Similar posts

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

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

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

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

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

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

The four commandments that facilitate cooperation are:
Exodus 20:

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

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

And the final commandment:

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #fundie topix.com

The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights. It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.

Tim Crow #fundie youtube.com

Too accurate for the primitives to enjoy.
Religions were all pulled out of the asses of con artists, and perpetuated by those who wish to use them to their own advantage, and their willing sheep who want to be told what to do.
Sounds like... liberals!?

Berit Kjos #fundie #homophobia crossroad.to

This legislation may be the most ominous attack on "free speech" and Christianity since the founding of our nation. The silence of the mainstream media multiplies that concern. It suggests that many of our most powerful leaders want these bills passed behind closed doors, freed from any public accountability. Even so, the public is awakening to the facts.

On April 25, 2007, a House of Representatives committee approved a measure to add homosexuality to the list of groups "protected" by hate crimes laws. The Senate has prepared a twin bill, S. 1105. Except for the addition of the name Matthew Shepard, its title is the same.

Matthew Shepard? Few Americans could miss the shocking details of this young homosexual's horrible death in 1998. The media published that story 3007 times -- 45 times in the New York Times alone. It made Matthew a martyr for the cause of gay rights, hate-crimes legislation, and anti-Christian sentiment.

Did you read about Jesse Dirkhising's torture and murder at the hands of two homosexual lovers eleven months later? Probably not. The thirteen-year-old boy was drugged, strapped down, sodomized, tortured, and killed by two adults living in an apartment that 'reeked of excrement and was littered with drug paraphernalia. Like Matthew's murder, it was a horrible crime -- almost unfit to print. But that's not why most newspapers across the country refused to tell the story. The real reason? It didn't fit their agenda! It wasn't politically correct!

Nor is the Bible. Its unchanging standards can't be adapted to the new global guidelines for holistic spirituality and politically correct tolerance. So when eleven Christians shared the gospel as well as warning about homosexuality during Philadelphia's 2004 homosexual 'OutFest', they were promptly arrested and temporarily "charged under [Pennsylvania's] hate crimes legislation."

Christians aren't the only ones vulnerable. On April 11, a Maine Middle School student did something really foolish on a dare: He put some ham -- considered "unclean" by Muslims -- on a cafeteria table occupied by Muslim students. As punishment, the school suspended him. School principal, Maureen Lachapelle, sent a report of this incident to the Attorney General's office and to the County District Attorney because the ham incident was perceived as a hate/bias crime.

A crime? Does this line up with the fast-track Hate Crimes Bill in Congress? And if so, why? A quick review of HR 1592 might, at first, suggest a negative answer. Section 7(2), like the corresponding Senate Bill, defines "Hate crime acts" as:

(A) In general. Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person"

But, you might argue, the boy neither caused nor intended "bodily injury."

True! But consider another key word, one that's part of the title in both bills. That all-important word is "prevention!" We're looking at the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act," not simply a law against "hate crimes." And the concept of prevention (or pre-emption) is open-ended. Its wide range of interpretations could be used in almost any situation to silence offending voices and to intimidate critics of useful "protected" groups such as homosexuals and Muslims -- long before any signs of actual violence.

For example, a Canadian pastor was concerned about the overt promotion of Islam at a local high school. It not only distributed copies of the Quran, it also offered Muslim students a room for prayer during school hours. Of course, Christian and Jewish students had no such "freedom." But when Pastor Mark Harding began handing out leaflets protesting this strange favoritism, he was charged with having "willfully promoted hatred." Having violated a new Canadian hate-crimes law, he was sentenced to 340 hours of "community service" at the Islamic Society of North America.

Pastor Harding claimed to be motivated by love for Muslim students, not hate. According to worldnetdaily.com, he expressed that love in a recorded phone call. Yet his own phone was swamped with more than three thousand real hate calls, including many death threats. When his trial began, the police protected him from the crowds of Muslims chanting "Infidels, you will burn in hell."

What is going on? Who is behind this unequal and borderless "protection" system?

THE UN "CULTURE OF PREVENTION"

The UN has established a massive, worldwide, inter-agency program of "prevention." Through the coordinated efforts of UNESCO, The World Health Organization, The World Bank and countless other UN agencies, its agenda is transforming not only beliefs and values everywhere, but also schools, churches, communities and nations. Words like "war" and "genocide" have been used for more than fifty years to persuade the world to participate in "peace-building" ventures that would create a climate of prevention everywhere. This cultural atmosphere is defined by UN declarations such as UNESCO's Declaration on Tolerance and Declaration of Principles on Religion in a Culture of Peace.

The UN policy of prevention requires "lifelong learning," re-learning, group-learning and service-learning. Continual progress must be measured through unceasing assessments that monitor compliance with new global standards for human resource development. What counts is progress toward the envisioned solidarity -- a global community where no one takes a stand contrary to UN ideology -- and where everyone is willing to compromise their beliefs, seek common ground, and flow with the group consensus.

While Biblical Christianity hinders such universal solidarity, the war against "hate" supports it. After all, it provides the incentive needed to intimidate and persuade the masses that they must change and conform.

In 1999, the United Nations published a pamphlet by Secretary-General Kofi Annan titled, "Facing the Humanitarian Challenge: Towards a Culture of Prevention." In it, Mr. Annan states: "...the common thread running through almost all conflict prevention policies is the need to pursue what we in the United Nations refer to as good governance. In practice, good governance involves promoting the rule of law, tolerance of minority and opposition groups.... Above all, good governance means respect for human rights...
[See Whose Rights?]

"Long-term prevention strategies, in addressing the root causes of conflict, seek to prevent destructive conflicts from arising in the first place. They embrace the same holistic approach to prevention that characterizes post-conflict peace-building...."

Do you wonder what he means by a holistic approach? It has to do with the vision of unity, wholism, solidarity, interconnectedness, or -- as the new global management puts it -- a systems approach based on "General Systems Theory." It tolerates no Christian "separatist" views.
As Al Gore said at a 1992 Communitarian Conference, "Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem in our political thinking."

But "peace-building" implies more specific action than simply a holistic approach. An UNESCO publication I picked up in Istanbul during the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (See Habitat II) clarifies a broader issue. Ponder the following excerpts from Our Creative Diversity: Report on the World Commission on Culture and Development.The first paragraph was written by former UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar: "An ounce of prevention is better than a ton of punishment.... Imagination, innovation, vision and creativity are required.... It means an open mind, and open heart and a readiness to seek fresh definitions, reconcile old opposites, and help draw new mental maps."

"Universalism is the fundamental principle of a global ethics."

"Religion... has affected and sometimes poisoned the relations between majorities and minorities.... Extreme doctrinaire views[Biblical Christianity?] look to an imagined past, seen as both simpler and more stable, thus preparing the ground not only for a variety of overtly violent acts but also for the intimidation of individuals and indeed entire communities in matters of thought, behavior and belief, coercing them into accepting a single 'orthodox' point of view.... The challenge today, as in the past is to... distinguish between the beliefs and activities of the peaceful majority... and a minority of extremists...."

"PREVENTION" AS A PLOY TO SILENCE CHRISTIANS

Some of the same warnings were sounded by the respective founding directors of both UNESCO (Julian Huxley) and the World Health Organization (Dr. Brock Chisholm). Both were determined to wipe out the "poisonous certainties" of Biblical Christianity in their quest for UN solidarity. Notice Dr. Chisholm's emphasis on prevention back in 1946:

"We must... find and take sure steps to prevent wars in the future.... The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.... The pretense is made [by uncompromising Christians who cling to old standards] that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness and social chaos....

"When [infectious diseases] were attacked at the preventative level, some martyrs had to be sacrificed to the cause of humanity, because reactionary forces fought back.... The problem is no longer the germ of diphtheria, but rather the attitudes of parents who are incapable of accepting and using proven knowledge for the protection of their children. Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination.... [See Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools]

"For the very survival of large parts of the human race, world understanding, tolerance, and forbearance have become absolutely essential.... If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently."

Today, more than half a century later, the world is rapidly conforming to this UN agenda touted by Chisholm and Huxley in the 1940s. The global network of "lifelong learning" aims to prevent anything that would hinder "positive" collective thinking. Few notice how effectively its tentacles now reach into community [mental] health programs in over 130 nations around the world.

Christian Answers #fundie #homophobia christiananswers.net

What should be the attitude of the church toward homosexuals and homosexuality?

For the Bible-believing Christian, there can be no doubt that homosexuality is a grievous sin in the sight of God. The awful catalogue in the first chapter of Romans of the sins practiced by the ancient pagan world began with this sin:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
–Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

The term “sodomy,” named after the inhabitants of Sodom whose homosexual perversions caused God to rain fire and brimstone on their city in the days of Abraham (Genesis 19:4,5,12,24), has for thousands of years been synonymous with this unique form of ungodliness. That it is basically a sin of rebellion against God is evident from the above passage in Romans.

The “cause” for which God “gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” was that they had decided to “worship and serve creation more than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25 - KJV).

Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called “dogs” in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses.

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.
–Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV)

We can be sure that, if these practices were abominations to God then, He has not changed His opinion about them today.

The same terminology appears in the description of the holy city in the last chapter of the Bible.

Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
–Revelation 22:14-15 (KJV)

Thus, sodomites—like sorcerers, whoremongers (same word as “fornicators”), murderers, idolaters and lovers of lies—should undoubtedly also be excluded from church fellowship. If such a person, professing to be a Christian, persists in his sin, he should be put out of the church, like the one who had committed fornication with his stepmother (I Corinthians 5:1).

Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat… Therefore, put away from yourselves that wicked person.
–I Corinthians 5:11, 13 (KJV)

Homosexuality, like all other types of fornication, has no place in the family of God. Regardless of what modern promoters of “gay liberation” might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and willful sins. Like alcoholism and other such sins of the flesh, they may become very difficult to give up for those who have been enslaved by them, but God is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation.

To “straight” Christians in the church, however, the familiar old admonition to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” surely applies in such cases. Homosexuals, long accustomed to being looked upon with disgust by most people, are understandably anxious for acceptance by society. Nevertheless, they must not be encouraged to continue in their wickedness, for it may well cost them their eternal souls. Instead, they need to be “loved into the kingdom,” being delivered first of all from their rebellion against God, then to Christ for salvation and cleansing.

