentricism. The world is entirely androcentric hiding it as "traditionalism" and laughably false monotheistic/theistic androcentric "religions" and other indoctrination's blaming on "what women want out of men" - so they have some reason to live. Traditionalism is just worship of women by men and this is why it needs sexism/mistreatment of women in it and to be virtue signalled by religions to justify it's stupidity.

DarthDva #sexist #transphobia yourenotalone.co

RE: “Just Take Hormones, Cis”

There is actually a transgender equivalent to “Just take a shower, clean your room, get a haircut, and hit the gym, bro”. Many people both within and outside the transgender community think hormones will allow most people to pass.

This is not true. I’ve had both a gender therapist and a doctor who treats transgender patients tell me it’s not true. I’ve also heard from non-passing transwomen who have been on hormones.

I will post more about that later, but first I want to give an example of a cisgender male who “passes” much better than many transwomen who have been on hormones for a period of time.

Most mtf that pass were either pretty boys or chads or high-tier normies to begin with. If you are incel with less than the best genes its over, u will not be able to live a happy life as a man or woman.

Feminization turns many males into ultra-woke anti-male feminist SJWs who are sex-negative asexuals. They are not really asexuals because like most feminist, they dress slutty to entice, but then shame males for lusting, which is super-toxic.

If we could have trans that don’t instantly reject males, utopia might be achieved.

This is from a non-passing trans woman who received a lot of comments from passing trans women that are similar to the “suggestions” male incels get (dress nice, get a haircut, go to the gym, act confident). I’m not discounting the importance of looksmaxing (for incels and trans women), but it only goes so far.

The questions I would get when I used to go to online trans communities for help with my struggling transition ranged from: "Are you sure your levels (hormonally) are where they should be?" to "You're not dressing right/wearing enough jewelry/giving enough female signals/wearing makeup//walking/talking/burping like a woman would." These people are writing off of their own experiences and their's alone, not anyone else's. So what you get is a bunch of passing trans woman telling others how it is. That sucks.

I've been on testosterone blockers and female hormones for years. I get my levels checked by the same hospital that prescribes these medications on a regular basis. They almost always come up in normal cis female" ranges according to my doctor. In my first few years I wore everything from eyeshadow, a foundation/concealer cocktail and lip gloss nearly everywhere I went, to skirts and leggings with a top that clearly showed "YO I have tits now, CALL ME A GIRL." Thing is, a lot of these approaches to presentation caused more problems than solutions.

the trans community is toxic. Most are sjws that get triggered if u post trump memes even as a joke. For instance saying things like “fake news” is off limits, even if u didn’t vote for trump. The estrogen makes them neurotic and hypersensitive to any type of criticism.

Also the idea i head of trans was easy mtfs like traps. Now the word trap is of-flimits too by the word-warriors. And expressing the idea trans should be fuckable instead of pent up sex-negative feminists is taboo to say too. The idea that transwomen are an easier alternative to dating cis females is pretty much a failure.

blueunicorn6 #fundie freerepublic.com

It is clear to me that many of my fellow Americans have no clue as to what homosexuality is and what it is exactly that makes a person a homosexual. In the interest of clearing up some really rather large misconceptions, I have devised this simple test.

WARNING! Sexually explicit material.

1. You are a male homosexual if you:

A. Love your brother. B. Are a really nice guy. C. Are creative and like musicals. D. Are afraid of asking out a female. E. Willingly put another male's penis in your mouth or anal canal.

The correct answer is E.

2. You are a female homosexual if:

A. You are a really nice girls PE teacher. B. Live in a house with another female. C. Are not asked out on dates with males. D. Like cats and holding hands in front of the fireplace. E. Willingly have other females sexually stimulate your vagina.

The correct answer is E.

If you selected answers A-D on either question, then you are ignorant or kidding yourself.

Homosexuality is an act. It is not a physical trait like skin pigmentation.

It is not "just about love". It is a behavior. No male is born with another male's penis in his mouth.

sp8der #transphobia reddit.com

Having a penis means you are a man. There is no such thing as a female penis.

Question, how do you define those who have XX chromosomes but have a penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome#:~:text=XX%20male%20syndrome%2C%20also%20known,that%20can%20vary%20among%20cases.
Are they a man or are they a

Per the name of the page you're linking, the answer would seem to be male.

Regardless, extreme edge cases don't and shouldn't define broad rules. Over-specificity will render otherwise useful concepts useless through inflation.

"Cats have four legs" is a true species-level statement even given the existence of mutated or amputee cats.

There's also a tendency to fall into the univariate fallacy when discussing this. That because one magic vector that neatly cleaves the groups cannot be found, the groups themselves are invalid. This is patently false, traits can be clustered.

If an object matches 5/6 characteristics of Item A and 1/6 of Item B, which is it more likely to be? Which of the two boxes do you put it in when sorting?

Ok what about a woman who through surgery to attach a penis. Is this person a man or a woman?

More difficult. It depends on the rest of the cluster of traits, doesn't it? While that's a strong indicator in one direction, whether it's enough to balance out the rest has to be taken as an individual case.

I agree, there should be some flex in what determines who is a man and who is a woman, you seem to be against this.

Some flex maybe, not 100% flex. But my point was more that categories are rarely ever neat but they must be coherent, at the very least. Simply identifying as X is not enough to become X. And defining X as "ABC", without regard to exceptions, is more broadly useful to people everyday than strictly defining X as "ABC, except when D, but also ACE, unless F, or ABD in which case look at GH in conjuction with AB to determine if C."

I agree yet you seem so focussed on saying that this rule doesn't apply to trans people.

I suppose the corollary is that, as I said above, I don't consider all traits to have equal "weight" when determining what category to put someone in.

So having a penis might be 100 "weight" towards considering someone a man. Having XY chromosomes might be 50 "weight". Having a beard might be 5 or 10.

Identifying as a male registers as a 1, if anything.

This is all just numbers pulled from my arse, I've never sat down and quantified how much I consider each trait to be indicative. It's just my attempt to illustrate why someone who spends a lot of time money and effort on passing is an easier "sell" for me than someone like Yaniv, who does not, and why I do not consider the two equivalent.

But even then, anyone who manages to "cross categories" will still have an asterisk next to their designation, as you used as an example above, an "XX male" or "trans male" and I don't think that's inherently unfair. You can be male, subcategory trans, and that can be relevant information sometimes. Especially in medicine, or dating, or, as in the original example, other "intimate" or delicate/vulnerable situations.

I think it's important that trans people just make their peace with that, because a little compromise will go a long way to reconciliation, as opposed to attempting to "inflict" themselves on the unwilling put of a sense of moral indignation.


You personally think that the presence of a penis is more of an indicator than the xx or xy chromosome, I could find other people that disagree and say it is the other way around.

But again... "XX male". it's not Female Penis Syndrome.

Rather than imposing views why not let said people decide for themselves?

Because we don't let people self-identify as doctors, or as engineers. We take umbrage when someone who is noticeably not decides to call themselves clever or beautiful or talented. People's self identification means very little to us in quite a lot of ways.

So what someone identifies themselves as normally has little bearing on how others identify them, and this is right and proper. We are allowed to disagree.

I don't think this is an excuse to deny said person which sex/gender they are.

The argument they make is that if I don't want to date/sleep with them because they have a vagina, and that viscerally repulses me, that I don't "really" see them as a man.

Which, I mean, is right, but how do you reconcile that?


I mean I think both sides could be polite, no-one has to date or sleep with anyone they don't like.

I'm pretty sure that would get you excoriated by most trans activists. (Maybe not trans people, but activists.)

Robert Gagnon #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Male and female together combined provide us a facet of who God is, a more holistic way than only one sex involved, so when sexual activity is engaged in we see a fuller range of who God is, it helps to balance out the two sexes. One of the reasons that we see such a high incidence of measurable harm in male homosexual and female homosexual unions is we don’t have in those unions the balancing influence of the other sex. So in the case of male homosexual unions, you have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections, much lower rate of monogamy, because basically what you have is male sexuality ratcheted up without a taming influence of a woman in the process. Whereas for female homosexual relationships you see a higher incidence of mental illness issues and lower longevity of the relationship generally, I think because women place more value in terms of their self-worth, their identity, their security in a relationship of this sort. And when two women put the same high demands on each other, without the balancing of a masculine influence, again it leads to shorter terms unions on average and higher mental health issues that are involved.

Witchwind #sexist witchwind.wordpress.com

UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

I haven’t been writing in a while, and it’s not because I don’t like writing any more but things have accelerated elsewhere in my life and I can’t be involved everywhere at once. As this isn’t paid work, obviously I can’t afford to put blogging first.

Anyway, there are still many posts waiting to be finished. In the meantime, I’ll start another one.

I often muse about all the things that we’d need to change about patriarchy if we abolished men’s rule over women and the earth. Everything and every single aspect of social organisation is so much the opposite of how it should be, it’s dizzying to even begin to think about all the things we should stop / change.

Mostly it’s about men stopping from doing harm. But stopping men isn’t enough because beyond that there is the entire world to relearn, to heal, and our entire society to rebuild. We would be faced with the immense task of replacing all the misogynist, genocidal, biocidal practices men have ordered our society with for eons. So many of us now are acculturated, cut from land, nature and from one another.

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Men’s position in society

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Major serial killers, serial torturers, pimps, pornographers, severe domestic abusers, serial rapists, genocide planners, biocide planners and pedocriminals across the world will simply be euthanised: the decisions will be taken by women in a mass world tribunal for patriarchal crimes. This is by far the best solution, and is the most legitimate, ethical way of reducing male population to more reasonable levels. Such men would otherwise forever pose a threat to women, children, animals, the earth and society as a whole, and we know they have no chance of ceasing their violent behaviour after having reached such an advanced stage of sadism and sociopathy. It would be reckless to spend space, resources and energy in keeping them alive in prisons.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle.

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Family, child-raising and reproduction

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Schools as we know them as punitive reclusion centres for grooming into male domination and female subordination (as well as selection system for elite executors of patriarchal institutions) will be abolished. Boys would definitely not be around the girls, certainly not most of the time, and never beyond the age of puberty. And obviously no adult male would be allowed near children.

There will be no such thing as “teachers” with positions of authority over children. “Guiders” could learn also from the children or students as much the students from them. We’d learn anything we’d want from languages to sciences to art to music to medicine to building to witchcraft to swimming (etc) without restriction of age or time, as long as it’s adapted to our capacities, level and availability. Learning would be autonomous, with guidance when needed, instead of enforced and dictated. They’d be no need for external reward, marking or punishment because the process of learning in itself is so rewarding and fascinating that it’s self-sufficient. Anyway I could go on and on, non-patriarchal learning is truly riveting.

Social structures between women.

All relationships of authority, domination and subordination will be abolished between all women of all ages. We will be able to recognise each other’s strengths, expertise, guidance and capacities (or lack of) without it implying superiority, inferiority, veneration or lack of respect. We would find each other beautiful. We would live our friendships, love and affection for women unhindered.

MEN’S INSTITUTIONS

All oppressive male institutions will be abolished after men have been retrieved from them. We obviously won’t keep these institutions. They will return to the nothingness that they belong, just as a distant, bad memory.

Military:

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

State:

States, borders, nations, laws would be abolished and totally dispensed with. Laws mentioning the number of prohibited acts will be kept for men only. Women do not need laws to contain ourselves. Laws were created by the male elite to protect their property from other men. Laws are rigid and static, that’s because their purpose is to hold existing patriarchal powers in place. Our own society would be in constant evolution, improvement, creative renewal, yet grounded in reality and adapted to our needs and circumstances.

Women would be able to move freely.

Societal structures and decision-making assemblies wouldn’t exceed roughly 300 women (representing no more than themselves). Keeping numbers low for cooperation is important because the greater the size of the unit, the more horizontal cooperation becomes difficult and requires vertical hierarchy. Possibilities for peaceful, cooperative organisation between women are infinite – as long as they respect the individual integrity of every female – the group should never weigh over the individual but be a source for support and efficient organisation of collective life and space. There could easily be associations of exchange between different groups and peoples in order for women to cooperate regionally and globally where necessary. There would be no limit in age of participation in decision-making for women and girls, which means adapting the format to different ages and capacities.

Medicine:

Men would be permanently banned from any kind of medical practice. All woman-hating, genocidal institutions such as gynecology, psychiatry, obstetrics, big pharma, the torture of living beings in the name of “scientific experimentation” will be banned. Men’s fragmented, objectifying, sadistic view the human body will be part of history, replaced by biophilic medicine. Medical science will no longer be monopolised by a small elite but available to all at any age where appropriate. The (female) doctor’s role will be to guide the patient in her own healing, never to exercise authority over her or take decisions at her expense. Special healing spaces (where surgery is necessary, etc) will be so nice, warm and welcoming that just being there will make you feel better. The soul and life conditions of a person will always be considered part of the body, and symptoms will always be understood in a holistic way. There will be no more chemical, synthetic and toxic products with often worse side effects than the illness itself it claims to heal.