Notice Paul's testimony concerning the very real possibility of such deliverance:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, …shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
–I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)

When there is true repentance and the sin is forsaken, then such a person should be lovingly received into the fellowship of believers (or back into that fellowship, if previously excommunicated), like any other repentant and believing sinner. This is the example given in the case of the incestuous Corinthian:

Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him.
–II Corinthians 2:6-8 (KJV)

In spite of great pressure today from humanists and other liberals to get homosexuality recognized as an acceptable—if not even preferable—life style, the Bible makes it plain that it is really unnatural and animalistic wickedness that must be rejected by true Christians.

At the same time, we cannot forget that Christ died for their sins, as well as ours. They are still objects of His sacrificial love, and we should seek earnestly to bring them to Him for cleansing and deliverance.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

If Milo was purged for being a Jewish coal burning gay, that would be one thing, but being purged having sex with an older man at the age of fourteen is a different thing. Gay sex is disgusting and self destructive regardless of age, and thirty year old women are no more competent to make unsupervised sexual choices than twelve year old girls.

Purging Milo for “pedo” concedes the left position that consent is all that matters, that anything is fine if it is consenting adults that do it.

We should view sex with properly owned women as rape if her guardian does not consent to it (which is what “rape” meant a couple of hundred years ago) and sex with feral women as a form of regrettable but unavoidable predation regardless of whether they consent or not, which predation is best remedied by shotgun marriage or similar, remedied by ensuring that a feral woman comes into the possession of a man who can plausibly be expected to have good intentions towards her and treat her with kindness – if necessary without regard for her undoubtedly foolish opinions on the matter.

And, of course, if a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We should not purge Milo for being a Jewish coal burning gay, for there are far worse on the left, and only after they get helicoptered or thrown from high buildings should we ask Milo to clean up his act. And if we did not purge him for being a Jewish coal burning gay, then we certainly should not purge him for underage sex.

If two people agree to exchange corn for iron, obviously the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not have agreed to it. So state and society should not interfere in such agreements, and if everyone is free to engage in commercial trade, then state and society is better off. If two people agree to have sex, this is a very poor indicator that having sex makes both of them better off, because sexual impulses are volcanically powerful and deeply irrational. The converse can also apply. A woman’s decision to cease having sex with the father of her children usually has appallingly bad consequences for everyone, especially her children. A fertile age woman who ceases to have sex with her husband is always motivated by having received semen from a male more alpha than her husband, or excessively realistic fantasies of receiving such semen.

There are lots of good reasons why we should purge Milo. But this is a very bad reason. We are purging him for insufficient progressivism.

ethereal-crow #fundie comments.deviantart.com

Two serious concepts that you have ignored:

Hitler— even if he was a "religious man" at one point— abandoned his faith. He believed in evolution to a psychotic degree, claiming that he was killing off the less evolved people and creating a "master race." Evolution and murder are polar opposites of Christian doctrine.

Catholicism IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Funny you should mention that because I was actually going to make a stamp on the matter, heh.

Faustus Crow #fundie amazon.com

OCCULT STAR TREK: VULCAN
image
This book investigates the source of the famous split-fingered Vulcan salute in relation to ancient 'Shamanistic' practices of 'Inner Space' exploration. As for the term Occult, which is derived from the Latin Occultus, meaning mystery, life is a mystery betwixt and between the extremes of birth and death; it is this mystery that the Cabbalists explored, which led to an understanding that life is animated by an inner 'Fire.' This intuitive insight into the animating principle of life led to the now iconic hand sign of the Vulcan, which Leonard Nimoy, as Spock, introduced into Gene Roddenberry's creation of Star Trek. This inner Vulcan Fire is known of by numerous other cultures across the globe, whose ancient Shamans deeply explored its mystery, whom were aware that the inner Fire has a female source, which the Cabbalists call the Shekhinah. It is this female source of an inner Fire whom illuminates your dreams; the ancient Greek's experienced her as an inspiring Muse, a Buddhist to that of a Tantric would see her as a Dakini of a Genie, others may even call her a Succubus, Shamans to know her as an illuminating Spirit Wife. This book is fully illustrated.

Jim Crowe #racist vnnforum.com

A white woman in the company of white males are among her genetic equals. When a white woman is in the company of negroes, she is far, far above (genetically) than her simian suitors. This is a tremendous ego boost. Still, a female should look for a male to pass along desirable genes to her children, so white women cohorting with negroes is the result of some type of mental illness, jew-induced or not.

Family Policy Network #fundie #homophobia gaybeer.com

Anheuser-Busch may be the most aggressivly pro-homosexual beer company in the world. They not only spend a fortune on advertising in homosexual publications, but they fund so-called “gay pride” events and political organizations that are lobbying to legalize so-called “gay marriages.”

While some people believe Anheuser-Busch is just trying to make an extra buck, others believe their efforts to promote homosexual activities go beyond an appropriate quest for profits — to greed.

Exploiting people by encouraging vile and deadly perversions in a quest for greater profits is immoral. This website is an appeal to Anheuser-Busch to stop. Until they do, we’re asking their customers to tell them they’ve had enough!

Gentleman Jim Crow #racist blogs.telegraph.co.uk

I don't know why people keep saying this. The Scottish Labour vote has already been more than replaced by immigrants. Another five million immigrants arrive each decade. Scottish independence would not guarantee a Conservative majority in perpetuity. Blair would have won all three of his elections without Scotland. The loss of five million white Britons would just serve to hasten white minority status for rUK

Faustus Crow #fundie faustuscrow.wordpress.com

(FSTDT fanfiction!)

This is an answer for the Reptilian Jew and the FSTDT coven:

Pharaoh Bastethotep: “Okay, I’d like to commmission a voluptous torbie catgirl in pearly power armour, riding a kirin through an alien fungal jungle with a tricorder in her hand, from outa my Tulpa creating lamp, of an Illuminated Fiery brain.”
image
Vman: “Dafuq, did I just read yer right? That’s, Airily politically incorrect…Bastethotep… Better to Flee, before you’ll get picked up by the Thought-Police for that porny Entartete Kunst comment”
image
Pharaoh Bastethotep: “Damn it to Fiery Amenta! Okay, I’d like to commmission a transgender cat-girl-boy in black power armour, riding a drone through the policed urban jungle, with a rainbow flag in her-his, its, Fornicating hand, from outa my over-watched brain.”
image
Adey: “Sheesh! Drinking the bong Water is not a good idea. So quit doing it guys. Fight your addiction! As the great joker said, “I don’t do Drugs, I am Drugs.”
image
Anon-e-moose: “Don’t know about the others intake of addictive Foods on this here FSTDT coven forum. But I don’t do drugs, Adey; I’m going cyber druggie beyond my Earthy Persona.
image
Anon-e-moose: continues: “The 55 Gb installation file for “DOOM IV” is downloadable via the Bethesda/id Software site, no box required. Get with the times, ‘boys and girls;’ its yer reactive Reptilian-brain-stem, which is initiating these Elemental four F’s games.”

Scare Crow #fundie answers.yahoo.com

why does everyone think that when the spanish conquered the aztecs it was a bad thing it was a good thing for everyone the aztecs killed 50 people like every single day when christianity came it saved lots of people from being sacrificed and now the mexicans are christians so they are saved and the spanish got gold its a win win for everyone why do some people think it was bad

Stefanie Nicholas #fundie #homophobia #transphobia onepeterfive.com

I immediately recognized the painful truth of these words in many regrettable actions I have undertaken in my own life. When Eros becomes a god himself rather than being submitted to God, we give him powerful sway over us. He can lead us to do the unthinkable out of this hollow feeling of intense love — and perhaps even more dangerously to society at large, he can lead us to justify the unjustifiable in the behavior of others.

Mere decades ago, the cry of love became an argument for couples of the same sex having relationships together, with a demand for “marriage” following soon after. Is it so hard to imagine that most people in the not too distant future will find themselves able to stomach “consensual” ephebophilia and pedophilia, slaves as they are to this unchained Eros? The foundation for this acceptance is already being laid.

It’s easy to view the LGBT lobby and especially the pedophilia-as-sexual-orientation faction purely from the perspective of carnal desire. Even aside from the most sex-crazed antics of “Pride” parades and gay bars, they base their entire existence as group on the erroneous concept of “sexual orientation.” We need to understand once again as a society that sexual desires may be complex and nearly infinite, but chastity in spite of temptation is simple and universal (and, with the aid of grace, possible!). This must be emphasized, particularly now, as we see the push for severely disordered pedophilic tendencies to be recognized as an “identity.”

However, though it is undoubtedly important, it is not enough to control what C.S. Lewis calls Venus — sexual love. We must think broadly of Eros, of romantic love, as well in order to truly understand the actions of these confused human beings, particularly when we consider just how many of them are victims of sexual abuse themselves. They, like us, live in a world awash with free pornography, immodesty, and contraception, which no doubt fuels their disordered inclinations even further. Instead of speaking the truth in charity, we await their evil actions with open arms, closing our hearts to the person whom God has made in order to embrace a ghost crafted by human hands. We’re all looking for love, in one way or another, and it is those most starving for love whom Eros is quickest to devour.

It would be foolish to ignore him in this clash of mores, thinking that once we sort Venus out, all will be well. Eros is not to be underestimated. He’s a lot harder to keep on a leash.

Dr_James_Crow #fundie bbs.dailystormer.com

[Comment under "Jews Cry After Discovering that Trump’s #FraudNewsCNN Tweet Came from Nazi HanAssholeSolo"]

image

[Picture of the mob lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith whose heads were replaced by the logos of CNN and MSNBC; similarly, members of the public had their heads replaced by Trump's and Pepe's]

Jim Solouki #fundie creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com

Save a Soul, Fix a Faggot

Dear Good Christian Friends,

Please help me in my quest to save homosexuals and bring them to Christ. I suggest a new strategy for curing faggots. It is a simple yet effective approach. First, we fit all homosexual males in America with chastity belts. We lock said males in these belts to keep them from engaging in sodomy. Then we take young strong men who are also faggots in chastity belts and parade them in front of these males. The will become sexually aroused, and the chastity belt will cause them pain. Eventually, form the steady influx of pain from their chastity belts, they will be cured of their homosexuality. Negative reinforcement at its finest.