Perfect health would be the normal state of women anyway, as we will learn by experience and observation what we should eat and do to stay healthy at all seasons and times. Most women will have rediscovered our healing, divination and extra-sensory communication powers.

Religion:

Patriarchal religions will crumble down with men’s oppressive system. Religious ideologies, along with its hierarchies and vacuous rituals will cease to exist. I believe a woman’s world would be spiritual. Spiritual connection isn’t based on faith but on critical observation and experience, on a real personal connection to the elements, beings and spirits that surround us, and on the real magnetic power of beings.

Economy (tied to ecology):

Obviously, Slavery, men’s exploitation of women, men’s capitalist systems will be abolished too. The most important aspect of male economy is that it’s based on men’s competitive accumulation of resources (by killing, destroying, commodifying, taking control over, extracting the greatest possible amount of life) and based on production of poisonous, addictive, programmed obsolescent goods — in order to win the patriarchal game of achieving greater domination over women and girls.

This necrophilic relationship to the world and the environment will be abolished, to be replaced by biophilic ecological and economic principles. This will encompass every single process of our life activities, from house building, to food consumption, to communication, travelling, furniture making, cooking, etc. They will have to be carefully designed and thought out in a way as to never endanger the survival of any species, never pollute any environment, never require the use of poisonous, non-recyclable materials, never to require indentured labour or exploitation in order to be maintained. This would obviously impact the nature and scale of our activities. “Work” (exploitation and division of labour) as we know it would disappear. It would be the responsibility of each individual or group to sustain herself more or less autonomously.

We should learn to observe our environment and deeply understand the interconnectedness of all beings around us, as well our own impact before deciding whether or how to transform it. Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone. For instance, if we pick leaves of some plants, it’s important not to rip the whole plant off, to take only parts of it so it can grow again. Or to only take a few plants (or seashells, whatever) where there are many, so to respect the survival of the species where it is settled. If we cut trees to build our house, replant them. There are also infinite ways of making the most of materials for energy, food or production while using it as efficiently as possible. Building houses in ways that don’t require heating in winter or cooling in the summer. It is now widely known that energy such as electricity can be infinitely renewable if we use wind power, magnetic power, water power… And everything can be made DIY.

We will learn to be autonomous again and make our own clothes, food, furniture, houses, soaps, detergent products – or maybe someone else will make them but most things can be handmade and it’s so much more rewarding.

In a biophilic world, nothing is garbage, nothing is pollution. Everything is conceived so as to be part of a life cycle. This doesn’t mean we should keep the same toothbrush for 50 years or never improve on our machines, technology and infrastructure, but there’s no such thing as a dump, or toxic spilling. All materials should be harmless, recyclable or biodegradable, given back the earth if we no longer need them.

Industrial agriculture and farming:

Genetic modification of plants, pesticides, monoculture, field ploughing and consequent aridification of the land will be considered criminal. Our right to self-sustenance would no more be confiscated by mega food corporations – as they will no longer exist.

Agriculture should always be small-scale, local, and as much as possible be modelled on wildlife, self-growing / self-renewing conditions (the less work and intervention, the better), and especially be conceived so as to nourish and sustain rather than deplete wildlife and environmental balance. Again, possibilities are infinite, we have so much to learn.

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely. Maybe after a few decades, after the human population has stalled, male population has decreased, and after we’ve made serious efforts for reforestation and restoration of wildlife on the earth, it would probably be fairer to hunt animals occasionally. Right now, given the extinction rate of animal species, I find it criminal to hunt or fish. We don’t need to eat that much meat anyway.

Flavius_Maximus #conspiracy americanthinker.com

The Author is mistaken Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. Justia is a Legal Document and Law Case History website which has become a Go To source for most bloggers and lawyers needing a quick resource for citation has deliberately tampered with the citations and text of case(s) that inure to Minor v. Happersett. This is the only Case that SCOTUS has ever ruled on that is directly on point to the requirements of Article 2 of the Constitution on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen! Yes, changing SCOTUS Case Documents is a Federal Crime, several members of the Legal Community are following up on this most grievous subversion of our Legal System.

This tampering occurred in the run up to the 2008 election, this SCOTUS case affirmed that Natural Born Citizens are children born to Citizens and are defined as the Mother and Father or Parent(s) must both be Citizens at the time of the Child's birth. In the case of an unknown Father the Mother's citizenship would be sufficient. Obama by releasing the truly flawed and faulted document declared himself ineligible to be President. Not to be one who would let a little trifle as this ruin his chances, he had the Federal Election Commission declare a "person" born under his circumstances declared a Citizen! Why let SCOTUS rule when he can do so by caveat, long live the KING.

An intriguing possibility If his Father was Frank Marshal Davis he would be a Natural Born Citizen. Sweet Irony Indeed, hoisted on his own Petard, Pity the Poor Fool that cannot tell the difference between a Turd and a Truffle!

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

Author Steve Ham explores the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Recently I had the opportunity to read and review the book Counseling the Hard Cases.1 This book places the biblical counseling movement on display as it reports the process and outcomes of real-life counseling cases. As a biblical creationist, I was continually encouraged to find the counselors’ dedication to the sufficiency of Scripture for helping real people with real problems. While preparing a review of this book as a graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, I became even more aware of the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

I noticed the strong correlations between biblical creationists and biblical counselors in the first chapter of Counseling the Hard Cases. Both positions face accusations revolving around the nature of authority and science. For example, many “Christian counselors” are convinced that the use of such treatments as hypnosis or psychotropic drugs are based on strong scientific research and analysis.2 Persuaded that this research comes from an authoritative source, they then integrate it into their counseling methodology.

Like most “Christian counselors,” trained biblical counselors typically take great care to refer counselees to doctors for necessary medical diagnosis and treatment of their physical ailments. However, for spiritual issues the biblical counselor seeks to ensure that Scripture is seen as the supreme authority and sufficient to help all believers deal with trials (suffering) or sin in their lives. Biblical counselors also should acquaint themselves with the research related to such things as medication, noting which recommendations are based upon repeatable, testable observations and which are based on assumptions influenced by a secular worldview. This is also why biblical counselors prefer to work in partnership with physicians who are Bible-believing Christians. In recognition of secular worldview influences in the medical community, many biblical counselors have armed counselees with questions to ask their practitioners who prescribe medications such as anti-depressants. Especially if a diagnosis is as broad as the term “chemical imbalance,” biblical counselors will encourage questions such as the following:

• What tests were performed to prove that the problem exists?
• What proof do you have that the problem you discovered is not merely a symptom of a deeper problem?
• What proof do you have that the medication you are prescribing truly corrects the problem?

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

In today’s world it seems nearly every social or relational problem known to man is categorized by a descriptively named disorder and often treated by some psychotropic drug. In many cases, counselors and others re-label sinful responses to situations in a way that removes personal responsibility. For example, lashing out at your children in anger is now known as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and “it’s not your fault” that you act the way you do. If your son consistently disobeys your authority as his parent, he will likely be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These disorders are often depicted as villains maliciously attacking their victims as if they were a force unto themselves. When seen in this light, these problems become the cause of debilitation for many people who find themselves lost in a hopeless dependence on secular psychological techniques and prescription medication.

This wrong perception of relational problems that are ultimately rooted in sinful thoughts and behaviors has sadly become commonplace even in the church. Many counseling practitioners have attempted to make a compatible partnership between Christian doctrine and worldly philosophies in the diagnosis and treatment of the human soul.[

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

To address this issue, Counseling the Hard Cases reports on real-life case studies from eleven experienced biblical counselors. Compiled by editors Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, the introduction clearly sets forth the theme for this collection of biblical counseling case studies.4 In the development of the modern biblical counseling movement over the last fifty years, persuasive evidence shows that “Scripture is comprehensively sufficient to do ministry with people experiencing profound difficulties in their lives” (p. 23).

While the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling is the basic thesis of the book, in each of the hard cases the editors have been careful to display this concept practically in the lives of real people. Even for those who are not skeptical about biblical counseling, the results of these hard cases were amazing and gave great cause for rejoicing in the redeeming grace found in the Cross of Christ.

The biblical counseling movement has been criticized by those who are skeptical of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling. Secular psychology understandably views the Bible as irrelevant, but many “Christian counselors” acknowledge the Bible’s relevance yet deny its sufficiency in the way that they practically advise their counselees. We expect people with a purely naturalistic view of the human condition to dismiss biblical wisdom in counseling, and therefore this book primarily answers the criticisms of “Christian counseling.”

One of the primary criticisms of biblical counselors is that they use the Bible to somehow replace science and therefore ignore the consensus of secular research for dealing with psychological problems. But the proof of scriptural sufficiency for biblical counseling is convincingly “in the pudding.”5 This book helps put to rest the misconception that biblical counselors ignore science as the reader observes them partnering with trained physicians to treat real and identifiable physical problems. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Christ, through the voice of the counselor, that the application of biblical truth guides a responsive counselee to healing and sanctification.

When discussing counseling methods, a key question to ask is this: does the authority to diagnose the many human dysfunctional behaviors come from man’s word or God’s Word? Heath Lambert is quick to point out that the counseling debate is profoundly centered in presuppositions. He refers to Jay Adams, who stated that his presupposition in counseling methodology is “the inerrant Bible as the standard of all faith and practice” (p. 8). It is clear that each of the contributing authors commences his or her counseling approach with the same presupposition as Adams. To some, this presupposition may seem like an intellectual debate about methodologies. But the ten extraordinary cases presented in the book consistently confirm the truth of this idea in real-life situations as the hope of Christ transforms lives and frees people from bondage to sinful thoughts and behaviors. So, a presuppositional approach to Scripture is not simply a debate about truth; it is also entirely practical.

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

Like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook.

Other accusations against the biblical counseling movement have come from a misinterpretation of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Critics claim that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore it is ill-equipped to help with so-called psychological disorders. The answers to such claims are well stated in this book.

First, secular psychology fails to prove that many of the human problems “classified as mental illnesses” are related to any real “disease or illness at all” (p. 8). This ultimately means that the “science” of secular psychology has its own problems with regard to the definition of observational (i.e., testable, repeatable) science, by which a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and either proven or denied. As a prime example, no one really knows how certain neurotransmitters relate to conditions like depression and anxiety. Yet various medications are prescribed to correct imbalances that have not been accurately defined.

Second, critics from the Christian counseling movement suggest that biblical counselors are using the Bible in place of “science” or as a “science” textbook. But, like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook. Within all the different genres that Scripture takes, the biblical counselor starts with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word. So, instead of viewing human problems in the light of a secular label such as a phobia or disorder, biblical counselors present human problems as Scripture does—in terms of the problem of human sin and suffering and the answer in the gospel.

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

Reading through each of the hard cases, one soon comes to the realization that these scriptural truths are not just words on a page. Instead, the case studies show there truly is transformational power in the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The same God who saves us from everlasting destruction also brings us into a life that exemplifies His grace. Even more enlightening is the fact that many of the people whose stories are told in this book found genuine healing after having first been disillusioned by the debilitating effects of anti-depressives, hypnosis, attempts to relive a better childhood, and various other secular treatments.

The list of documented cases contains “disorders” that many pastors have dispatched in the “too-hard” basket. They include an extreme example of sexual abuse, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and more. A purely theoretical book cannot touch the impact of this book in retelling what these real-life experiences reveal about the sufficiency of Scripture in the counseling process.

One final thing that should be mentioned in respect to these cases is the book’s consistent theme highlighting the believer’s satisfaction in Christ, confidence in the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, a commitment for prayerful reading and application of Scripture, and the supportive care of the local church community. The counseling process is shown to engage not only one counselor but God working through His Word and the community of believers in the heart and mind of the counselee.

The Powerful Word of God

I heartily recommend this book to pastors and any believer needing to witness the powerful nature of the Word of God to gain confidence and steadfastness in the faith—and anyone with a desire to help others:

I myself am satisfied about you my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, ESV)

Footnotes

1. Stuart W. Scott and Heath Lambert, eds. Counseling the Hard Cases. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
2. “Christian counseling” is a term most often associated with counselors who are prepared to integrate secular psychology’s methodologies and treatments into their counseling.
3. Answers in Genesis has produced an excellent video on this very topic called Counterfeit Counseling by Pastor Brad Bigney.
4. Dr. Stuart Scott, one of the editors of Counseling the Hard Cases, spoke at the Answers for Pastors conference in October 2013 on the sufficiency of Scripture in biblical counseling.
5. This is not to say that every biblical counseling case ends successfully. God’s Word—our fully reliable and sufficient source of truth—requires the believer to submit and obey in humility, but sadly, some people do not submit to the authority of Scripture.

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky #fundie thecatholicthing.org

Confronting the Gay Priest Problem

Recently, a priest who was prominent in the pastoral care of those with sex addictions received his fifteen minutes of fame when he revealed to his congregation at a Sunday Mass and to the National Catholic Reporter that he was “gay.” According to news reports, his self-congratulation was met with thunderous applause. In a television interview, he proclaimed there is “nothing wrong with being gay.”

The game plan of a gay priest “coming out” was quite predictable and is politically effective. In revealing his homosexuality, the Midwestern priest was careful to assemble a string of ambiguous assertions that cannot be immediately assailed on grounds of orthodoxy, but when bundled together are morally subversive. Here is the template:

* Claim that sexual transparency is a matter of personal integrity.
* Remind the public that you are a Catholic priest in good standing.
* Proudly proclaim that you are “gay.”
* Cultivate the adulation of your congregation by claiming victim status and the freedom that comes from such an honest revelation.
* As a pre-emptive strike against disciplinary actions by ecclesiastical authorities claim that your self-revelation is truly courageous.
* Feign humility and presume you have become a necessary role model for others.
* Remind us that you and all gays (and members of the alphabet soup of sexual perversion) are created in the image of God (implying our sinful neglect).
* Commit to celibacy (i.e., not to marry), but carefully avoid the term “Christian chastity.”

Each of these assertions, standing alone, would likely withstand ecclesiastical censure. But when woven together, the gay agenda promoting the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the Church comes into a clear focus.

The priest’s bishop also responded according to a predictable contemporary ecclesiastical template: “We support [the priest] in his own personal journey and telling his story of coming to understand and live with his sexual orientation. As the Church teaches, those with same-sex attraction must be treated with understanding and compassion.”

The bishop probably succeeded in preventing a media firestorm. He also effectively allowed the priest to rise in stature as a gay freedom fighter. The studied moral ambiguity of the clerical gay activist proved to be an effective political buzz saw. The full and beautiful teachings of Christ on human sexuality, however, were further undermined.

Faithful and orthodox Catholics are at a political disadvantage in our gay-friendly culture. We realize that same-sex inclinations – as with all seriously sinful inclinations – cause great suffering and, unrestrained, can become a true slavery that endangers others including adolescents and even young children. But our opposition to the gay agenda is often crudely characterized as hateful and unreasonable. So a brief sketch of natural law in Catholic sexual morality may be helpful.

Male and female sex organs differ and have a unique reproductive function. The body of every human being contains a self-sufficient digestive or respiratory system. But it only contains half of a reproductive system and must be paired with a half-system belonging to a person of the opposite sex in order to carry out its function. These are undeniable biological facts.

“To engage in sex” is a relational term that implies male and female complementarity. Only a male and a female truly “engage in sex.” In contrast, same-sex “relations” involve the exercise of one’s sexual power, but not according to its self-evident nature. Sodomy is not really relational “sex.” It is merely a masturbatory use of sexual powers. Similarly, there is no such thing as “sexual relations” with a “sex robot” (alas, an emerging technology).

When a priest claims to be “gay and proud,” he is revealing that he has assented to his same-sex attraction. Free and deliberate thoughts have moral implications, as Jesus asserted: “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt 5:28) The difference between internal assent and external action is only a matter of a sinful opportunity. An unabashed and proud “gay” priest has already committed sodomy in his heart.

So how might an ecclesiastical superior defend Church teaching if one of his priests (or religious) claims a special dignity by “coming out” as gay? The superior should invoke immutable Christian moral principles in dealing with a self-described gay priest:

* Acknowledge that he is afflicted with “same-sex attraction” (SSA).
* Admit that SSA is an inclination toward mortal sin that if not restrained will lead him and others to eternal damnation.
* Identify and renounce any physical expression of SSA.
* Properly define celibacy to include Christian chastity that precludes all sexual activity in thought, word or deed.
* Invoke Scriptural references condemning sodomy (cf. Genesis and Saint Paul).
* Renounce the use of the word “gay” because it is a political term that has its roots in the homosexual subculture.
* Apologize for encouraging others to publicly reveal their mortally sinful inclinations. (The Eighth Commandment protects natural secrets.)

After a careful inquiry, the superior should release a public statement of clarification, prohibiting the priest from his homosexual activism and taking further personnel action according to the demands of Catholic morality and Canon Law.

Would a media firestorm ensue? Probably. But the superior would courageously confirm that the studied ambiguity of the gay agenda promoted by the priest is a lie.

During the rite of ordination for priests, the bishop says, “May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment.” Priests – and everyone – are in a constant state of change, for the better or for the worse. Fulfilling the duties of Holy Orders or any Christian vocation with true moral integrity is a lifelong task.

If we are going to find our true and final happiness in Christ, we must not only recognize and understand our sinful inclinations, but make firm and constant efforts to overcome them. “Celebrating” those inclinations simply makes no sense – whether the inclination is same-sex attraction or any other deviation from God’s plan for us.

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

[From "Deus Vult"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne
Altar
Freehold
Family
Property

Throne

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

Altar

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

[...]

Freehold

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

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

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

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

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

Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

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

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

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

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

r/GenderCritical #fundie reddit.com

[This is r/GenderCritical's self-description]

Gender Critical is a radical feminist subreddit to discuss gender from a critical perspective. We are a woman-centered community. We do not believe 'woman' is a feeling. We do not condone the erasure of females and female-only spaces, the silencing of critical thinking, the denial of biological reality and of sex-based oppression. We oppose the 'cotton ceiling' and the pressure on lesbians to have sex with men.

Andrew Anglin #pedo #sexist dailystormer.name

Across the world, there are various laws regulating the age at which a female can legally make the decision to have sex. The age is entirely arbitrary, and ranges from as low as 12 to as high as 19, depending on the location. Generally in the developed world, 16 is the accepted norm.

The fact that it fluctuates so much between locations goes to prove that it is without any biological basis. It is visibly evident that there is no biological difference between a girl of 15 years and 11 months and a girl of 16 years.

Making the situation even more ridiculous is the fact that a girl is indeed legally allowed to have sex with boys her own age or younger before she reaches the magic number. Thus it is that she is considered to be entirely capable of issuing consent to a man, it is simply that she is not capable of issuing consent to an older man.

The final layer of absurdity is that it is not the girl who is punished for engaging in the illicit act, but the man whom she has targeted to loose her wiles upon. What this creates is a situation where a girl can target a man for seduction, lie about her age, and get him locked up. Furthermore, governments can potentially entrap a man with a fully developed girl of 15 years and eleven months, sending her to seduce him and then arresting him on crimes against consent.

What exactly is this “consent,” which is so capable of being twisted into various shapes in order to criminalize men?

The legal definition of the term is this:

Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur.

So, in theory, a woman is incapable of acquiescing to a proposal of sex from a man – but only an older man – until she reaches the mature age of 16 (or whatever the age might be in your region).

The frightening thing is that the concept of “age of consent” assumes that there is ever any age at which a woman is capable of making informed and responsible decisions about something as serious as sexual activity.

However, in America, most adult women are fat. This means that as adults, they are incapable of making proper decisions about what they eat. But somehow we have reached the conclusion that they are capable of making decisions about their reproductive behaviors? This is absurd on the face of it.

As such, it is my view that the concept of consent must be abolished entirely, and women must be disallowed by law from engaging in sexual activity without the permission of a male relative or, if no male relative exists, the state.

The fact that we have the concept of an age of consent in our society means that it is acknowledged by society that there is a state in which a biologically fully developed female is incapable of deciding who she has sex with. And I am not aware of a single “my body, my choice” feminist who takes issue with this.

In other words, from the most staunch conservative to the most radical leftist, we all agree that a woman under the age of 16 is utterly infantile to the point of needing her biological functions restricted by men with guns. I do not see evidence that a woman ever exits this infantile state. In fact, it would appear that women become less capable of managing their lives as they age. A high school girl is generally much better behaved than a college girl, and a female who has graduated college is radically irresponsible. Women are so completely infantile that they will forego their childbearing potential by spending all of their most fertile years drinking, doing drugs and having “consensual” sex with a parade of different men. When the woman reaches thirty, and her looks have faded and she is alone, she will enter a state of confusion and begin blaming others for her unfortunate predicament. Women in their forties and fifties will then get divorces and utterly destroy the lives of every member of their families in order to pursue some type of vague “personal happiness” agenda. Women in their fifties and sixties begin engaging in bizarre and anti-social political activism which serves the sole purpose of harming society at large. It is not until her biology slows down her ability to move freely that a woman ever becomes less dangerous and destructive, less of an existential threat to society at large, less of a public nuisance, than she was at the age of 16.

With so-called “consent,” we have created a system where the completely unregulated sexual desires of women completely control all aspects of society. Women are able to give or deny consent on an industrial scale, and use this mechanism to completely control the behavior of men. They use this power granted them by the state to transform society into something which they apparently believe benefits them, but which does not bring a single objectively good thing to the people. Every outcome we have seen from giving women consent has been negative. We have only barren wombs, incels and broken families to show for embracing the imbecilic concept that a woman is capable of making responsible and informed sexual decisions.

Society does not benefit from women of any age being given sexual consent rights. Men do not benefit from it. Not even the women themselves benefit from it. Nothing good has come from giving women consent rights. The application of Consent Theory was a weird experiment and it failed, and it is time for the state to revoke these rights.

All female “rights” are given to them by men, as is clear by the simple fact that women are not capable of surviving without men, nor are they capable of physically overpowering men. Consent was a privilege given to women by men and it can and must be taken away just as easily. Applied Consent Theory is totally unsustainable due to the anti-natal results, and will eventually lead to a birthrate of zero. We cannot afford to continue to play this ridiculous game.

We need to replace the consent system with a system of strict regulation where the concept of consent is no longer considered. We can call this “no consent at any age.”

Furthermore, it is the woman who chooses to have sex, not the man. A man, particularly a young man, is virtually incapable of resisting sexual urges if a woman throws herself at him. So, it is the woman who should be punished for violating “no consent at any age” laws. Women who violate these rules and engage in unregulated sex need to be punished severely with lashings. A woman who repeatedly breaks consent laws and consents to unregulated sex must be branded on her hand or face with a permanent mark so that all of society can see her disgusting and anti-social crimes.

This is the only way we are going to successfully create a functional society where all stability is not solely dependent on the unbridled sexual desires of infantile women.

various TERFs #sexist reddit.com

YouTube shooting suspect dead; identified as female

(FeminamRadicalis)
The question is: what do they mean by female? Do they mean a biological woman born woman with XX chromosomes? Or do they mean a male who feeeeeeeeeeeeeels like a lady and therefore is somehow a "female"?

It will be a bit of time before we know. Since this is a tech company, the latter seems like a safer bet due to the glut of TIMs in tech. I will be very surprised if the assailant turns out to be an actual female, but stranger things have certainly happened. If the attacker is a TIM, I sense a push towards peak trans coming for the US.

(st_quiteria)
I'd rather not speculate. Amy Bishop is a woman, after all. Women occasionally have violent impulses and act on them for a whole host of reasons. Maybe you should consider deleting this comment before it gives the trolls ammunition.

(FeminamRadicalis)
I honestly could care less what the trolls / stalkers make of any comment I've made, this one included.

I did allow for the possibility that the shooter might be an actual woman by saying "stranger things have happened".

However, it is true that TIMs retain male patterns of crime rates and further that TIMs are per capita much better represented in tech than actual women are.

It's also interesting to simply consider that we are now at a point where we are forced to speculate if the use of the term "female" implies an actual biological woman or a male who says he feels like a woman. We can't know off the bat if this is a real woman or not, due to the rapid way in which that word has shifted in meaning over the past few years. That's quite chilling, really.

It's quite normal to speculate on current events such as this type of shooting, as they've very sadly become rather commonplace. You don't have to do so, and of course you're allowed to state that you don't want to and don't think others should either, but in turn I will state that I think it's perfectly fine to speculate and warranted in this case, since it's incredibly rare than an XX female would commit a crime like this (even though it does happen in a few extremely rare cases).

(NotSerenaJoy)
This. We are told the shooter is female, but that word is so meaningless in the mainstream now that we don't know what is meant by this information. We shouldn't be having to speculate about this. We should hear that a woman has shot people and be, "Woah! A female shooter, how crazy is that, what does this mean....." Instead we are here wondering, is it actually a woman? The shift in language because of the trans agenda is really messing with everything.

.
.
.

Because we are socialised to not be angry, but to be compliant and passive and most importantly, nice. It's internalised in us to not react violently and certainly not with deadly force. Even when we do reach boiling point, our socialisation still holds us back so that we never or at least very rarely react fully and release everything that is pent up inside of us. It's just not nice to be angry you know.