If you are interested in helping to fund this Good Christian Plan, or have suggestions to make it more effective, please leave a comment.

Energy Enhancement #homophobia #transphobia #fundie #magick #conspiracy energyenhancement.org

This is an attempt to reveal the link between the homosexual, transgender, anti-gender role movement and how they are linked to the occult god, Baphomet (Satan- Lucifer) as well as how this entire agenda is a collaborative effort by the elite satanic dark circles and corporate mass media to change the cultural lexicon with new terms to codify sex and gender to destroy the nuclear family as well as render the biblical roles of men and women obsolete.

With the chemical castration of pesticides in the drinking water, and eugenocidal sterilisation vaccines, 5G microwave sterilisation of female eggs, sperm motility is reduced and it is becoming more and more difficult to have children.

Eventually, the plan is to only allow conception in hospitals with CRISPR gene edited humanoid (not human) monstrosities.

Further, the LGBTP agenda, the ability to choose one's sexual orientation and the confusion of having multiple sexual orientations to choose from, further reduce the conception rate and allow the acceptance of.. P - Pedophilia!!

The deeper Satanic Program of CRISPR edition of humanoid androids with four male parents, 250 pounds, 250 IQ, with mind control built in brought up as cuckoos in a family unable to conceive yet being sold a Satanic Technocratic Solution to genocide humanity allowing the Satanic Elite to continue their Breakaway Civilisation, upload into the machine and live forever!!

The Globalist Elite for Hundreds of years have attended Satanic Rituals using hallucinogens like DMT and Ayahuasca to contact Demons who gave them technology like DNA, Atomic Power, Computers and Chinese Social Score Censorship in return for Human Sacrifice. Demons demand Human Sacrifice on every continent for thousands of years. All the Global Elite in charge of Internet companies GOOGLE, APPLE, TWITTER are into BLOOD.

THESE RITUALS DEFINE SATANISM.. LOVELESS RITUAL SEX, SODOMY, PEDOPHILIA, RITUAL DRUGS, RITUAL BLOOD SACRIFICE, RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE, RITUAL TORTURE, RITUAL BURNING ALIVE, RITUAL CANNIBALISM, RITUAL CASTRATION.

The Quest for Right #fundie questforright.com

[an ad for a new anti-evolution textbook series]

The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

Truth Quest History Series #fundie truthquesthistory.com

[a textbook sample from a history textbook touted for 5th to *12th* graders]

You knew it was coming! I told you in the last section Europe was on the eve of yet another
invasion! “How is that possible!?” you ask. Well, we know that pagans–who let their own
impulses rule as gods in their lives rather than acknowledging the supremacy of God and His
laws–are quite happy to prey on the weak. That is barbaric. Do you see? Paganism
automatically creates barbarism. Pound, pound, pound this truth into your head! When you are
tempted to be your own god by acting on your own wrong impulses, remember that you would
be acting like a pagan...which would lead you to do barbaric things, things which hurt others.

When the world around you says it wants to be free of God’s laws and makes that ‘freedom’
sound happy-go-lucky, a red flag better go up in your heart! For their quest is just a pretty
description of paganism...which will lead to barbarism. And to what does barbarism lead?
Destruction! Suffering! Pain!

Martin Kohl #racist newulmnordic.wordpress.com

[From "Our Friend, Jim Crow"]

They say that, “History is written by the victors,” and there is no clearer case for that view than the current belief about Jim Crow laws, the Jim Crow era, and what were then known as restrictive covenants. The history of America, my history, has been re-written and falsified to please those who worship in the temple of multiculturalism.

In contemporary America, Jim Crow is seen as a product of hate, of racism, and of blind bigotry. But being a member of the last generation of “boomers” to have benefited from Jim Crow, I have a very different take on the “official” history of segregation and restrictive covenants. Yes, I benefited from Jim Crow, as did most of my race and my community. Jim Crow laws kept us safe, by keeping the nefarious Negro in his place and on his own side of town; the Negro part of town.

XMjLkXj First, let’s start with the history, the real history of Jim Crow segregation.

Both before and after the civil war, our ancestors realized that they had a problem: a Negro problem. The Negro, with few exceptions, did not possess the IQ and necessary temperament to be civilized and brought into the fold of White, Western European civilization. Various plans were discussed to repatriate the Negro back to his ancestral home in Africa. However, the cost, both in terms of money and political capital, was too high for such a venture, so the Negro was never “shipped back to Africa.” In light of these realities that our ancestors faced, there was really only one appropriate course of action; given the circumstances of post-reconstruction America.

The only viable course of action, that would protect the majority white population was legal and social segregation: i.e. Jim Crow laws. There was simply no other choice with so many Negroes in America and the well-documented Negro propensity to violence and crime, especially the rape of white women.

JimCrow_ColoredWaitngRoom_Sign_Canon-resize-1200x0-70

When I was a young boy, the “colored only” and “white only” signs were already being taken down in my hometown. However, my step-father’s family lived in the mountains of East Tennessee, and I vividly remember a sign when we visited there in 1968 that said, “Whites Only! Coloreds Not Welcome!”

I remember that sign. But in my hometown, by 1968 the Jim Crow signs had all been taken down thanks to President Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Federal troops with armored units enforcing that law from the barrel of a gun.

So why do I call Jim Crow laws, “our friend?”

Although the signs were being taken down when I was a kid, the police and those in authority still enforced the “spirit” of Jim Crow, if the not the actual segregation laws itself.

How did the police do this?

When I was a kid, whenever the police saw a car full of Negroes in OUR neighborhood at night, they were pulled over and questioned. If the Negroes had no good reason for being in OUR neighborhood, or had criminal convictions, or gave the cops any problem, they were pulled out the car and beaten with batons, “blackjacks” (leather saps with lead centers, designed for beating suspects) or even pistol-whipped with their service revolvers. (Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolvers at the time.)

Alabama Protest Against Desegregation

So how did this make OUR neighborhoods safe?

Well, the Negro who received a good beating from the police (OUR police, a 99% white police force ) for being in the wrong neighborhood, OUR neighborhood, a white neighborhood, soon learned that he and his “homies” could not just drive into a white neighborhood looking for white victims to rob, rape, and murder. The police in my hometown even in the late 1960s, still enforced an “unofficial Jim Crow” which had the effect of sending an unmistakable message to Negro community on the other side of town. (A side of town, that we NEVER ventured into; it was way too dangerous.)

With each traffic stop, with every questioning of Negroes, the police in OUR town sent the message, “We are watching. Stay on your side of town. If we catch you in a white neighborhood, you will go to the hospital and then to jail. We will use lethal force to protect white neighborhoods. You are not welcome here. Stay away from white people.”

Yes, our friend, Jim Crow, kept our communities safe in the face of the Negro menace and his ability to move from community to community. Jim Crow segregation was the only answer because it was not feasible to deport the Negro en masse back to Africa. Sadly, with non-stop lawsuits against police departments by the justice department and all the diversity pimps like the ADL and SPLC, even the “spirit” of Jim Crow is no longer enforced. Which is why you cannot walk the streets at night: the nefarious Negro has chewed through his leash and threatens the civilization that took him into its bosom. Only a restoration of Jim Crow laws, or the deportation of the Negro en masse back to Africa will make us safe again.

Clarence Henderson #fundie charlotteobserver.com

Let us be clear: HB2 cannot be compared to the injustice of Jim Crow. In fact, it is insulting to liken African Americans’ continuing struggle for equality in America to the liberals’ attempt to alter society’s accepted norms.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared HB2 to Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws were put into place to keep an entire race positioned as second-class citizens. HB2 simply says that men and women should use the restroom of their biological sex in government buildings and schools. This comparison is highly offensive and utterly disrespectful to those families and individuals who have shed blood and lost lives to advance the cause of civil rights. I take this as a personal slap in the face because I was an active participant in the civil rights movement.

In 1960, I participated in the sit-in at the Woolworth Diner in Greensboro. As a student attending North Carolina A&T University, I experienced the cruel, vicious reality of segregation first hand.

During the Jim Crow Era, we stared down the nozzle of firehoses, felt the piercing bite of police dogs, dangled from trees after being strung up by an angry mob, all because of the color of our skin. Our businesses were burned, churches bombed, communities destroyed, all because of the color of our skin. We had to drink at separate water fountains, shop at different stores and even had to sit at the back of the bus, all because of the color of our skin. All this and more took place after enduring 400 years of arguably the most heinous crime in history – slavery.

In comparison, transgender individuals do not have to fight dogs, can shop anywhere and can use any water fountain. They are free to work, shop and ride the bus. And to my knowledge, they have not experienced 400 years of slavery and the ongoing fight for parity 151 years after emancipation.

It is a further insult that the left chooses to ignore the continued absence of African Americans at the top levels of corporate America including the companies that took a public stand against HB2. Look at their boards of directors and executive teams. Where are the African Americans? Women? Transgender people? To them, I say fix these problems in your own house.

Loretta Lynch’s political pandering to arouse African American interest in what has been proven to be lukewarm support for the supposed Democratic presidential candidate is an obvious attempt to elicit an emotional response. You cannot pimp the civil rights movement.

Throughout my life, I have noticed that even smart people say dumb things. And you, Ms. Lynch, have once again proven me right. Well done.

Audrey Russo #fundie barbwire.com

[Barack Obama said, "[R]emember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often were justified in the name of Christ."]

First the truth on the Crusades, as I've mentioned in the past:

- The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews...forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, and a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering "Muslim lands'". (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)

- The motives of the Crusaders were pure. They were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a "peaceful," native Muslim population.

- The Islamic world ripped through the Christian world on a bloody Jihad crusade to propagate Islam. Muslim imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles (larger than the British Empire at its peak). The Jihad crusade went from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

Second, as far as terrible deeds committed "in the name of Christ":

- When Muslims commit violent Jihad in Allah's name, according to the Quran (as ISIS, et al, does), they are being true to Islamic doctrine and reflecting the character of Islam's founder Muhammed.

- The same CANNOT be said of Biblical Christians. If a so-called Christian commits a violent act and attempts to justify it in the name of Jesus and claims the New Testament, he is NOT reflecting the character of Christianity's founder NOR can his actions be supported by the New Testament.

Thirdly, Slavery:

- Slavery was not the product of White men or Christians, but rather the work of Arab Muslims (who still utilize it today in Africa).

- The Abolitionists, who ended Slavery, were in FACT Christians. The man responsible for ending Slavery in England? A Christian by the name of William Wilberforce.

[...]

And finally, Jim Crow:

- Jim Crow Laws were a Southern Democrat response to Republican President Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation. It was NOT a Christian action. The Christians were the Abolitionists. They ended slavery. So any reference to Christians and Jim Crow Laws, is patently deceitful.

Bishop E.W. Jackson #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Homosexuals have no history of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching or being legally defined as 2/3 of a person. I have known people who have been delivered from homosexuality. I have never known anyone to be delivered from being black. The Democrat Party's commitment to abortion, homosexuality and moral relativism is an affront to the values of the black Christian community. It is a 'Coalition of the godless.' Black Christians do not belong in a 'coalition of the godless,' and should not vote for those who are.

Ebenezer Howe III #racist albertleatribune.com

Guest Column: Anti-discrimination laws are new Jim Crow laws

My Point of View, By Ebenezer Howe III

Most of the time I have a problem picking a topic on which to write My Point of View. Sometimes I am so upset with things that what I would put down may not be publishable for the Tribune. But, I am going to give ’er a shot this time.


Ebenezer Howe
The Albert Lea Tribune of Oct. 5 had on the Opinion Page under Editorial Roundup a re-print of an editorial from the Rochester Post-Bulletin published on Sept. 28. The title of that editorial was “Civil Rights Don’t Stop at a Business Person’s Door.” The Post-Bulletin, in my opinion, is a far left-leaning publication so it is common for me to see their writings in conflict with my beliefs.

The gist of the editorial was agreement with the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis that had ruled against a Minnesota couple who wanted to expand their media production company to include the filming of weddings — but only heterosexual weddings. The setup took about one third of the editorial and the remainder was the interpretation from the judge and the editorial board’s misguided analogies in support of the ruling.

First, civil rights have to do with what government can and cannot do to an individual. The government is to treat all individuals uniformly and hopefully fairly. If not fairly, then uniformly unfair. Second, everyone has the right to discriminate. If you don’t like your obnoxious uncle, you do not have to invite him for holidays. It is your right to discriminate against him or anyone. I think they call that freedom of association.

I googled the definition of freedom of association: “The right to form societies, clubs and other groups of people, and to meet with people individually, without interference by the government.”

So, it also stands to reason for an individual to not meet with people individually, without interference by government.

Now, let’s put this in Freeborn County terms. I am going to open an eating place, and I am going to put on the door, “Norwegians need not enter.” I should be able to discriminate against anybody I choose. Any loan officer who gives me a loan to open my shop will end up being fired when the bank president exercises his discrimination right to terminate a fool who would make a loan to a sure bankruptcy. Since Norwegians can’t enter, neither will their friends. No customers, no cash, I’m done, out of business. The marketplace handled it.

Well, well, oh but, yah but, that is just like Jim Crow laws — wrong you are. Jim Crow laws were government telling individuals they must discriminate, not individuals discriminating by choice. They were laws saying only whites eat here or blacks to the back of the bus — forced segregation by law.

Always let the marketplace handle it. If a village wanted a videographer to always be available to film events and paid $500 for every event he filmed, then the videographer must do same-sex marriages because every individual must be treated the same by that village’s government. If tax money goes to pay for some films, then tax money has to pay for all films in this village. But, in the case of an individual or a business, which also should be looked at as an individual, discrimination should be allowed. Some other individual will see the opportunity to make some cash and start filming same sex marriages or providing whatever service for which there is a discriminatee. So, the people who won’t perform the service, lose the cash; their choice.

I believe Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, who was quoted in the editorial, drinks from the poisoned well of political correctness along with all the legislators who pass anti-discrimination laws.

I see anti-discrimination laws as the new Jim Crow laws.

Now let’s talk just a bit about judicial elections.

Freeborn County is one of 11 counties in the 3rd Judicial District. The district has 23 judges. That is why we have so many judges on the ballot every election. When you get the voting instructions from the demonstration judge, prior to getting a ballot, he always says, “Remember to vote both sides.” Then when you turn your ballot over, you see all those judges and you feel, “Oh my goodness, I don’t know any of these people.” Why is that? Because the system is rigged against campaigning for judges. Nearly all Minnesota judges are politically appointed, as were the two judges seated in Freeborn County. Then, through a 1981 law, the word incumbent is after their name at the next general election, an unfair advantage. The incumbent label is unique to Minnesota and to judicial elections and a powerful deterrent to judicial challengers. This 1981 law is in deep need of repeal. Please consider candidates who agree.

Kajm #wingnut deviantart.com

(Submitter note: talking about progressives somehow being behind Jim Crowe laws… back when the Democrats were the Conservative party of the nation)

I didn't know that.

They never learn.

We had "race conscious laws" once upon a time thanks to #Democrats. They were called Jim Crow. #DemDebates

— Keith James (@BlackMagic63) February 8, 2020

There it is.

conservatives were behind jim crow

— David Taft Terry (@DTaftTerry) February 8, 2020

Oh, honey, no.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. People like Democrat Senator Hugo Black, who filibustered anti-lynching legislation were behind Jim Crow. FDR, the ultimate progressive (along w Woodrow KKK Wilson) appointed Hugo Black to SCOTUS for life because he was "a good New-Dealer" aka "progressive"

— American Elephant™ (@TheElephantsKid) February 9, 2020

Yikes.

twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/02/…

Ok, so a progressive judge was ONE of the people behind Jim Crowe. It might pay to look up a few more names...

Oh Hey! It gets better! https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/supreme-court-justice-was-kkk-member-180962254/

Ooooh, another progressive! Woodrow Wilson! https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era


Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat elected from New Jersey, but he was born and raised in the South, and was the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period. He appointed Southerners to his Cabinet. Some quickly began to press for segregated workplaces, although the city of Washington, D.C., and federal offices had been integrated since after the Civil War. In 1913, for instance, Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo – an appointee of the President – was heard to express his opinion of black and white women working together in one government office: "I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines?"[29]

The Wilson administration introduced segregation in federal offices, despite much protest from African-American leaders and white progressive groups in the north and midwest.[30] He appointed segregationist Southern politicians because of his own firm belief that racial segregation was in the best interest of black and European Americans alike

------

Don't forget, Wilson liked the idea of a United Nations.

More later, must get back to chores!

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.

DL Foster #fundie rightwingwatch.org

The clear common motivator in all oppressive movements [slavery, anti-suffrage, Jim Crow racism] was financial gain, not biblical dishonesty which facilitated systemic power over another group. The bible’s words became a convenient tool in the hands of these people. Not only the Bible, but the US Constitution was misused as well.

But there exists no such financial benefit for people who correctly interpret scripture in reference to homosexual practices. No one who believes, teaches and upholds the sexual standards of the bible stands to benefit financially from doing so. In an ever increasing age of intolerant tolerance, such people and organizations actually are penalized for not falling in line with homosexual inclusion ideology. Logically, for the church to be compared to the aforementioned oppressive movements, it would have to allow homosexual inclusion.

Therefore its the religious progays who are financially benefiting from the misinterpretation of scripture just like slaveowners, the anti-suffrage sexists and the jim crow racists.

…

If the progay clerics and organizations and had any intellectual honesty, they would inform their followers that they are part of a longstanding tradition of lying for financial gain. American slaveowners did it, the anti-suffragists did it, the jim crow racists did it and the pro homosexual apostate church is doing it.

Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Undoubtedly some will be wondering why the mere presence of Jews should be a cause of concern or disunity in the Kingdom of France (since 987 under the House of Capet) but this is to fail to grasp the entire concept of what France was. It was a specifically Catholic kingdom and to be French was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be in communion with the body of Christ, the Church, and all other Catholics everywhere. This was the foundation of the kingdom and the highest purpose of the Catholic monarchs was to safeguard the souls of their subjects by ensuring that they were all good Catholics. Obviously, with such a foundation, it is going to be a problem to have a majority of the population which is French and who believe Jesus Christ is God, alongside a minority of people who are not French and who believe Jesus Christ was a criminal deserving of death. That is a pretty stark contrast, not a lot of room for compromise between those two viewpoints. It would inevitably cause tension and problems when a French peasant would be subject to severe punishments for denying the divinity of Christ, whereas Jews were primarily differentiated solely for this same denial.

Mick Williams #fundie disqus.com

Crow, Egg and Humble Pie

image

(A frustrated-looking Elizabeth Warren, dressed as Pocahontas, is trying to wring out substance from pages of the Mueller report.
Assorted pages on the ground read “nada”, “goose egg” and “zip”.)

Mick Williams:
It's over, Lizzie. Just like your presidential campaign

Theo Fields Gardener #fundie goddividesusbybloodtype.ning.com

1st Thunder – ha Adam first man, his blood type is A- (Alpha)

2nd Thunder – ha Wah (Eve) her blood type is B- (Beta)

3rd Thunder – Ruler Cain is not Adam’s son- the fallen angel XES’ son is O- (Omega)

4th Thunder – Adam & ha Wah’s first born Abel (Abiyah) YHWH’s Kings & Priests is AB- (2 horns)

5th Thunder - Adam & ha Wah’s progeny mixing with Cain’s giant hybrid children is AB+ (2 horns)

6th Thunder – ha Wah (Eve’s) progeny mixing with Cain’s RH + giant hybrid children is B+

7th Thunder - Adam’s progeny become blended with Cain’s RH+ giant hybrid children is A+

Sheep on the right goats on the left.

Synagogue of XES (Satan) the giants return through Canaan’s gateway after the flood now called demons.

YHWH made man in his/her image (Abba Amma). YHWH is androgynous. Inside every man and woman are both male & female chromosomes with one sex turned on the other off. It’s not about physical appearance. It’s about qualities of light. Science has already correctly categorized everyone by blood (Alpha Beta Omega- first & last) though many will scoff and YAHshuWAH has written personal letters to the congregations that will unseal who each blood type is and what to do about it for the remission of sins.