Men however are socialised in the opposite way. Be angry, be strong, stand up for yourself, don't take shit, never be compliant, get what you want at all costs. That sort of thing just screams "shoot everyone if they look at you funny".

(WrongToy)
I don't want to be blamed as a group for something a male may have done. I found so much of this account, from the 12-hour ride up from Riverside, the shooter knowing where the bf was, the suicide afterward, to have been so male-pattern.

This person is tall, wears scarves around the person's neck often, and in his performances is angry in a male way. Plus, in this person's country, SRS is the prescribed remedy for a gay male.

(Lil_Z)
The other thread appears to have been deleted, for reasons unknown. I hope it's not because the mods think it makes us 'look bad'. As you say, we are perfectly within our rights to speculate about this shooter's actual sex, given that the media is now regularly reporting male crimes as female ones.

Speaking of which, I think this person is almost certainly male. Take a look at the photos in this Daily Mail story, especially the one where he's holding a bunny. Looks like a male body, male neck, male face to me, and I'm a bit baffled that many don't seem to see it.

One of the comments on the DM site says 'Is that a man', but there are many more observing that something looks 'weird' or 'not right' about 'her' face. (One commenter says 'she' looks like an alien, while another says 'she' reminds him of an avatar from the Sims.) I guess femininity cues do throw people, such that their brain will categorise a male person as 'female' based on those cues, while also simultaneously observing that that isn't a female facial structure, hence the uncanny valley feeling that arises telling them that something is 'not right' about the face.

I don't think this will ever be admitted openly by the media. If he'd been a white, US-born TIM it probably would have been, as his trans status would likely have been part of both his social and online identities. But because he is (most likely) an Iranian gay man who transitioned very young, he's unlikely to have been open about being trans to many people, and I very much doubt his family will be inclined to mention it to the media either.

So now we can all be subjected to the joys of think pieces that ponder the meaning and motives of 'female' mass shooters. Just like when trans Twitter engineer Dana McCallum raped and beat his wife, one of the liberal rags (Slate I think) took the case as an opportunity to highlight the problem of 'lesbian' domestic violence.

In the next couple of years, we will probably see handwringing about the inexplicable rise in the number of 'female' rapists and pedophiles, which will allegedly show that our previous beliefs about these being male-pattern crimes were 'wrong'. It really is chilling, how completely the media is cooperating in this Orwellian reversal of reality.

(yishengqingwa666)
Sorry about your penis, inseminator.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

[The post is called "Against Sexual Consent"]

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other. Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war. Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers. Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal. Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator. So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex. It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion. Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition. In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees. On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner. Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males. Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence. Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female. This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well. And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies. Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking. Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved. And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.

AtTheReady1980 #racist stormfront.org

Re: Taylor Swift teaches millions of young white women how to race mix and be progressive in new Lover video.

I know the finger is ALWAYS pointed back at white men when the gross subject of white women laying with monkeys is brought up and how it’s “just as bad” but a few questions...

1) Do Asian women CONSTANTLY attack the white race at every turn?? Both physically and behind a keyboard online??

2) Do they commit crimes against our race at anywhere near the rate these low IQ black apes do??

3) Do they openly gloat about the coming extinction of the white race like groids do CONSTANTLY online (chimps never do it in person around able white men) or go out of their way to speed it up by murdering??


So while I agree that white men race mixing with Asian women is not right... these white females that go out of their way to seek a pet black are REALLY spitting in the face of white men and LOVE the fact it hurts many of them.

How many white men have relations with Asian women and find it basically orgasmic that it hurts white women???? I have a feeling the number is not ANYWHERE near as high as the amount of disgusting mud sharks that get off on hurting white men.

I’m really thankful that there are still white women out there that see the sick and twisted nature of breeding and giving themselves to a f**king nasty race of ‘people’ that HATE them, their ancestors and ESPECIALLY the men of their own race.

Atavistic Autist #sexist #racist #homophobia incels.co

[JFL] Incels are called "psychopaths" for analyzing society and advocating for a more ethical order, while actual psychopaths are loved by normies and foids

I just came across this thread on le Reddit, which argues that the amount of psychopaths/sociopaths/antisocial people in society is severely underestimated, which is a proposition I would agree with.

But the example the OP uses for unappreciated psychopaths is... us. JFL

Learning how social dynamics operate, especially as it concerns female nature (which our soyciety not only allows but encourages to be totally uninhibited and unrestrained), and detesting it as "brutal" and "cruel" is not psychopathy.

Psychopaths are the ones who prosper in modern society, and are enlivened by brutality and cruelty, not the ones who are victimized by it. The free-for-all environments of the feminist "sexual marketplace" and the capitalist economic marketplace are their playgrounds, where they are the bullies and we are the bullied. By virtue of being as exploitative and parasitic as possible in intent, yet extremely charming in affect, psychopaths automatically excel with foid-bloodsuckers and their equivalents in the social climbing game: rapacious, greedy scum in corporations and manipulative liars in politics.

Just take Pete Butt as an example. He is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is a literal psychopath. Since the age of 6 year old, he has been completely enamored by the need to climb the social ladder and become the most powerful man in the world. Virtually everything he's done in his life has had that end in mind: to build a resume which would qualify him for the presidency, and establish its superficial credentials, while internally he believes in nothing but his own ambitions for the ultimate reigns of authority. He would be the youngest president to ever take office. And normie and foid voters are actually letting him get as close as he is to his goal!

Pete Butt is also gay, something which he did not admit until it became politically expedient for him.

I'm a psychopath for complaining about being lonely, but a dude pummeling his gf every day and all the thugs getting laid are good people.

Yeah okay.

Men scoring higher in psychopathic traits tended to receive higher ratings from women
Brazil, KJ. Forth AE. 2019. Psychopathy and the Induction of Desire: Formulating and Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, pp 1-18. [Abstract]

Women are drawn more than men to nonfiction stories of rape, murder, and serial killers
Vicary AM, Fraley, RC. 2010. Captured by True Crime: Why Are Women Drawn to Tales of Rape, Murder, and Serial Killers? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1): 81-86. [Abstract] [FullText]

Childhood bullies experience greater sexual success than non-bullies
It was found that a greater likelihood of being the perpetrator of bullying behavior was correlated with a greater sexual partner count. However, due to the nature of the study it was impossible to tell if the mediating factor in this relationship was the bullying itself, or the HEXACO personality traits that are associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in this behavior, specifically the trait 'Honesty-Humility', that was found to being generally lower among bullies. This personality trait has also generally been found to be related to the 'dark triad' traits.

Volk AA, Dane AV, Zopito AM, Vaillancourt T. 2015. Adolescent Bullying, Dating, and Mating: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology. [FullText]
Provenzano DA, Dane AV, Farrell AH, Marini Z, Volk AA. 2017. Do Bullies Have More Sex? The Role of Personality. Evolutionary Psychological Science. [FullText]

Male gang members have dramatically more female sexual partners

Palmer CT, Tilley CF. 1995. Sexual Access to Females as a Motivation For Joining Gangs: An Evolutionary Approach. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(3):213-217. [Abstract] [FullText]
Mocan N, Tekin E. 2006. Ugly Criminals. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 12019. [FullText]

Male serial killers, terrorists, and rapists receive thousands of love letters from women in prison

Fimrite P, Taylor M. 2005. No shortage of women who dream of snaring a husband on Death Row / Experts ponder why deadliest criminals get so many proposals. SF Gate. [News]
Gurian EA. 2013. Explanations of mixed-sex partnered homicide: A review of sociological and psychological theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 18(5): 520-526. [Abstract]

Criminal and anti-social men have more sexual partners and have sex earlier
Ellis L, Walsh A. 2000. Criminology: A Global Perspective, 1st Edition. pp 227: Table 8.11. [References]

Cluster-B personality disorders lead to 3.5x as many sexual partners and more offspring
Guitiérrez et al. (2013) conducted a study in order to determine if the various personality disorder clusters—Type A (Schizoid, Odd), Type B (Narcissistic, Anti-social) and Type C (Avoidant, OCD)—were solely detrimental in terms of life outcomes for the individuals with these personality disorders (PDs), or if they instead presented their sufferers with various potentially adaptive benefits, such as greater sexual and social opportunities.
Namely, those individuals high in type-B personality cluster traits (Narcissism, Anti-Social, Borderline, Histrionic) of both sexes has 3.5x as many mates as low B subjects, with five times as many short-term mates and twice as many long term mates. It was also found that those higher in cluster B had 39% more offspring then those lower in cluster B traits.

Gutiérrez F, Gárriz M, Peri JM, Ferraz L, Sol D, Navarro JB, Barbadilla A, Valdés M. 2013. Fitness costs and benefits of personality disorder traits. Evolution and Human Behavior. 34(1): 41-48.

39% of hospitalized male psychopaths had consensual sex with female mental health staff
Gacono C, Meloy JR, Sheppard K, Speth E, Roske A. 1995. A Clinical Investigation of Malingering and Psychopathy in Hospitalized Insanity Acquittees. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 23(3): 387-397. [FullText]

Men are attracted to "nice" women, but women are not attracted to "nice" men
Researchers sought to evaluate niceness by defining it as: "a characteristic that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship." In other words, niceness is the degree to which a person understands, values, and supports his partner's identity and values and is willing to put commitment and effort into the relationship. This is also known in psychology as "responsiveness."
The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." They also found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal from the men and greater desire for a relationship.
On the other hand, when women perceived their male partner to be more responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

Birnbaum GE, Ein-Dor T, Reis HT, Segal N. 2014. Why Do Men Prefer Nice Women? Gender Typicality Mediates the Effect of Responsiveness on Perceived Attractiveness in Initial Acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 40(10): 1341-1353. [Abstract]
Mejia P. 2014. Study Finds That Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around. Newsweek. [News]
Judge TA, Livingston BA, and Hurst C. 2012. Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. [Abstract]

Female narcissism reduces marital quality for men, but male narcissism does not for women
It was found that high degrees of female narcissism predicted a decline in marital quality and satisfaction over time. However, male narcissism did not negatively affect marital quality or satisfaction.
This would seem to imply men are greatly bothered by narcissistic wives, but women are not so typically bothered by narcissistic husbands. This conclusion is in keeping with evidence reviewed that women find narcissistic men more attractive and actively seek them as husbands.

Lavner JA, Lamkin J, Miller JD, Campbell WK, Karney BR. 2016. Narcissism and newlywed marriage: Partner characteristics and marital trajectories. Personal Disord. 7(2): 169-79. [Abstract]

Women desiring marriage and commitment are more attracted to narcissistic men
Haslam C, Montrose T. 2015. Should have known better: The impact of mating experience and the desire for marriage upon attraction to the narcissistic personality. Personality and Individual Differences. 82: 188-192. [Abstract]

BRUTAL

Cluster B personaliteehees rule the world. It is up to Cluster Cs with the revolutionary and cleansing spirit of OCD to wipe them all out and build a new ordER.

For their part, Cluster As will establish the new mythology/religion, and what superstitions foid-cattle should believe in.

Ted Bundy was a textbook psychopath but he got tons of women consensually and attracted female attention even after his crimes were brought to light.

Ted Bundy was literally a Republican activist and had his eyes set for a career in law and then politics. But he was too sexually dimorphic for his own good, and simply could not help himself from raping gullible foids to death.

Pete Butt and his innocent, neotenous face (not to mention his homosexuality) is much more suited for a psychopath with political inclinations tbhngl. Even if he was to engage in his sexual fantasies and rape little boys or murder, sodomize, and then cannibalize homeless men, nobody would even deign to investigate it.

Notably, the homosexual psychopath I study in the OP is into rap music:

Do you like rap music? You could be a psychopath

The article argues that this goes to show how neurotypical and normal psychopaths are, and I agree, but I think that it demonstrates the existence of a psychopath-negroid synthesis as well.

Just like ~50% of violent crime in the US is committed by Blacks, ~50% of violent crime is also estimated to be committed by psychopaths. Rap music seems to unite them, and together they commit an overwhelming majority of the violent crime (not all of it, because there is some demographic overlap between them, of course).

''It was convinient'' or in other words, he is just a typical follower. He is just a part of the hive mind and everything what might be considered different than that from the hive mind itself, is dangerous to it and therefore repusled.

The conceit of psychopathic niggers to appropriate autistic terminology and refer to others as "neurotypical" compared to them, and call their pathetic manipulations "masking," is absolutely hilarious.

I cannot wait until they are all put down. There is no place for narcissists and psychopaths in the upcoming ordER. They will learn the spirit of collectivism, cooperation, and solidarity which has heretofore eluded them in their mass graves.

Mat Staver #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver delivered a blistering response to the Supreme Court's decision this week not to take-up marriage equality appeals, telling host Jim Schneider of "Crosstalk" yesterday that the court is endangering public health by effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in several states.

Staver said same-sex marriage should remain illegal because "we know male-male sexual relationships are notoriously harmful, physically as well as mentally, and also female-female, same kinds of things."

"It's harmful to the individuals and those harms ultimately effect those around because they're communicable and other kinds of serious and deadly disease," he added.

Staver lamented that America is witnessing "a debasing of morals" as county clerks in new marriage equality states begin to issue marriage licenses, with even "people on the sidelines who don't necessarily participate directly in the debasing acts cheering on those that do."

"This is not something to cheer about, this is a shameful day in American history, it's a shameful day that the Supreme Court has ultimately engulfed itself with," Staver said.

"It's shameful for the Supreme Court for what they have done to marriage as it has been shameful in the history of the court with regards to the Dred Scott decision or the Buck v. Bell decision, where they said that the state of Virginia can forcibly sterilize her because of this eugenics idea that they want to eliminate the undesirables of the world. That was the shameful day that we ultimately look back with shame upon and I think this is going to be one of those same kind of situations."

Rapture Retards #fundie raptureforums.com

[Time for some old-fashioned RR gay bashin'!]

god__chick3: "We do care for homosexuals as fellow human beings but we dont have to accept their perversion as normal. God is the same before He made humans and He is the same today...He destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for sexual perversion so I dont think I'd toy with it. I am leaving it in His hands but I think you'd be wise to back away and let God be God and stop making excuses why a sin is okay for todays world."

Ort: "God's prohibition against homosexuality is not "ceremonial Law", but God's moral law which never changes. And you can't possibly tell me that these verses mean anything but what they mean. If anybody reads anything else into them, it's because they are desperately trying to validate perversion and sin. And because they can't do it in their minds, they love to point out how it doesn't really say that, or God didn't really mean that, etc."

Robert: "Homosexualtiy is a sin: or did God annul the judgmnent of sodom and gomorrah when Jesus came?
It's just as much a sin today, as it was in paul's day, and in Moses' day. God NEVER changed his mind on it. Not ONCE.
He simply changed with how he deals with us, due to Christ's sacrifice. We shouldn't mistake that for God 'softening up.'"

Author: "God does not bring Male and Male nor Female or Female together. At the very BEST 'if' and I use that loosely because I believe the bible screams that it goes further than that, homosexuality relates to ceremonial law, it's still fornication as a male/male female/female marriage is not valid in God's eyes. It's still sin, no matter which part you choose. Paul (that some person that says that 'law' was nailed to the cross) tells us to flee from fornication, period.
You are ignoring this goes beyond ceremonial law, but to not only moral law but NATURAL law. You can argue ceremony all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Man has a penis, and women have a vagina. Sorry to be graphic but that's the way it is.
You can argue Leviticus as ceremonial all you want, but Romans Chapter 1 is clear that one of the consequences of rejecting the gospel, is to also reject the natural physical use of your body in sexuality. Paul saw no ceremonial law when he used the Greek word physikos."

Elizabeth Minkel #sexist medium.com

Mary Sue
From self-inserts to imagines, how young women write themselves into the narrative
Illustration by the incredible Maia Kobabe

[This piece was written in conjunction with the most recent episode of the Fansplaining podcast. Follow us on Twitter or Tumblr, and if you’re interested in supporting our work—helping us commission more art and pieces like this—please consider donating to our Patreon.]

1.

Let’s start with the woman in question. She isn’t usually called Mary Sue—she has a less plausible, more fanciful name. Similarly, she has less plausible, more fanciful physical features than your average girl: purple eyes, or really extraordinary hair. You don’t know her, but you know the characters that surround her—she’s a new student at Hogwarts, an important ally you meet in Rivendell, the person on whom Holmes and Watson will rely to crack the case. She is notably smarter, stronger, and/or more beautiful than her peers. She’s going to save the day—and maybe a character you know will fall in love with her, too. She’s a wholly original character, though she might resemble an idealized version of the author. She’s a super-girl, bending beloved stories around her, heroism in a world mostly made up of heroes.

Oh, also: she is the ultimate object of scorn. She is the literal worst. She is embarrassing, self-indulgent trash; she ruins the story with her competence, her desirability, and the way all those characters you love seem to love her. She’s been described an endless number of colorful ways, including (via Fanlore’s meticulous and depressing entry on Mary Sues) the “literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself.” She is everything that’s wrong with fanfiction, with girls writing stories, with fangirls, period.

The most basic definition of “Mary Sue” is an original female character in fanfiction—which is largely about established characters and worlds—who is often close to perfect. Like, too perfect. Very good at her job, very desirable romantically or sexually, and sometimes very emotionally moving when she dies, tragically, and the other characters mourn her. The story usually centers around her, often warping established characterization in the process. She’s self-indulgent, to be sure, but she’s harmless, and framed this way, one might wonder why young girls writing themselves into their favorite worlds is the literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself. If you have to wonder that, though, you might not be familiar with the way the world treats young girls.

“Mary Sue” was coined by Paula Smith in 1970s Star Trek fandom, in a very short story that began, “‘Gee, golly gosh, gloriosky,’ thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. ‘Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet—only 15–1/2 years old.’” Lieutenant Mary Sue, object of affection of Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the men of Star Trek: TOS, was meant to be a parody of what Smith had observed in the fanzines of the day: “The term caught on because she’s very identifiable: Here it is, that same character, and isn’t it a shame because she’s just so tiresome,” she told an interviewer at Transformative Works and Cultures in 2011.

The conversation, conducted 40 years after Lieutenant Mary Sue first stepped onto the bridge, is an interesting one, not least because of the vague sense of disconnect between the literary analysis around the term (why bending a story around your original character might make for bad fiction, or at least not-terribly-enjoyable fiction if you aren’t the author) and the gendered morass that the term has sunk into (or, arguably, where it began).

Mary Sues weren’t born in Trek fandom—one researcher drew parallels between modern self-insert fic and stories that girls wrote about versions of themselves in the nineteenth century—but the term was born in an era of paper zines, a time of limited space for fanfiction, and arguably one with a different relationship between fic writers and their readers. When she first coined the term, Smith says, “In the letter columns, we started seeing the writers react: ‘What’s so wrong with my story? I’m just telling a story that I think is great.’” Even detractors admit Mary Sues are about young girls finding their power and agency in a world of fictional landscapes that rarely afford such journeys to women. After all, the original Mary Sue was the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet.

The days of limited space and resources in fic production are ancient history: there is always room for another story in the internet’s archives, and the general ethos of the broader fanfiction community has long been “don’t like, don’t read.” Many stories are self-indulgent, whether they feature a stand-in for the author or or not. But hatred of Mary Sues is embedded in the culture, self-perpetuating, and has seemingly ramped up since fic came online. In the early digital days, some archives banned Mary Sues outright; to this day, blogs exist solely to call peoples’ original characters Mary Sues, and to deconstruct and mock them accordingly.

Once the seed was planted in cultural discourse, Mary Sue accusations became impossible to stop—the toxicity surrounding the term has spread far beyond fanfiction self-inserts. Not long after it was coined, “Mary Sue” became any original female character in fanfiction; for decades, women have been reporting that they stopped writing original female characters, then female characters altogether, for fear of the “Mary Sue” label. Canonical female characters seen as threats to male/male romances in fic got the term, too—one notable (and incredibly troubling) example is the treatment of Nyota Uhura in fic about the rebooted Star Trek films. And over the years, the term has seeped across pop culture, to the point where “Mary Sue” becomes any female lead, anywhere. Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen, and Rey from Star Wars are just a few slapped with the label. It’s just so annoying that their respective plots center around them, they must be Mary Sues.

(There are male Mary Sues, in case you’re wondering: “Marty Stu,” “Gary Stu,” and other variations have shown up over the years. People try to counter, even undercut, the inherent misogyny in the Mary Sue conversation by naming too-competent, too-desirable leading men—Captain Kirk, Luke Skywalker, and James Bond are famous examples. There’s an old joke: “What do you call a male Mary Sue?” The answer? “A protagonist.” It’s…not a particularly funny joke.)

But just as fanfiction writers are fighting back against historical scorn towards the practice at large, in recent years fans have been standing up for Mary Sues, too. Critics of the term are working to excise it from discussions around professional works, where it disproportionally targets women writing novels about female characters. In an act of reclamation, one of the most popular female-led geek sites on the internet took the term for its name. And within fan writing communities, people are going to bat for even the most self-indulgent Mary Sues, questioning why we shame young fans for making themselves the heroes of their own stories. But is a long-embedded stigma that easy to shake?

2.

It feels like every other fanfiction writer you talk to has a tale of their own early Mary Sues. Not everyone got called out for them—plenty of people learned to self-censor when they saw others getting shamed. My podcast partner, Flourish, reports that her early original female character was a student who proved vital to a case that Mulder and Scully were investigating. My first fanfic was almost entirely original characters, sketched out on yellow legal pads—I took a minor character from a book series and gave him a diverse team of corporate executives (don’t ask, it’s a weirdly long explanation). But by age 14, when I fell in love with Buffy and learned about online fandom, I was writing stories featuring a banshee who was old friends with Rupert Giles named…Ophelia. (I swear to God, I had no idea about the implications at the time, I just thought “Ophelia” sounded pretty, just as I loved “Cecilia” until Simon & Garfunkel ruined it for me.)

But these days more women are pushing back against the original characters they once felt ashamed of. After all, why shouldn’t young girls write the most spectacular versions of themselves—and why shouldn’t they want to see themselves in a story? In recent years I’ve been especially interested in watching women, people of color, and queer people reclaim the self-insertion narrative from one of indulgence to one of vital representation. In a piece partly about her youthful love of Lord of the Rings, Ash Davis writes,

“Be the change you wish to see,” Gandhi said (sorta). So I wrote my change. I discovered fanfiction and wrote all the damn change. I went into the painfully white fandoms of the things I loved…and wrote black folk into every last one of them. If there were no black people, I made them. If they were tokens, I made them stars. Mary-sued the shit out of everything. It didn’t matter, you were gonna see me!

In another piece I love about reclaiming the Mary Sue (via a medieval mystic, Margery Kempe, who essentially Mary Sued her way into the Bible in her writing, chilling with Mary and romancing Jesus), Ana Wilson writes about placing the female body back into reading—and into writing.

Reading The Book of Margery Kempe alongside fanfiction makes it clear that physical, imaginative reading is still associated with women, still considered embarrassing, and still employed as a form of resistance to mainstream narratives. People, in short, are still using this style of reading to elbow their way into texts from which they are restricted, just as Kempe and other women did with religious texts.

I wish I had my own Mary Sues to claim, but on a personal level, I’m a little more ambivalent. When I talk about good old Ophelia the Banshee, both “female” and an “original character” (and pulling from a very specific strand of symbolic mythology, for that matter), it’s easy to assume that I must have been writing a Mary Sue. But I can’t remember any specific connection between myself and the character, beyond the connections I have with every character I write, from the weary narrator of much of my original fiction who, like me, works at a racetrack, all the way to a certain pansexual immortal time traveling man from the 51st century.

The relationship between a writer and the characters she both reads and writes is a varied and complicated one. Fanfiction adds a layer onto that—the original characters in question aside, most of the people we write about started out as someone else’s characters, at least before the original work went out in the world. In the hands of fans, individually or collectively, a character often becomes someone else in the process. I should clarify: I don’t mean that fans are likely to render them out-of-character. But with the space and care that fanfiction can afford, fan writers often draw a favorite world’s characters as richer, more complicated—more human.

So unless you’re writing self-inserts or original characters, fanfic is partly about getting into the headspace of a character you didn’t create. That, for me anyway, is one of fanfiction’s chief pleasures—I’ve written before that for most fans, fic isn’t about wacky plots, as people outside fandom often assume, but about understanding a character so well that the interesting part comes when you stick them in a wacky plot (sure, “there’s only one hotel room left” counts as wacky), apply pressure, and see how they react.

For me, in my post-Ophelia Banshee days, inhabiting other characters as I write fanfiction has been vitally important. I read and write fic for a simultaneous distance and closeness with these characters—I allow them into my head, but I’m not looking to project myself back onto them. Part of this is privilege: whiteness, and I’m especially thinking of the un-interrogated whiteness of my adolescence, often lets white people assume a “default” position. A disproportionate number of the characters on our pages and screens are white, and from that lens shared whiteness with characters feels less like commonality and more like a lack of difference. Part of it is the opposite of privilege: the minefield of my struggles with gender and sexuality—almost definitely a subject for a totally separate essay—have left me perpetually out of step with many characters I encounter on pages and screens. When I think about myself in relation to a story, I slip away—a bit ironic, I suppose, for someone fascinated by girls who write themselves into stories. Or maybe that’s the whole point.