7. When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 8. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Parent, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered and ye gave me food. was thirsty and ye gave me drink. I was a stranger anal ye took me in. Naked and ye clothed me. I was sick and ye visited me. I was in prison and ye came unto me. 9. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered and fed thee? Or thirsty and gave thee drink? when saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison and came unto thee ? 10. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Behold, I manifest myself unto you, in all created forms; and verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 11. Then shall he say also unto them on his left hand, Depart from me ye evil souls into the eternal fires which ye have prepared for yourselves, till ye are purified seven times and cleansed from your sins. 12. For I was an hungered and ye gave me no food, I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger and ye took me not in, naked and ye clothed me not, sick and in prison and ye visited me not. 13. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee ? 14. Then shall he answer them, saying, Behold I manifest myself unto you, in all created forms, and Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, my brethren, ye did it not unto me. 15. And the cruel and the loveless shall go away into chastisement for ages, and if they repent not, be utterly destroyed; but the righteous and the merciful, shall go into life and peace everlasting.
Lection 67

Seamus L #fundie forums.catholic.com

While undoubtedly there were innocent people killed by the Nationalists in Spain, the fact remains the Church hadn't yet become so anti death penalty in the 1930's. Thousands upon thousands of Communists, Socialists and Anarchists ended up dead in Spain because they chose a life of mob violence, torture, desecration and destruction of that which is Holy.

Socratism #fundie theologyweb.com

God undoubtedly told this account [Genesis 1] to Adam... The second story was Adam's account, which like many newspaper accounts is not necessarily in chronological sequence like the first story... it was a collection of stories, written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.Some of these would have been preserved on the Ark by Noah, and Moses, being a Prince of Egypt prrobably found them preserved in the libraries in Egypt. He must have been inspired by God to compile the stories into a single document which we today call the Book of Genesis... It certainly makes far more sense than believing that God dictated all that to Moses or that Moses made it all up.

Bill Donohue #fundie catholicleague.org

The quest for autonomy has reached such a macabre level in the Netherlands that last year the Royal Dutch Medical Association expanded the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include “loneliness.”

In the state of Washington, a debate is currently raging over whether to expand the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include those who are not terminally ill, as well as those who are mentally disabled.

By contrast, this week in Tennessee a dog was rescued from being euthanized (one news outlet said he was being spared “the Gas Chamber”) because the condition driving the dog’s death was his alleged homosexuality (the owner was ticked when he saw his Fido hunch another male dog). For reasons that appear entirely reasonable, the gal who rescued the dog named him Elton [click here to read the story].

The place where Elton was dropped, Euthanasia Jackson TN, encourages dog adoption, but it also promotes dog euthanasia. Not, however, in Elton’s case: the shelter has no stomach for putting dogs down on the basis of sexual orientation. It must be said, though, that the shelter is not exactly inclusive in its policies. To wit: Had poor Elton not been identified as a homosexual, his heterosexuality would not have been enough to save his hide.

The moral of the story is: Being gay is not only a bonus for humans these days, it is a definite plus for dogs as well. As for straights, the lonely and the disabled, that’s another story altogether.

czakal #fundie diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com

The quest for knowledge, the passion for discovering objective truth, seems to me the most fundamental characteristic of Europeanness, one that we can already see apparent in the Ancient Greeks. Aristotle, for example, wrote a book that was just an objective description of all the animal species he knew about. No philosophy, nothing abstract. Just the facts. That’s Europeanness right there, thousands of years ago.
Ultimately, it was our civilisation’s passion for investigating objective truth through science that took it to global dominance. And it is our current fixation on the subjective – on psychology, emotion, motivation – that will be our downfall. Unless we can cure ourselves of it.

Rational debate about our future has become impossible due to the charges of impure motivation that are immediately flung at anyone who attempts to engage in it: racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc. Implicit in these charges is the idea that impure motivation invalidates everything a person says. The criterion of objective truth is disregarded.

We should never forget where this curious notion comes from: the Talmudic legal system and its obsession with the purity of a witness’s motivation.

More generally, non-Europeans, have played a critical role in pushing the obsession with the subjective upon us. The Jewish pseudoscience of psycho-analysis cast a long shadow over the 20th century, one whose influence is still with us today even though its “science” aspect has now been utterly discredited.

Tziporah Heller #fundie aish.com

Women's quest for external power has left a frightening vacuum in Western society in the area of moral training, where women formerly held sway. Rampant crime, child abuse, kidnapping, and the dramatic rise in violence against women are symptoms of a society gone amok, where many people have no concept of right and wrong, of honesty, fairness, compassion or self-control.

Today's internal decadence is eroding the quality of life in America as fast as external political and technological advantages are improving it.

Clearly, the lot of women cannot be improved by political and financial progress if the inner dimension of society -- its morals and compassion -- is neglected by the very people who have traditionally been made its custodians: women.

A typical male analysis of such political problems customarily blames them on external factors, e.g., low income families in impoverished neighborhoods inevitably leads to a high rate of violent crime, substance abuse, etc.

If this were true, then Jerusalem's religious neighborhood of Mea Shearim, which has one of the highest poverty rates in Israel and where families typically number seven to ten children in a three-room flat, should be a hotbed of violent crime. Instead, Mea Shearim has virtually no violent crime and very little substance abuse, this despite the total absence of policemen on its streets.

[...]

Thus, defined Judaically, the issue is not whether women should or should not have power, but rather on the kind of power on which they should concentrate, both for their individual development as well as for the good of the whole society.

GoodNewsJournalist #fundie christianforums.com

Happy Friday the 13th

What a really interesting title for a forum topic? Isn't Friday the 13th suppose to be unlucky. How can we be happy on such an unlucky day.

Why is Friday the 13th unlucky? Well I got the answer to that.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/freemason.html

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/Jul/20010714.htm

http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_legends

Way back in 1303, on a Friday the 13th, the church slaughtered a bunch of Bapthomet worshipping Knights Templar, trying to free the world from the corruption of devil worshipping. Since then, Friday the 13th has been considered unlucky. Unlucky by whom, Free Masons! Who cares about what a bunch of luciferian worshipping occultists consider is unlucky.

So, be happy. Friday the 13th is only unlucky to a bunch of occultists, because they got judged by God's people! Praise God!

Glory to God and Power to the Resistance.

JAH #fundie jahtruth.net

There is absolutely; undoubtedly and infallibly only ONE Key to Gibraltar's future prosperous and secure self-determination and that is the ONE on its flag, which is there for all to see; except "the blind being led by the blind", naturally.

Gibraltar's Flag, which originated as the Ensign of the Phoenician/British/Israelite Tribe of Gad; who was Jacob/Israel's (Gen. 32:28) eighth son (Gen. 30:11) and was Brit-ish not Jew-ish (Judah/Jew-dah -ish was Jacob's fourth son and one of Gad's half-brothers not his dad); has sadly been deprived of its best colour - The Ruler of The Universe's colour - the colour blue, and He is definitely not amused by its removal (because He considers it to be an insult to Him and His Sovereignty of heaven - The Universe. To find out why , please continue reading).

The very first inhabitants of Gibraltar, since the Creation of Adam, were NOT Spanish they were Brit-ish Gadites who arrived between 1500 and 1000 B.C. and were later joined by more Gadites in 722 B.C., the latter-arrival being recorded in the Gibraltar museum as Phoenician.

Their military "Camp" (castle) of Gibraltar, that, on their Ensign/Coat-of-Arms, has been changed to red, which, according to Christ, is God's enemy Satan's colour, should, in reality, out of respect for God, be deep blue; like the blue on the "Union (of) Jack"-ob /Israel - the Brit-ish flag.

In Heraldic-Symbolism the flag's red base represents the "blood-soaked" earth; the devil's domain (Rev./Apocalypse 12:1-9); where he walks to and fro (1 Peter 5:8) seeking to devour and to destroy, YOU (along with your ecological life-support system; so far with great success).

Gov. Pat McCrory #fundie rawstory.com

North Carolina officials sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday after the department challenged the state’s law on public restroom access for transgender people, accusing the agency of “baseless and blatant overreach.”

The department’s top civil rights lawyer, Vanita Gupta, last week sent three letters to North Carolina officials, saying the law was a civil rights violation.

It is the newest chapter of a fast-evolving fight over rights for transgender Americans. The law, which went into effect in March, requires transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory and the state’s secretary of public safety sued Gupta as well as U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch for their “radical reinterpretation” of federal civil rights law in federal district court in North Carolina.

Justice Department officials declined to comment on Monday.

If the state does not pull back from implementing the first-of-its-kind statute on Monday, it could face a federal lawsuit, according to the Justice Department letters.

McCrory said in a Sunday interview with Fox News that he had asked the department to extend the Monday deadline, but was told that he could only have the extension if he would admit that the law was discriminatory.

“I’m not going to publicly announce that something discriminates, which is agreeing with their letter,” he said in the interview.

The department declined to say whether it would take legal action if the state stands by the law, but the letters suggest it is willing to do so, setting the stage for a potentially costly court fight over an issue that has already sparked several boycotts against the state.

McCrory will speak to the media on Monday at 1 p.m. (01:00 p.m. EDT).

MichaelK #fundie conservapedia.com

Why is the 13th Amendment never mentioned in relation to pharmacists being forced to serve people wanting to buy the morning after pill and doctors who refuse to artificially inseminate lesbians? Am I the only one who sees that it applies perfectly?

Lookismisreal #fundie reddit.com

Marriage tax benefits are discriminatory against incels. As a working, taxpaying Incel, I find that marriage tax benefits are nothing but discriminatory towards me. Why the fuck should I be forced to subsidize Chads/Tyrones and his six different children kids from three different cum dumpsters?

If the government does not provide me with sex - even though I am entitled to it and it is my God given, divine right - why should I continue to give them money to something that doesn't concern me in any sort of way? It's just downright unacceptable. The law itself is just targeted directly at working and taxpaying Incels who are affected disproportionately compared to other minority groups.

JadoreAdonai #fundie rr-bb.com

(Is anyone else thinking "lobotomy" here?)

A woman was asked by a coworker, "What is it like to be a Christian?"

The coworker replied, "It is like being a pumpkin." God picks you from the
patch, brings you in, and washes all the dirt off of you. Then He cuts off the
top and scoops out all the yucky stuff.
He removes the seeds of doubt, hate, and greed. Then He carves you a new
smiling face and puts His light inside of you to shine for all the world to see."

Tall Timbers #fundie rr-bb.com

[Re Arizona Governor vetoing discriminatory anti-gay bill.]

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bill, but I don't think there was any reference to homosexuals in it. I do believe the "anti-homosexual" aspect was created by the leftist machinations in our country.

I grew up reading signs on the doors of businesses that said, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", and other signs that said, "We have the right to refuse service". I'm wondering, in this day and age, if a business owner dare refuse service to anyone for any reason?

The governor of Arizona probably made the right choice with the bill that was reported to be written in a very broad way that could lead to all sorts of difficulty. But I do think a business owner should have the right to refuse service as they choose, without any regard to religious beliefs, just as I think I have the right to avoid restaurants where smoking is still allowed. It's about personal liberty.

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid #fundie islamqa.info

Praise be to Allaah.

Undoubtedly making friends with a kaafir woman will adversely affect her religious commitment, because a kaafir woman does not behave in the same manner or have the same attitude as a Muslim woman, and she does not worship Allaah according to the religion of Islam. Therefore she will not avoid doing things that may adversely affect this Muslim woman who may be deceived by the modest dress or good manners of this kaafir woman, especially in matters that will adversely affect her religious commitment.

Similarly, making friends with her may lead to some kind of approval in one's heart for the rituals that she does as part of her own religion, and this will weaken the sense of friendship and enmity for the sake of Allaah (al-wala’ wa’l-bara’).

Indeed, it may lead some ignorant people to disapprove of the ruling of Allaah that the kaafirs are disbelievers who will abide in Hell forever – we seek refuge with Allaah. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2395; Abu Dawood, 4832; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 2/314; classed as hasan by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 7341).

We do not mean, however, that this Muslim woman should cut herself off completely from the kaafir woman; she may visit with her, visit her when she is sick and give her gifts, but without forming an emotional attachment or joining in their festivals and celebrations. And the Muslim woman should aim, in those visits and gift-giving, to call this kaafir woman to Islam. This is what our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did, as is mentioned in two hadeeths:

But visiting kaafirs in order to have a good time with them is not permitted, because it is obligatory to hate them and shun them. It is permissible to accept their gifts because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted gifts from some of the kaafirs, such as the gift from al-Muqawqis the ruler of Egypt. But it is not permissible to congratulate them on the occasion of their festivals because this implies befriending them and approving of their falsehood.

And Allaah knows best.

BernieEOD #fundie christianforums.com

The word of God. "Loveless"! Another gospel of the godless left. Marriage is not about feelings. It is about commitment. If both parties are truly concerned about what they have done, they will take responsibility for thier actions, get married, and raise the child. You advocate letting the sperm doner off the hook and setting himn free to abuse other women.

Best to obey Gods command: Stay away from sexual immorality!

You want to tell people to spit in Gods face, abort the unwanted baby, or go on welfare. You rway does not work. I only hope my daughters will not get into that position. They know that if they do, they will get married so they also know to be careful about who they date much less who they get "Physical with".

Townhall #fundie townhall.com

The Democrats are said to be the party of Jim Crow, black codes, and the Ku Klux Klan—but it’s the GOP that’s racist, or something. These historical debates get the Left and Right going on social media. Yet, a new study just slays the whole notion that liberalism is averse to racism. It’s the seat of irony. The report found that white liberals dumb themselves down while interacting with minorities in order to get along with them (via Yale Insights):
Racial bias can put people of color at a disadvantage when interviewing for a job, buying a house, or interacting with the police. New research suggests that bias may also shape daily interactions between racial minorities and white people, even those whites who tend to be less biased.
According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”
Dupree and her co-author, Susan Fiske of Princeton University, began by analyzing the words used in campaign speeches delivered by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to different audiences over the years. They scanned 74 speeches delivered by white candidates over a 25-year period. Approximately half were addressed to mostly-minority audiences—at a Hispanic small business roundtable discussion or a black church, for example. They then paired each speech delivered to a mostly-minority audience with a comparable speech delivered at a mostly-white audience—at a mostly-white church or university, for example. The researchers analyzed the text of these speeches for two measures: words related to competence (that is, words about ability or status, such as “assertive” or “competitive”) and words related to warmth (that is, words about friendliness, such as “supportive” and “compassionate”).
[…]
The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences.
Gee—I wonder why white liberals feel the need to dumb themselves down in front of non-whites. Is it because they find them…incompetent? That appears to be the case (via Washington Times):

“It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left—that white conservatives are racist—while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites.
[…]
The researchers then set up an experiment in which white liberals were asked to respond to hypothetical individuals named “Emily” and “Lakisha.”
“[L]iberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white,” said the release. “No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner.”
Ms. Dupree said the “competence downshift” could indicate a greater eagerness by white liberals to connect with those of other races.
“My hope is that this work will help include well-intentioned people who see themselves as allies but who may be unwittingly contributing to group divides,” said Ms. Dupree. “There is a broader need to include them in the conversation.”
Still, a white liberal making him (or her) seem dumb because they find the non-white they’re interacting with less competent. That seems…pretty racist.

Tony Perkins #fundie frc.org

When students at Norwich University crowed their prom queen, something was missing. That something was a girl. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. America's oldest private military academy says it prides itself on being unconventional--and last month's "gay prom" proved it. School officials said they wanted to have an "open dialogue" on homosexuality--but what they really had was a party. Unfortunately, this is America's new military. When the President wanted to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he didn't talk about flying rainbow flags at Afghan bases or asking chaplains to perform gay "weddings." He didn't mention banning Christian speakers at military academies, tearing down crosses at Camp Pendleton, or pulling Scripture out of Army curriculum. What he said was it's time to let homosexuals be true to who they are. And who they are is a community that thinks promiscuity is something to celebrate. Norwich's "free love dance" and "condom Olympics" aren't tolerance. They're deviance. And a school of young, strong cadets deserve better.

Rev. Darwin Fish #fundie atruechurch.info

In America, slavery is illegal (13th Amendment). So, for anyone in America to practice slavery, it would be wrong. It would be a violation of Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. But, is slavery evil in and of itself? Some think so.

[...]

"Christians" of the past have argued both for and against slavery.1 Yet, Scripture is not unclear on this issue. Even atheists have caught the drift, and have therefore reviled the Word of God on this issue alone.

[..]

So speaks the fool (Psalm 14:1). Yet, this fool knows what some "Christians" have not recognized, that is, that Scripture indeed accepts the practice of slavery.

For example, Alexander McLeod (1774-1833), pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of New York.

[...]

This pastor was way off!

[...]

Believers in the first century owned slaves (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2), and they were not instructed to let them go; but rather, to treat them with justice, as Colossians 4:1 says.

[...]

In the past, some have bristled at the fact that slavery reduces a human being to "an article of property, a chattel personal" (Theodore Dwight, 1803-1895, The Bible Against Slavery). John Wesley wrote,

It cannot be, even setting Revelation aside. It cannot be, that either war, or contract, can give any man such a property in another as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it possible, that any child of man should ever be born a slave. Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air; and no human law can deprive him of that right which he derives from the law of nature. (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/thoughtsuponslavery.stm)

Wesley did indeed set revelation aside. Because, the revelation of God reveals no such "law of nature," but rather the law of God

[...]

In Exodus 21, the Lord reveals that a slave, as the property of the slave owner, does not have the same status a free man has, even when it came to killing a man. Exodus 21:12 says,

He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

Yet, later in the chapter, the Lord gives this instruction regarding slaves.

And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

Note, if the slave lived a day or two, and then died, there would be no punishment at all, and the reason given is because "he is his property."

The slave owner had the right to correct his slaves, as Proverbs 26:3 states,

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the fool's back. (see also Proverbs 10:13; 29:19)

This does not mean it was right to inflict undue harm upon a slave (Micah 6:8; Colossians 4:1). But it does mean that a slave owner could render correction when needed.

[...]

An evil man may very well encourage slaves to rebel against their masters (Proverbs 17:11), but Scripture teaches just the opposite.

The Lord does not instruct slaves to run away and claim their freedom. Instead, the Lord instructs them to stay where they are and be good slaves, as the Lord instructed Abraham's slave, Hagar.

[...]

Here Hagar was free. She had run away from her mistress (Genesis 16:4-6) and had freed herself from harsh treatment. Yet, even in the context of being treated harshly, the Lord told her to go back and submit herself to Sarai.

[...]

Although slavery at times can be a curse (Deuteronomy 28:68; Joshua 9:23; Proverbs 12:24; Lamentations 1:1; Joel 3:8), it can also be good (e.g. Deuteronomy 15:12-17; Joshua 9:24).

[Bolding, italics and hyperlinks in original; removed some quotes]

M.Wilson #racist moonbattery.com

They went from slavery, to Jim Crow, to Affirmative Action, to the current welfare state where their heads are stuffed with race-based Marxism. Each with its own style of chains.

Ironically the Jim Crow period was likely the freest and most successful time for Blacks, because it was not imposed uniformly and some could escape it in search of genuine freedom. Unfortunately, rather than simply ending Jim Crow and letting the Blacks experience freedom uniformly, our government stepped in with Affirmative Action to put them back in chains.

2marktime2 #fundie disqus.com

The fact is the people with loveless live are the sexually active homosexuals.
Research was done with 200 homosexuals over a period of 2 years and the first and foremost finding was that the one thing they were not and that is gay.
He said that they were the unhappiest people that he had ever met.

Tony Miano #fundie onthebox.us

What Richard Dawkins and Dan Barker undoubtedly hope will be yet another frontal assault against religion, with Christianity in the center of their cross-hairs, will backfire on them. It will back-fire on them much the same way Richard Dawkins holding up Ray Comfort's "On the Origin of Species (special edition)" and "180" back-fired. In the end, their attempt to arrogantly rail against the before-mentioned Christian evangelism resources only served to increase interest in them.

Together, with the help of a few of their friends, Dawkins and Barker have initiated the Clergy Project.

In doing so, Dawkins, Barker, and their ilk have done Christianity a favor. And I would like to thank them for their efforts.