But part of it’s not just me: I hesitate to get too reductive on the links between shaming girls out of their own stories and the kinds of things that dominate many corners of the fanfiction world, but one could draw a line from the embarrassment of the Mary Sue to the positioning of certain types of characters in fandom as “default.” In the vast landscape of popular media, at least in the Anglo-American context, we’re implicitly taught to view the white male character as neutral, blank, infinitely relatable. While media certainly can shoulder some blame, fans should be held responsible, too, and the way young fans are encouraged, gently or mockingly, to step out of their own perspectives, away from their own backgrounds, and into the perspective of certain types of characters is one of the lasting legacies of the Mary Sue construction.

3.

When we consider the Mary Sue and her position in fandom at large, those of us outside the real person fic space often tend to overlook the fact that as long as celebrity fandom has existed, fannish communities have been built on self-insert fic with female protagonists. For many readers, this kind of story is sought after, not an object of scorn. The self-inserts that populate a lot of boy band RPF, for example, are perspective characters that, just like Mary Sues, allow young women to gain narrative control of their relationships with the objects of their affection.

Perspective is important in fanfic. It’s obviously also important in all other fiction, ever, but fic can sometimes feel particularly preoccupied with it. After all, perspective shift is one of the bedrocks of the practice; fans love nudging the spotlight off a canonical protagonist. RPF is an interesting space to examine perspective, and the way the “default” (white, male) gaze gets shattered and refashioned. There’s the complicated sort of circular gaze of stories from the celebrity’s point of view, where the reader watches the celebrity watching a character who’s often a stand-in for the reader. And while second-person fic feels more prevalent in fanfiction at large than it does in the published fiction world, it often feels ubiquitous in RPF spaces. Lumped under a second-person umbrella stories that work very differently in form and function, from fleshed-out second person narrators to “x Reader” stories that eschew identifying details to “imagines,” short prompts that exist in a murky space between fiction and daydream fodder.

When you place those fleshed-out narrators side-by-side with Mary Sues, it’s an interesting study in contrasts: where a Mary Sue is too-perfect, the self-insert narrator is often fairly ordinary, beaten down in some way, frustrated with her situation, not quite aware of her own attractiveness or agency. (Part of the pleasure of the narrative arc is the realization, and reclamation of that agency.) These characters and this type of fic is wildly popular on Wattpad, so much so that the platform commissioned an entire anthology of second-person RPF entitled IMAGINES, released last year with a shiny silver mirror on its cover alongside the words “Celebrity encounters starring YOU.”

The imagines of the anthology are, a little confusingly, not quite the same thing as “imagines,” the prompts that are increasingly popular on Tumblr and Wattpad. The anthology’s stories, about chance encounters with celebrities, are narrated by women of various ages and backgrounds with clear characterization and perspective. They’re not all romantic: in one story, a mother embarrasses her teenage daughter when she brings home Nicholas Hoult for dinner, the “you” full of maternal affection for the actor; in another, “you” are on the run with Kim Kardashian, a freedom fighter in an America where the government has outlawed selfies (Kim is on the run because she keeps taking them, obviously). The “yous” are unremarkable, but there’s a bit of knowing space between the reader and the narrator: we can tell you’re selling yourself short, and we’re waiting for you to realize it.

Actual imagines, in contrast, leave you to do most of the work of constructing a protagonist. They are short, sometimes a single sentence: “Imagine: You and Ed take a camping trip to get away from the media,” reads one on a popular Tumblr devoted to imagines, accompanied by a gif of Ed Sheeran looking sort of bashful. How you met, the state of your relationship, literally everything about “you” is up in the air—whether the reader even feels compelled to fill those gaps is a matter of preference. The “you” in an imagine isn’t necessarily average-looking or untalented—the same blog offers you a gif of Sebastian Stan looking charmed accompanied by, “Imagine: When Sebastian first meets you he is speechless and stunned by your beauty.” Imagines are interesting often not because of what they contain, but what they lack—the wide-open spaces they leave, utterly customizable, whether you spin a single-sentence prompt into a 60,000-word story or just imagine you and Ed Sheeran sitting in a tent. As a self-insert narrator, you are as present or as absent as you want.

The protagonists of “x Reader” stories are similarly blank: often called “y/n,” short for “your name,” these stories are the most literal expression of “self-insert” imaginable, since the pairing is you, the reader, and the celebrity of the title. These stories vary, but sometimes they tread so lightly in an attempt to leave “y/n” as neutral as possible that they wind up feeling a bit like Mad Libs, instructing you to fill in, say, your favorite book rather than just name one the narrator might like. Sometimes x Reader stories follow a full narrative arc; other times they feel like a collected set of imagines. When I got sucked in researching, I wound up in a story where in each chapter, you successively date, then marry, each of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

The prevalence and growing popularity of images and x Reader stories amongst younger fans is a fascinating shift when I think of the self-inserts of previous generations. If a Mary Sue is a projection, a young woman’s ideal self on the page, then an imagine is more likely to be a reflection: exactly who you are, at the center of the story. Mary Sues are aspirational, but in a way, so are these other self-insert forms: they construct worlds in which your fictional self, going about your incredibly ordinary life, is just as important as Lieutenant Mary Sue. The story still bends around you.

The overwhelming popularity of self-inserts on Wattpad, a fanfiction hub with a younger demographic than other archives, leaves me both curious and hopeful about young girls right now, writing themselves into stories. I know that reader x boy-band-star-of-the-moment isn’t exactly a new construction; while I was working on my weird diverse corporate team and Flourish was helping the FBI catch aliens, my contemporaries were writing themselves into Hanson’s green room and *NSYNC’s tour bus, stories they’d later disavow (and, haltingly, reclaim).

Today’s social media is restructuring our conceptions of personal identity—we increasingly center ourselves in our own narratives. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go on some “narcissistic millennial” rant. Quite the opposite: it’s heartening to see young women, young queer people, young people of color, center themselves in narratives when our screens and pages are still lacking. In the fanfiction world, just like in the rest of the world, we still hold marginalized characters, original or otherwise, to impossible standards. But perhaps our embrace of Mary Sues—even if they’re the most achingly perfect young woman to ever command a ship in the Fleet—will help change things for the better.

some incels #sexist reddit.com

When a female joins the group of my online friends that I play vidya with every day after work and now everyone acts completely different and tried to subtly belittle each other for a 0.00001% chance of fucking her

image

(Salvador66)
Foids ruin male spaces. They need to mind their own business.

(throwawayirl3)
Reminder: pussy-hunting cucks will ruin male spaces before an actual female will

(TreesnCats)
But it's the females presence and unattainability that drives the men to do what they do, cucks are pretty normal people when you subtract women from the equation.

You’re giving women a LOT of power, do you realize this?

I ain't the one doing it. I was gonna amend my statement by saying yes, the people who give women this much power over them have issues.

Look we can't control what women do, but we have every right to be disgusted by men that fucking grovel and lick the ground they walk on

(AyeThatsAGoodNagger)
But the point is, most men are pussy-hunting cucks. You can’t blame them; it’s evolution. But they only become intolerable when they're activated by the presence of a woman. Women are the problem here. Video game groups should have a zero-tolerance policy for open women.

To find and impress a woman is evolution, to act like a baboon at the presence of a woman online that wants to play video games is cuckery.

It happens to almost everybody. The monkey part of your brain sees the 0.00001% chance and jumps on it. Lonely men will never not cuck if they think there’s even a small a chance they can get a gf. The key is to not let women play in the first place.

(batmansthediddler)

Why are you enabling the worst men among us. I thought the common argument here is that women are the "simplistic" ones. If men can't even fucking have enough self respect not to be pathetic that's on them

yeah no shit sherlock this is why all the cucked soyboys hate incels so much, it's because we have the self respect they lack and they can't seem to grasp that idea.

also why do you think inceltears is like 10x bigger than braincels? it's because of the massive amount of soyboys infesting this fucking place.

if you really think women are the only problem you got some thinking to do

(WhoopiCushionberg)
This is precisely why gender segregation is a good thing. Even the entrance of one female automatically and intrinsically changes dynamics to be less brotherly and more competitive. Same goes for women too

(livear)
Men get anxious and distracted when available women are around.

Women get anxious and distracted when available men aren't around.

(LateStructure)
THIS is the reason to not have women in the military. The media pretty much refuses to acknowledge this and diverts the argument around "ability." Just goes to show how subtle manipulation is.

(RacistNigga420)
This happens to me all the time. Seriously fuck women, they ruin even my gaming experience. Actually recently stopped playing a mmo because too much of this shit on my guild.

(StopCopingStartLDAR)
that’s probably because most men are playing MMOs to get away from their shit real lives. but women live on absolute tutorial mode, so if they need that escapism then they’re probably severely fucked in the head

(Dearjohn_)
Good post. I never really put any thought into it before (bitches be crazy, basically) but what you said makes complete sense. Women already get everything handed to them IRL and get validation just for existing, so they'd have little incentive to seek out escapism via virtual worlds unless there is something wrong with them.

(Tony_Danza_the_boss)
This happened to my friend group as well. And the foid still hasnt left and brags about all the guys shes fucked right in front of us but knows she will never fuck any of us. Ive tried getting my friends to kick her out but they all want to try and fuck her. It's been 2 years -_-

John Carver #fundie returnofkings.com

It Doesn’t Matter If Women Win Gold Medals At The Rio Olympics

The U.S. mainstream media is hailing the record number of female athletes which are heading to Rio de Janeiro for the Olympic Games, with a total of 292 out of the 555 American competitors being women. Because you know, gender gaps are worthy of congratulations and applause just as long as there are less men and more women stepping up to the plate.

In truth, this is actually a sad state of affairs. It means that the U.S. Olympic team will have less than a 50% chance of seeing a real champion, rather than a 2nd rate gold medalist from the weaker sex, achieving athletic glory on the world stage.

I’ve said it before in my previous article “Anything Women Can Do, Men Can Do Better,” and I’ll say it again in 2016. The best females can never outclass the best males in sport and athleticism.

Denial Is A River In Lefty Land

Feminists always love to espouse that women can be “just as good as any man” in sports, but this has always been a preposterous falsehood. The average women only has roughly 60% of the strength and muscle characteristics of a comparable man, and the greatest gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a significantly lower proportion of their lean muscle tissue distributed in the upper body.

In other words, women will NEVER reach the stratospheric heights of the best male boxers, weightlifters, javelin throwers, hammer throwers, rowers, swimmers, pole vaulters, and a host of other Olympic events where upper body strength is pivotal to reaching the podium.

But what about feats of agility and stamina where upper body strength is not quite as vital? Such as Association Football (Soccer) and most running and jumping events at track and field? Well grab your adult coloring books and head to your “safe space” SJW’s, because the best male runners at the marathon (the biggest combo test of speed and stamina) are routinely faster than the best women.

“At every distance up to the marathon, the gap between men’s and women’s world record times is nine to 10 percent—and it’s a similar or even higher percentage among recreational runners.” – Runner’s World, April 2015 Edition

Get it? Due to irrefutable biological characteristics, women just don’t have the strength, speed, and physical fortitude to run faster or perform better at the same sport than the best men. Case in point, the Australian national women’s soccer team (which is participating at this Olympic games) was absolutely humiliated earlier this year by a 7 – 0 loss to the Australian national under FIFTEEN’s boys side (which is not participating).

Even in Olympic events which do not require overt displays of speed, stamina, or brute strength—such as gymnastics—denial dwelling SJWs and white knights may resort to saying that female gymnasts are more “graceful” and agile than their male counterparts.

Oh really? I beg to differ. Just watch British freerunner Will Sutton take a stroll around the Isle of Man, combining incredible acrobatics, athleticism, speed, stamina, and landing dangerous jumps that not a single woman has been able to emulate thus far.

Authoritative Quotes On Male And Female Physiology

‘Agility depends upon the ability to decelerate and accelerate fast, and men – because of their larger muscles – will always have an advantage,’ – Harry Brennan, Exercise Physiologist

‘There was a period in the Seventies when women equaled or broke more world records than men, but that was before the fall of the Berlin Wall.’ – Harry Brennan, Exercise Physiologist

(Translation: this was the era when Eastern Bloc coaches were feeding female athletes steroids like sweets. They were outright cheaters.)

‘The male skeleton is bigger and gives them an inherent advantage – larger bones are generally stronger,’ – Ignac Fogelman, Endocrinologist Professor

‘Faster men’s times for 100 to 800 meters are mostly due to men, on average, having greater muscle mass—and a larger portion of it is fast-twitch, which allows them to generate greater force, speed, and anaerobically produced energy’ – Chris Schwirian, Biological Sciences lecturer at Ohio University

World Athletic Records Men Vs. Women

100m Dash World Record

9.58 s – Usain Bolt (Men’s)

10.49 s – Florence Griffith Joyner (Women’s)

High Jump World Record

2.45 m – Javier Sotomayor (Men’s)

2.09 m – Stefka Kostadinova (Women’s)

Hammer Throw World Record

86.74 m – Yuriy Sedykh (Men’s)

79.58 m – Anita Wlodarczyk (Women’s)

Conclusion

Whenever female athletes are awarded a “gold medal” at the Olympics, it should just be a giant knockoff of that cheap Hanukkah gelt (chocolate gold coins) that Jewish children get for the holiday season. After the brief surge of excitement that they have won “gold” (and attention whore themselves with it on Instagram), they can peel off the tin foil and feast on the chocolatey goodness inside until it’s all gone. “You go girl!”

After all, since women are ultimately just big children, they merely deserve to have big children’s candy. The REAL gold medals should be allocated to the real champions of a sporting discipline’s top tier, which will always be men.

Unfortunately, “equality” obsessed feminists and SJW’s will be absolutely thrilled when women take home gold medals at the Olympic games, even though their competitive talents and event completion times will be noticeably worse than many male athletes who will return home with nothing.

So best of luck to all the male athletes in the Games of the XXXI Olympiad! Go for gold! (And I do mean the real kind).

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

Re: Today I Was Assaulted By My Biological Sister And The Police Didn't Arrest Her

[LONG POST REDACTED]

Tl;dr Sister stole 20 bucks from nephew. I ask where it is. She gets offended and we argue. She threatens me with violence and I don't back down. She starts swinging at me, I evade the punches but she cuts parts of my face, leaves two long red streaks on my chest and I call the police. Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her even after 'giving me the choice'.

(mikesteane)
I would give Charles the 20 pounds and write your fridge off to experience. Then cut your sister out of your life and let her dig her own grave.

PS: A useful trick if someone is throwing punches at you and you do not want to hit back is to deliberately bring your elbows up in front of her fists, if you can. A fist meeting and elbow will get the worst of the encounter and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

(ThePigmanAgain)

and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

Yes. And in this day and age she could probably get away with it too!

(TheMythof_Feminism)

Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her

I'm surprised they didn't detain YOU.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but you made a huge mistake. Never call the police, I have read many stories where something similar to what you describe happens (woman starts a fight, man calls police) and it ends with the man being taken away in irons.

Yeah I know that doesn't make sense, but that's how skewed things are in favor of women.... those visible cuts saved you.

(Wsing1974)
Please don't advise men not to call the police. Yes, it's true that men will often not be treated seriously, and it's also true that occasionally the male victim is the one who gets arrested.

But if we're ever going to change this scenario, we need to get female on male assaults documented. We need the statistics to show that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. We need women to be jailed over this.

We can advise men to get better evidence - like pictures, video, and confessions. We can advise them to separate themselves from women before calling. But please don't advise them to not call. That's only going to perpetuate the problem.

(TheMythof_Feminism)
Domestic violence calls do not end well for men. I will advise them on what I consider to be the best choice for the circumstances, in this instance the application of law is so horrendously skewed against men that I do not think it is a good idea to call the police.

You believe calling the police and risking a terrible outcome will accomplish this?

I would never throw a man under the bus for "the greater good". I understand your general argument but your methods are unacceptable to me.

(IronJohnMRA)
I'm sorry but I disagree completely. Mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution make this too risky of an action for me to ask men to take. For the time being, I will continue to advise them not to do it.

(Kirei64)
In my country, people are always complaining about the fact that "police don't take into account women's complaints", that women are harassed and can't do nothing. But these idiots don't realize that police also don't take into account men's complaints, and that most of men can't do a single thing when a woman tries to hit them. What you're saying is a large proof that there is cases of women who punches men unfairly (and I think that a woman saying to a man that she would "kick him in his balls" is also pretty sexist). As long as there is this stupid "women are wonderful effect", most people will not realise that women can be violent and cruel (stealing money from a 12 old nephew is heartless, and she even tried to punch you for complaining about that...) In fact, people needs to know that women can be evil too, so cases like your will not occur again.

(HeForeverBleeds)
I don't trust the CJS for reasons like this. I've experienced first hand and learned about countless more accounts of males assaulted by women at best not getting justice even after reporting, and often being treated as the abuser

People say male-on-female violence is worse and more dangerous, but a female has more recourse against a violent man than vice versa. If a man doesn't hit back, he gets seriously injured. If he does hit back, he gets arrested. And whichever he chooses, the CJS isn't going to protect him from the abuser

I'm really sorry this happened. Have you considered cutting her out of your life entirely? Would that even be possible? Toxic relationships are terrible things to endure, and her being a close relative doesn't make it any more justifiable

Linda Harvey #fundie #homophobia #transphobia #wingnut missionamerica.com

And they are exactly right. Males will now be free to waltz into work in female dress and their employers can do nothing about it. Eighteen-year-old girls who have mutilated their bodies to try to become male will be able to sue the family restaurant that doesn’t hire them. Restrooms, locker rooms and women’s shelters will just go ahead and allow males who say they are women to enter female spaces. Never forget, these folks have never respected laws or rules, and they specialize in pushing the limits all the time.

God help us.

This never had to happen. The heartbreak and tragedy that will roll out from this decision will be visited on many families who never saw it coming as their children become deeply corrupted because there is nothing to hold back the depraved indoctrination of "out" teachers, coaches, camp counselors, etc. We have empowered an anti-Christian arrogance that will not stop at the church house door, but will storm right in.

And this was always a solution in search of a problem. There are very few cases where people are fired today based solely on homosexual or gender deviant behavior. What this case represented is the key that opens every door to the fondest dreams of the homosexual activists, and that is to be able to silence objectors and intimidate those who might possibly criticize or challenge whatever they demand.

thetruthunter #racist answers.yahoo.com

Interracial dating and marriage hurts black people and hurts white people. The white females that date black males are usually inferior mentally or physically. This hurts the black gene pool because their offspring will most likely breed with a black person. This helps the white gene pool by taking out the bad white female genes and the genes of the inferior white male that would have mated with her. The only white males that this should bother are more than likely inferior because the women they would have mated with are in interracial relationships.

Admin #transphobia #kinkshaming feministwiki.org

The word TERF (or terf) is a slur that is used predominantly by transgender activists and their allies against people who criticize the transgender movement on the basis of feminist concerns. Since the slur is used for people with feminist concerns, the main target tend to be women. As such, it's usually understood to be an anti-feminist, sexist and misogynist slur.

The word was invented as an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, where the "trans-exclusionary" part referred to those holding roughly the position that transwomen should not be included under a feminist definition of womanhood, and the "radical feminist" part was meant neutrally, i.e. for people who would indeed describe themselves as radical feminists in the true sense. Over time, the acronym pretty much became a four-letter word. Nowadays the capitalization is frequently omitted, and the already ambiguous original meaning ignored entirely. Still, users of the term tend to claim that it's a neutral description. The "trans-exclusionary" part may now refer to anyone who thinks transwomen should not have unfettered access to all female-only spaces (e.g. changing rooms), should not partake in women's sports where they have unfair advantages, should not be considered a natural part of the lesbian dating pool, etc. Although most members of the public would see these as rather sensible positions, considering a "transwoman" may have intact male anatomy, transgender activists nevertheless see all of these types of "exclusion" as unacceptable.

A closely associated term is SWERF, which is supposed to stand for Sex-Worker-Exclusionary Radical Feminist and is used for those who see the sex industry (prostitution, pornography, etc.) as highly exploitative and sexist. Like TERF, the term is almost always applied as a slur, and to misrepresent the political position of the person it's used against. Ironically, some of those who have to face the term most commonly are women who worked in prostitution and became anti-prostitution activists as a result of their own experiences as so-called sex workers.

RadFemLesbian #fundie reddit.com

My best friend has been a liberal feminist and trans-cult advocate for years. We've been in a number of verbal wars due to her support of the cult and my terfness. Talking to her about Bruce Jenner though I could feel it was different. She was hesitating to call him 'Caitlyn' or use feminine pronouns, and was quite uncomfortable talking about him. I decided to read to her a few of the articles that have been linked here on Gender_Critical. There was lightbulb moment after I read the following part of the Elinor Burkett article:

'After all, the trans movement isn’t simply echoing African-Americans, Chicanos, gays or women by demanding an end to the violence and discrimination, and to be treated with a full measure of respect. It’s demanding that women reconceptualize ourselves. In January 2014, the actress Martha Plimpton, an abortion-rights advocate, sent out a tweet about a benefit for Texas abortion funding called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas.” Suddenly, she was swamped by criticism for using the word “vagina.” “Given the constant genital policing, you can’t expect trans folks to feel included by an event title focused on a policed, binary genital,” responded @DrJaneChi.'

After I finished reading that part and started to continue she suddenly interrupted me with

"That's something that's really been bothering me lately about the trans community."

She continued into a long response that I couldn't begin to quote verbatim but the highlights are that she's pissed off about the cult derailing or attempting to derail our fight for reproductive rights, forcing people who aren't trans to define themselves a certain way, and she is apparently very pissed off by Bruce Jenner in particular because she hates his name, hates his Vanity Fair cover, and hates that he flashed his son after getting his fake breasts installed. The flashing his son thing was "something a dude would do if he woke up with boobs. He'd just start flashing all the other dudes in his life like 'hey dude, check out my tits!' Her words. Her words are almost exactly my words on that subject.

She hasn't fully come around. She believes there are 'real transsexuals' who are 'actually cross-sexed' in their brains, but she has confessed that she feels that most of the trans cult are male fetishists who have taken things way too far and she even told me she can see the 'cult-like structure' of the trans 'community'. She even compared them to Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs when Dr. Lecter says "Billy is not a real transsexual. But he thinks he is. He tries to be."

For years she has blindly accepted the trans cult's shared narrative as fact. She has advocated for their inclusion in female-only spaces and has helped enforce the idea that 'trans women' are 'real women'. It seems that Bruce Jenner has helped to open her eyes but that she's been holding back some things for quite some time. My guess is she's been holding back because deep down she's been scared of what would happen if she opened her mouth. The relief in her voice when she was talking to me was something that's still making me smile. Hopefully this will make you smile too. She's not completely on board the gender critical ship yet, but what has happened so far is a big step in the right direction.

LonelyDalek #fundie reddit.com

I think humans are flawed beings, and are still animals. We are only 1.5% away from being a chimp. So while we try to rationalize our opinions and decisions, a lot of it is driven by our instincts and biology. The basic goal of biology is self-preservation and procreation. Males’ role in the ancient nomadic life-style was that of hunters and gatherers – so men’s biology leans towards self-preservation a little more. As humans started organizing into small groups and then into societies, the definition of ‘self’ in self-preservation expanded to include everyone else that belong to the same group as them. Being self-preservation-oriented thus came to mean to guard those of their own and to destroy any threats. So men became more comfortable being in violent situations, and engaging in life-risking behaviors. The negative side of male nature, if there is one, is this: being open to violence, that we’d let a confrontation escalate to fists being thrown, because we really don’t find much of a problem with punching our differences out. The primary victims of male nature, thus, are not the other gender. It is those who’ll stand in our way to securing a safe future.

However, it is a different case when it comes to women. The primary victims of female nature ARE men. Women’s nature is procreation oriented, because it is their bodies that carry the wombs to gestate and deliver the next generation. It seeks to secure a stable inflow of resources while being incapacitated in the process of child-rearing. This makes men,the resource-procurers, the primary targets of female nature. In this paradigm of things, there is no incentive for the women to actually give a damn about the well-being of the man/men providing for her; in fact, it is in her best interest to not be attached to a single man in particular, but keep monkey-branching to a stronger, better provider.

Lionesses don’t particularly care when the male of the pride is killed by a new, younger male and then kills the cubs. They go on about like nothing’s changed. most women are not evil, they are un-empathetic to men’s plight, and heartlessly oblivious to our suffering.

So, naturally we have the odds against us, but the gynocentric westerns society turns it up several notches. Every harmful aspect of male nature are restrained and kept well-checked by the law. That’s why most men are not murderers, though many men are perfectly capable of murder. Any and every aspect of male nature that’s unsuitable for the modern civilized life have been outlawed, with severe repercussions if engaged-in.
But no such social or legal protection exists against harmful aspects of female nature- women’s tendency to take advantage of men, their actions that drive men to harm themselves and others, and the systems built over men’s corpses for the exclusive benefit of women. Combine this with the fact that women are unsympathetic towards men, and we have the perfect recipe for disaster. Women are oblivious to the harms they cause, and any voice trying to educate them are muffled and marginalized, and women are encouraged to engage in their careless ways by the society, of course, at the expense of men. So, no, I don’t hate women…. they are just completely, and irredeemably unlovable.

The only logical thing for men to do is to educate themselves and each other, and stay away from women as much as possible. Find ways to discipline one’s sexual neediness- through practices like martial arts, meditation or things like working out that’ll leave you too tired to be horny. But what ever you do- do not touch a female with a (your) ten-foot pole.