Before I continue, let me add that there is no sarcasm in my gratitude toward Dawkins and Barker. Again, I believe they have done Christianity a favor.

1 John 2:18-19 is helpful, here, to show us the service Dawkins and Barker have provided to the Church.
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Erin Ryan #fundie redding.com

Merry Hyatt has found allies in her quest to put an initiative on the ballot next year requiring public schools to play Christmas carols.

Hyatt, who moved to Redding four months ago, said she joined the Redding Tea Party Patriots and recruited several members to help her collect the 433,971 signatures needed by March 29.

The initiative would require schools to provide children the opportunity to listen to or perform Christmas carols, and would subject the schools to litigation if the rule isn't followed.

"Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas," said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. "That's why we have it. It's not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It's like, 'wow you guys, it's called Christmas for a reason.' "

Hanakai #fundie feministcurrent.com

Women who say they chose prostitution and crow about it and the alleged wonderfulness of the choice to let men rent her vagina and pay for use of her bodily orifices are traitors to their sex, traitors to women.

By misdescribing prostitution as a choice, myths about prostitution are perpetuated: the myth that prostitution is empowering for women and necessary for men; that it is the oldest profession (Fact: Prostitution is not a profession, nor is it the oldest occupation); that it is beneficial for women and a fine normal way to make a living; that women are happy hookers; that all women are basically prostitutes who will exchange sex for material reward; the myth that prostitution causes no harm and the myth that prostitution can exist without contributing to sexism, misogyny and the oppression of women.

Everywhere on this planet, the majority of prostituted women are overwhelmingly suffering from poverty, a fact about which there is no disagreement. Urgent financial need is the most frequent reason mentioned by prostituted women for being in the sex trade. No one chooses to be poor when given other options. In countries where prostituted women have been studied in depth, sexual abuse in childhood prior to entry into prostitution is a significant precondition for entry into the sex trade. One rarely meets women in prostitution who were not sexually or physically abused beforehand. No one chooses to be abused.

In any sane, decent, just world where women were valued as full human beings, there would be no prostitution. It should not exist. Sex and women would not be commodities to be bought and sold and rented by any man with sufficient coin of the realm. Sex is the dynamic that creates life. Nature did not intend sex as a commercial transaction. In humans, sex is elevating to the body and being when it is an ecstatic bonding with real connection, caring and affection between partners who are seeking to give and receive pleasure and bring each other higher. In prostitution, sex coarsens the energy and erodes the ability to love. Those who know how to read the human energetic field can attest to this.

The reality that no woman in her right mind would choose to engage in an activity where she will be dead at age 34 (yes, that is the average lifespan for prostituted women), where she has a 90% chance of being raped on the job, where men will spit on her, ejaculate on her face, jam their dicks up her anus and claim the right to ATM (ass-to-mouth, meaning the trick sticks his dick up her anus, withdraws it and sticks it immediately in her mouth without cleaning off the feces), where she has a large chance of being beaten and brutalized, where she is the most vulnerable and likely victim of a serial killer. Who would chose that for themselves? For her sister? For her daughter? For her mother?

leftleaningantifeminist #sexist leftleaningantifeminist.wordpress.com

Misincelry – Hatred of incels as defined above.

I have noticed an impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting of incels from men and women and very frequently from feminists, very often from the same feminists who criticise men and non-feminist women for ” impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting” women”. This is similar to feminists complaining about being “silenced” and then shouting down their critics to the point of ruining careers.

I don’t think this comes down simple rudeness or social blinkers although these things do figure. I believe evolutionary psychology explains much of what is observed in misincelry as well as bullying, racism, homophobia and transphobia. This is where sociologists and especially those of  a strong ideological bent are opposed to evolutionary psychology.

In my post on Oppressive Etiquette I gave the examples of Japan and the US south under the Jim Crow laws. Today feminists are exercising the same requirements for etiquette from men towards women as whites required from blacks under Jim Crow.

This is all the more onerous for men with autism or Asperger‘s syndrome who are more likely than average to be incels and for men who are generally more socially awkward. Feminists on Jezebel and Wehuntedthemammoth web sites take pleasure in shaming in rubbishing incels. One is reminded of school yard bullies. In this case however our feminist messiahs must place themselves on the side of “good” and to that end construct complicated narratives to make their victims the “villains”. Projected hate. A classic example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

This is an extension of the sport of shaming men in general which many women (not limited to feminists) feel free to indulge in a way which would not tolerated if the target was black, Asian, Jewish or of some other demographic minority. This is a way to express the same dark angels of our nature in language which is approved by the cerebral cortex and society collectively. Take a look at this quote by Julie Burchill.

Padraig Martin #racist identitydixie.com

[From "Enough is Enough"]

Generally speaking, I do not really hate Blacks. Rather, I simply want them to stay out of my life. I would like them to pull up their pants, stop yelling so loudly (especially, their women), quiet that obnoxious cackle, and give the victimhood crap a rest. All of that stated, the more often I interact with them, the more I drift towards an angrier place.

Recently, at a library, I had the “pleasure” of several Blacks students meeting for a high school assignment. Per their usual inconsiderate ways, they could not suppress their personal volume. Of course, the polite and quite librarian tried her best to quiet them to no avail. As is typical of them, they lacked manners for their elders, and their treatment of the old White lady was indicative of their primal mannerisms. Finally, I piped up and told them to either be quiet or find another room. They acquiesced, probably because I am physically large, and they did not have the overwhelming numbers they require to fight a big White Man. As they retreated into a small conference room, I was thanked by several White people who silently endured their nasty treatment. While I politely nodded my head and went back to work, I became angrier at the silence of our people.

Therein lies the problem with our people: we fail our societal obligation to correct anti-social and transgressive behavior.

In some cases, Whites have been conditioned to fear Blacks. That is understandable. They are a wild people with almost zero regard for the rule of law or decorum. Consequently, if you are a law-abiding White person, you have no idea how they will react to even the politest request. Whites should know that with colored people, their bark is usually far worse than their bite. But how about the “smart ones?” Let’s address that myth.

For some reason Whites give far too much leeway to semi-literate Blacks, cheering them on for the most minor intellectual accomplishments. To be sure, there are some intelligent Blacks – usually those with a hefty dose of European DNA. By and large, however, Blacks are marginally above primates in terms of intelligence. IQ tests consistently rank that race close to “retard” level (70 IQ or below). Quoting American Renaissance, an organization that has done a number of studies on the damaging impact on functional society by blacks, we see evidence of their inferior intelligence:

“Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the ‘gifted’ range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the ‘retarded’ range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.”

No where is this more evident than in the Halls of Congress.

The worst kind of Black is one with power. It is not that he or she threatens me. They are not that sophisticated. Rather, every time I have to suffer their sub-intelligence it annoys me to no end. Their attempts to act as though they have a greater intellectual capacity than they do, always fails. The morons that comprise the Congressional Black Caucus are the greatest single collective example of Black intellectual inferiority. Watching those idiots cobble together marginally coherent sentences further solidifies my belief in the genetic superiority of our people. Take your pick of a representative buffoon. Whether it is Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elijah Cummings, or Frederica Wilson, the stupidity of these people is insufferable.

[...]

How did they get this powerful in just a few decades? The answer: Whites failed our moral obligation to maintain civilization. We should never have pretended they had a right to such positions of station or stature. Tragically, we are now tasked with correcting civilization.

The problem is that our social structures, designed to maintain civilization for both races, were destroyed by the North. It took a while, but Jim Crow added back the structure Blacks need in an advanced and stable society. Detroit and Atlanta are evidence that they cannot manage themselves. Of course, true to the Yankee way, Northern elites stopped Jim Crow, too. Despite Bull Connor’s best efforts, one of our own – Lyndon Johnson – sold us out. May he rot in hell.

It is time for our people to reclaim our civilization, order must be restored. It is time to yell, “Enough!” If not, expect the decline to continue in Dixie. If not, expect the normalization of the Third World on your doorstep, your schools, your infrastructure and your basic government services.

Take your business to Southern establishments. Encourage your children to enter Human Resources positions. Point out the glaring dysfunction of minority-controlled cities over and over. Constantly red pill drip with statistical evidence of their criminality. Share articles regarding genetic traits that make them less intelligent, but more violent. In sum, marginalize, isolate, and control through your narrative and interactions.

Do not give in, do not submit. We are watching society crumble around us through misplaced fear. Correct the anti-civilizational forces around us that are unchecked.

Enough is enough.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.


Because clearly, blacks and homosexuals are the same.

The implication is that history will harshly judge opponents of homosexual rights, just as we passionately denounce Jim Crow racism. Such logic is now being applied to transsexual rights; check out this segment from John Oliver – the newest liberal comedic cult figure – where he asserts (skip to 16:15) that history will not be kind to those of us who oppose this newest civil rights movement. In so many words, if we don’t enthusiastically embrace the left’s agenda, then people like us will be reviled for all eternity.

Will we? The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (ie. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

Dennis #fundie moonbattery.com

[You are the same people who tried to justify slavery “because the bible”… you don’t get to be bigots just because you happen to be superstitious bigots.

Turns out that institutionalized douchebaggery is not a winner in the marketplace of ideas, and anti-gay Jim Crow laws are not remotely going to make it past the SCOTUS even if an individual state manages to ram it through. But you will manage to wawste a bunch of taxpayer money trying (because “party of fiscal responsibility”?)”]

My GOD, do you eat with those hands that are more full of hate than I have seen in a long time??? The Bible does NOT call for slavery, idiot.. “Ante-Gay?” Jim Crow was action against the Negros, who never wanted to be here anyway.. They were forced here by their own neighbors in the next country in Africa.. What you don’t read history??? Should try it! And a “individual state” has rights the same as you, except you have done nothing to earn that right.. At 75 I can call you a fool, I have seen many in my life and you fit right in..

Pancake Loach #fundie pancakeloach.wordpress.com

Feminists are literally the worst people in America – especially if you judge them by standard “social justice” metrics.

Let’s do the link roundup first:

Insty: “[Feminists are] horrible, damaged people who want to address their own problems by making other people suffer.”

Which is in reference to this Extremely Long Slate Star Codex piece, called “Untitled“. Caution: explicit reference to feminist hypocrisy, power-mongering, and general ugly hatefulness abound, complete with actual facts showing that the feminists are liars and they know it.