Alan F. Alford #fundie bibliotecapleyades.net

WHERE did we come from?
Are we the product of a Divine Creation?
Did we evolve through natural selection?
Or is there another possible answer?


Introduction

In November 1859, Charles Darwin published a most dangerous idea - that all living things had evolved through a process of natural selection. Although there was almost no mention of mankind in Darwin’s treatise, the implications were unavoidable and led to a more radical change in human self-perception than anything before it in recorded history. In one blow, Darwin had relegated us from divinely-created beings to apes - the culmination of evolution by the impersonal mechanism of natural selection.

But are the scientists right in applying the theory of evolution to the strange two-legged hominid known as ‘man’? Charles Darwin himself was strangely quiet on this point but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace was less reluctant to express his views. Wallace himself was adamant that ‘some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man.’

One hundred years of science have failed to prove Alfred Wallace wrong. Anthropologists have failed miserably to produce fossil evidence of man’s ‘missing link’ with the apes and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain.

Such are the problems with the application of Darwinism to mankind that Stephen Jay Gould - America’s evolutionist laureate - has described human evolution as an ‘awesome improbability’.


In Search of the Missing Link

Speciation - the separation of one species into two different species - is defined as the point where two groups within the same species are no longer able to inter-breed. The British scientist Richard Dawkins has described the separation quite poetically as ‘the long goodbye’.

The search for the missing link between man and the apes is the search for the earliest hominid - the upright, bipedal ape who waved ‘a long goodbye’ to his four-legged friends.

I will now attempt to briefly summarize what is known about human evolution.

According to the experts, the rivers of human genes and chimpanzee genes split from a common ancestral source some time between 5 and 7 million years ago, whilst the river of gorilla genes is generally thought to have branched off slightly earlier. In order for this speciation to occur, three populations of common ape ancestors (the future gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids) had to become geographically separated and thereafter subject to genetic drift, influenced by their different environments.

The search for the missing link has turned up a number of fossil contenders, dating from around 4 million years ago, but the picture remains very incomplete and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. There are, however, three contenders for the prize of the first fully bipedal hominid, all discovered in the East African Rift valley which slashes through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

The first contender, discovered in the Afar province of Ethiopia in 1974, is named Lucy, although her more scientific name is Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is estimated to have lived between 3.6-3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately her skeleton was only 40 per cent complete and this has resulted in controversy regarding whether she was a true biped and whether in fact ‘she’ might even have been a ‘he’.

The second contender is Australopithecus Ramidus, a 4.4 million year old pygmy chimpanzee-like creature, discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite a 70 per cent complete skeleton, it has again not been possible to prove categorically whether it had two or four legs.

The third contender, dated between 4.1-3.9 million years old, is the Australopithecus Anamensis, discovered at Lake Turkana in Kenya by Dr Meave Leakey in August 1995. A shinbone from Anamensis has been used to back up the claim that it walked on two feet.

The evidence of our oldest ancestors is confusing because they do not seem to be closely related to each other. Furthermore, the inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the preceding 10 million years has made it impossible to confirm the exact separation date of these early hominids from the four-legged apes. It is also important to emphasize that many of these finds have skulls more like chimpanzees than men.

They may be the first apes that walked but, as of 4 million years ago, we are still a long way from anything that looked even remotely human.

Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of early man which are equally confusing. We have the 1.8 million year old appropriately named Robustus, the 2.5 million year old and more lightly built Africanus, and the 1.5 to 2 million year old Advanced Australopithecus. The latter, as the name suggests, is more man-like than the others and is sometimes referred to as ‘near-man’ or Homo habilis (‘handy man’). It is generally agreed that Homo habilis was the first truly man-like being which could walk efficiently and use very rough stone tools. The fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speech had developed at this stage.

Around 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This hominid had a considerably larger brain-box (cranium) than its predecessors and started to design and use more sophisticated stone tools.

A wide spread of fossils indicates that Homo erectus groups left Africa and spread across China, Australasia and Europe between 1,000,000-700,000 years ago but, for unknown reasons, disappeared altogether around 300,000-200,000 years ago. There is little doubt, by a process of elimination, that this is the line from which Homo sapiens descended.

The missing link, however, remains a mystery. In 1995, The Sunday Times summarized the evolutionary evidence as follows:
The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree delineating man’s descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone’s guess.
As to the various contenders speculated as mankind’s ancestor, The Sunday Times stated:
Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo sapiens.
In summary, the evidence discovered to date is so sparse that a few more sensational finds will still leave the scientists clutching at straws.

Consequently mankind’s evolutionary history is likely to remain shrouded in mystery for the foreseeable future.


The Miracle of Man

Today, four out of ten Americans find it difficult to believe that humans are related to the apes. Why is this so? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee. Man is intelligent, naked and highly sexual - a species apart from his alleged primate relatives.

This may be an intuitive observation but it is actually supported by scientific study. In 1911, the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith listed the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each of the primate species, calling them ‘generic characters’ which set each apart from the others. His results were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; man 312. Keith thus showed scientifically that mankind was nearly three times more distinctive than any other ape.

Another scientist to take this approach was the British zoologist Desmond Morris. In his book, The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris highlighted the amazing mystery of mankind’s ‘missing hair’:
Functionally, we are stark naked and our skin is fully exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still has to be explained, regardless of how many tiny hairs we can count under a magnifying lens.
Desmond Morris contrasted Homo sapiens with 4,237 species of mammals, the vast majority of which were hairy or partly haired. The only non-hairy species were those which lived underground (and thus kept warm without hair), species which were aquatic (and benefited from streamlining), and armoured species such as the armadillo (where hair would clearly be superfluous). Morris commented:
The naked ape [man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy or furry land-dwelling mammalian species... if the hair has to go, then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
Darwinism has yet to produce a satisfactory answer as to how and why man lost his hair. Many imaginative theories have been suggested, but so far no-one has come up with a really acceptable explanation. The one conclusion that can perhaps be drawn, based on the principle of gradiented change, is that man spent a long time evolving, either in a very hot environment or in water.

Another unique feature of mankind may provide us with a clue to the loss of body hair. That feature is sexuality. The subject was covered in juicy detail by Desmond Morris, who highlighted unique human features such as extended foreplay, extended copulation and the orgasm. One particular anomaly is that the human female is always ‘in heat’, yet she can only conceive for a few days each month.

As another scientist, Jared Diamond, has pointed out, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:
The most hotly debated problem in the evolution of human reproduction is to explain why we nevertheless ended up with concealed ovulation, and what good all our mistimed copulations do us.
Many scientists have commented also on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest erect penis of any living primate.

The geneticist Steve Jones has noted it as a mystery which is ‘unanswered by science’, a point which is echoed by Jared Diamond:
... we descend to a glaring failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate Theory of Penis Length... astonishing as it seems, important functions of the human penis remain obscure.
Desmond Morris described man as ‘the sexiest primate alive’, but why did evolution grant us such a bountiful gift? The whole human body seems to be perfectly designed for sexual excitement and pair bonding.

Morris saw elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the female, the sensitive ear lobes and lips, and a vaginal angle that encouraged intimate face to face copulation. He also highlighted our abundance of scent-producing glands, our unique facial mobility and our unique ability to produce copious tears - all features which strengthened the exclusive emotional pair-bonding between male and female.

This grand design could not be imagined unless humans also lost their shaggy coat of hair and so it might seem that the mystery of the missing hair is solved. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, for evolution does not set about achieving grand designs. The Darwinists are strangely silent on what incremental steps were involved, but however it happened it should have taken a long, long time.

There are three other interesting anomalies of ‘the naked ape’ which are also worthy of note.
The first is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to repair itself. In the context of a move to the open savanna, where bipedal man became a vulnerable target, and in the context of a gradual loss of protective hair, it seems inconceivable that the human skin should have become so fragile relative to our primate cousins.

The second anomaly is the unique lack of penis bone in the male. This is in complete contrast to other mammals, which use the penis bone to copulate at short notice. The deselection of this vital bone would have jeopardized the existence of the human species unless it took place against the background of a long and peaceful environment.

The third anomaly is our eating habits. Whereas most animals will swallow their food instantaneously, we take the luxury of six whole seconds to transport our food from mouth to stomach. This again suggests a long period of peaceful evolution.
The question which arises is where this long and peaceful evolution is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not fit the scenario which is presented for Homo sapiens.

Nor have Darwinists explained adequately how the major changes in human anatomy were achieved in a time frame of only 6 million years...


The Mystery of the Human Brain

The greatest mystery of Homo sapiens is its incredible brain.

During the last fifteen years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron-emission tomography) to discover more about the human brain than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of its billions of cells has thus become more and more apparent. In addition to the brain’s physical complexity, its performance knows no bounds - mathematics and art, abstract thought and conceptualization and, above all, moral conscience and self-awareness.

Whilst many of the human brain’s secrets remain shrouded in mystery, enough has been revealed for National Geographic to have boldly described it as ’the most complex object in the known universe’.

Evolutionists see the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are forced to admit that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of reverse engineering the evolutionary process that created it.

The eminent scientist Roger Penrose, for example, commented:
I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgments of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to have.
What does the fossil record tell us about our evolving brain capabilities? The data varies considerably and must be treated with care (since the sample sizes are limited), but the following is a rough guide.

The early hominid Afarensis had around 500cc and Habilis/Australopithecus had around 700cc. Whilst it is by no means certain that one evolved from the other, it is possible to see in these figures the evolutionary effects over two million years of the hominid’s new environment.

As we move forward in time to 1.5 million years ago, we find a sudden leap in the cranial capacity of Homo erectus to around 900-1000cc. If we assume, as most anthropologists do, that this was accompanied by an increase in intelligence, it represents a most unlikely macromutation. Alternatively, we might explain this anomaly by viewing erectus as a separate species whose ancestors have not yet been found due to the poor fossil records.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years without any apparent change, and having successfully spread out of Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the Homo erectus hominid. Perhaps due to climatic changes, his population began to dwindle until he eventually died out. And yet, while most Homo erectus were dying, one managed to suddenly transform itself into Homo sapiens , with a vast increase in cranial capacity from 950cc to 1450cc.

Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling. It is widely accepted that we are the descendants of Homo erectus (who else was there to descend from?) but the sudden changeover defies all known laws of evolution. Hence Stephen Jay Gould’s comment about the ’awesome improbability of human evolution’.

Why has Homo sapiens developed intelligence and self-awareness whilst his ape cousins have spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation? Why has no other creature in the animal kingdom developed an advanced level of intelligence?

Christian Answers #fundie christiananswers.net

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said…

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.”6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17).

But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising, God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.”1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity.”6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41).11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

[See: What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer]

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

Laurie Higgins #fundie illinoisfamily.org

Here are some truths that conservatives must remember:

- Biological sex (i.e., being male or female) is inherently and always good.

- Maleness and femaleness are biologically determined and immutable.

- Biological sex is central to human wholeness and flourishing. The Left's fanciful notion about embodiment reflects a false mind-body distinction that suggests mind and body are separable.

- It is profoundly unloving to facilitate gender-confused men and women in the rejection of their biological sex. Lost in spiritual darkness, they desire that others affirm the fiction they are attempting to create, but such affirmation of confusion and disorder is the antithesis of love. All sin is infused with confusion and disorder, and sinners desire that others affirm their sin as normal and good. But it is truth that will set the confused free from bondage to sin. Gender-confused children need counseling and compassion - not lies.

- It is good for society to reinforce sexual differentiation (e.g., through clothing, jewelry, hairstyles). Males and females are different (as both the homosexual and "transgender" communities affirm). Those differences are substantive and meaningful, and reinforcing them is inherently good. The Left argues that the cultural reinforcement of sexual differentiation is harmful except of course for gender-confused persons for whom cultural artifacts that reinforce sex differences are profoundly important.

- No public school teacher has the ethical right to introduce the topic of gender-confusion to elementary school children, and no public school teacher has the right to teach Leftist assumptions about gender-confusion to other people's children as objective truths.

- No one should capitulate to the imperious and arrogant commands of LGBT activists that everyone use pronouns to denote "gender identity" rather than biological sex. No one is morally obliged to accept such a revolutionary grammatical shift.

A special note to public school teachers: Referring to a boy as "she" or a girl as "he" constitutes lying. The government has no right to compel teachers to lie, and teachers have no right to lie. For a Christian teacher to facilitate or participate in a lie of such profound magnitude is indefensible. And yes, refusal to facilitate or participate in such a lie will be costly. Discipleship in America is becoming costlier.

Ferdinand Bardamu #racist eurocanadian.ca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III: The Role of Dysgenic Selection in Western Intellectual Decline

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

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

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

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

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

IV: The Road to “Idiocracy”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He must get rid of the hostile elite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.