But you know, besides all the usual hypocrisy and naked power-grabbing going on by the feminists referenced in the above piece, all I could think about was that a man had come forward, saying that feminism nearly caused him to commit suicide, and DID cause him to beg his therapist to approve his castration, and all the feminists had was yet more social disapproval, scorn, and hate for him. (Kudos for the therapist saying no, the problem is not your heterosexuality.)

By the way, young males have the highest rates of suicide of any broad demographic in the country.

FEMINISTS. ARE. KILLING. PEOPLE.

And not just the millions of murdered babies. Do you think that Scott Aaronson is the only young male who heard loud and clear feminism’s message that male = worthless monster? That heterosexual desire is to be despised and rejected? (Not even Christian ministries to “pray the gay away” are as vitriolic about homosexual desire as feminists are about male heterosexual desire.) If anti-homosexual attitudes are even partially culpable for the suicides of homosexuals, then how much more culpable must feminists be when they teach vulnerable young men who are socially awkward but otherwise perfectly nice to hate themselves so much they want to DIE?

Feminists are monsters. Anyone who is not a monster and identifies as feminist is identifying AS A MONSTER. They need to be corrected, because all the non-monstrous people identifying as feminist are providing cover for and enabling the damaged, sociopathic bullies who form the core of feminism. As Vox Day says, “Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.”

Next in the roundup: a response by a female nerd, saying a lot of things I’d like to say, like “fuck you, feminists” – and pointing out how feminists also like to bully other women.

However, there’s no way for logic and reason to get through to a feminist. They are raging beasts, roaming about looking for people to devour (and if you are not any of the above, you should get out before you become one; the ideology is designed to lead you gently along the path to Hell, step by gradual step). So instead, let’s see some advice for nerds in another Insty roundup. These links – and the links in the links – are incredibly useful advice for more than just bullied nerds, so make sure to spawn those additional tabs! (Some of those links in the chain were idea-fodder for yesterday’s post, and I’ve only just got around to reading more of them myself, so go thou and also read.)

But here’s the problem: the shunning part only works for the Shy Male Nerd after he has grown up and gotten a job and moved out of the house. Which means that for his entire childhood and his most vulnerable adolescent years, he’s going to be immersed in a toxic sea of feminism, because feminism is the dominant ideology of mainstream America. What if his mother is a feminist, like the one described in the Rant of the Female Nerd, above? Kind of hard to shun your mother when you’re entirely dependent on her (and she’s probably already driven your father away or “henpecked” – the cute name for domestic abuse when a woman does it – him into a doormat).

This is where I go back to the introduction and tie in the “feminists are the worst people in the America by social justice metrics” point. Feminism is the ideology of institutional power in 2015 America. Feminists control education, from female-dominated primary schools all the way through higher education; cross feminist dogma and you’ll get in deep trouble, as Lawrence Summers found out. The head of UVA used the excuse of a false rape accusation in order to punish UVA’s fraternities for something that never happened. Kangaroo courts convened by universities routinely and blithely ruin male students’ lives – when men are already a minority in higher education. The government gives special benefits to women and convenes special task forces and institutes special social services for them – the courts even give female criminals lighter sentences. The media constantly trumpets the female-centric tenets and attitude of feminism (when they’re not fanning racial tensions) and derides anyone who dares to disagree.

Social justice warriors like to define racism as “racial prejudice plus power.” Those of us who aren’t ideologues looking to excuse the despicable behavior of protected in-groups laugh at the “plus power” part, but when you look at modern society, it is WOMEN WHO HAVE THE POWER, and particularly feminist women and their male allies (who may be amoral creeps out to use feminism for their own ends). Ordinary, non-feminist successful women get absolutely demonized for not toeing the feminist line whenever they dare to attract public attention, and any non-feminist male (as well as insufficiently servile feminist males) can count on truckloads of vitriol. Meanwhile, feminists defended the most powerful man in the world as he betrayed his wife, his daughter, his intern, and who knows how many other women in his past.

But this litany is just to point out that even by their own SocJus metric, feminists are the oppressors in today’s America. Their bigoted, sexist ideology wields power through the federal government, social welfare policies, the court system, all levels of institutional education, and corporate policy when it comes to employment or even use of social media, due to the combination of feminist regulation from the government side and fear of social media mobs on the public relations side.

Scott Alexander compares feminist bigotry to anti-Semitism in “Untitled” – if you don’t have time to read now, just skim down for the pictures of men with beards. It’s uncanny how close those images align, isn’t it? But I don’t think of feminism as patterning after anti-Semitism quite yet – especially since the beard thing is merely one small facet of masculinity that feminism attacks. I think feminists are actually more like Jim Crow Lite. After all, they’re using some of the same arguments as the KKK – and they stand for government-mandated privileges for women, and penalties for men. They haven’t actually gotten around to putting their “kill all men” or “reduce men to 10% of the population for breeding purposes” yet the way the anti-Semitic Nazis backed up their prejudices with violence, but they’ve definitely got the “institutionalized discrimination by government and society” part down pat. Thus, Jim Crow Lite.

It’s true that there are, in fact, worse ideologies running loose in the broader world today. Communism, its fraternal twin socialism, and their adopted brother Islam, for example. But I’m not convinced that feminism isn’t their little sister, just waiting until she’s all grown up and firmly grasps the levers of power before she starts outright murdering the targets of her hatred. And as far as America goes? Feminism is definitely doing the most damage.

(And now, for a tangentally related palate cleanser after peering too closely into the abyss – a modest proposal from Dalrock.)

Mychal Massie #racist wnd.com

Many blacks felt they were owed special dispensation because of slavery and Jim Crow, and whites on both sides of the aisle agreed with them. Even though Democrats fought against it, Lyndon Johnson, owing to the indefatigable efforts of Republican Everett Dirksen and his fellow Senate Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it was President Nixon who ushered in race-based affirmative action. Blacks were given special entrance to universities and colleges based on skin color and quotas. This was later concealed under the cloak of diversity, but, in reality, it was still skin color and quotas. Employers were forced under penalty of law to have the correct color-coded balance in the workplace. And that extended to management positions. Standards were lowered to ensure those blacks who were not qualified would be employed and promoted.

Penitence has been made for slavery and Jim Crow. But, not unlike the retail customer who refuses to be satisfied, I believe there comes a time when we must give those who refuse to be satisfied the option of going elsewhere. Yes, I’m saying what you think I am saying. If, despite, America’s best efforts, blacks argue they are not treated fairly, that they are not given the same opportunity to succeed that whites are, if bad decisions that result in bad outcomes are the fault of white society, why stay here?

If blacks are so mistreated, if the realities of life that beset people of every description are more onerous because of white people here in America, why stay?

According to Sails, it is an act of disdain for blacks that leads to a white Santa Claus and a white Jesus. According to people like Sails, white people are happy that blacks aren’t living long enough to “grow old.” Jeremiah Wright uses God’s name in vain as he condemns America. Louis Farrakhan, Wright and even Obama have stated that America brought terrorism on herself because of her mistreatment of peoples of color. There’s Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party and the media, who are the pre-eminent expositors of the unfair treatment of blacks. There’s no way to get around it. Literally not a day goes by that blacks in America do not complain that they are mistreated and denied because of the color of their skin.

If that is truly the case, why do they stay here? Why not leave and go where they will be happy? Why not leave and go to a country where “true” opportunity exists? A place where they are taken care of and provided for better than they are in America?

It’s a conundrum to me as to why a group of people – who supposedly are as mistreated and persecuted as blacks are in America – would want to stay here. Let them leave, and let them take liberals, socialists and the Obamas with them. Because it’s obvious that America cannot satisfy any of them.

Let them go to Liberia. Maybe they can do more with it than Marcus Garvey was able to. But by all means, let them leave here, so that We the People who love America and what she represents can live in harmony enjoying the traditions that made her the envy of the world.

But alas, they won’t do that. They’ll stay here and spread immiseration and complaint because, in truth, they understand there is no other nation that will work as hard as America has to accommodate their malcontent.

Joe WASP #racist #wingnut identitydixie.com

[From "The Men of Magnolia"]

What often comes to mind when thinking of Mississippi? The images are most likely not very flattering and often tend to be a bit stereotypical. The Magnolia State receives much criticism and condescending feelings from many who do not live there and from a few who do. While the beliefs and ideas espoused by normies is typical as per their brainwashing, what perplexes the mind is the lack of admiration for and lack of attention that Mississippi receives from Southern Nationalists, possibly due to it sending fewer men to fight than other states in the Confederacy or having very few known leaders or generals during that war.

Maybe it is because of the lack of notability of much of its political leadership following the War until at least the 1960’s. Perhaps it is simply a lackluster state. Despite the lack of attention it garners, Mississippi produced many of the best and staunchest Southern Democrats of the 20th Century. Many were firebrands and did drum up the ire of social media and the government in their fights against the communist-backed Civil Rights Movement and worked diligently to stave off its success, one in particular even writing a book in defense of segregation. This article seeks to shed some light on a few of these great men and justify why Mississippi is the most underrated state in Dixie among Southern Nationalists.

John E. Rankin

John Elliot Rankin served as a state representative to the House for sixteen consecutive terms from 1920 to 1952. What makes him stand out among the other men mentioned on this list is his willingness to work extensively within, what was at the time, the liberalizing Democratic Party in order to benefit Mississippi, as well as, ensure segregation remained in effect without butting heads with other congressman. While he worked to ensure his state’s voice was heard in Congress, much to the chagrin of the many liberal northern Democrats, he supported FDR’s New Deal programs as an attempt to spur development and investment in poor rural areas, even coauthoring the Tennessee Valley Authority. He also supported the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.

Despite his support for the New Deal, he supported the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 being distributed in a decentralized manner to the states, thus allowing Jim Crow laws to be utilized when enforcing this act in the South. He hated the UN, seeing it as a threat to America and stated, “The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all History. Its purpose is to destroy the United States.” He was also known for his hatred of communists, even helping establish the House Un-American Activities Committee. He did all this and much more in his passion to fight against communists in the government, as well as, maintain the representation of his people within the government, a trait far too uncommon today.

Fielding L. Wright

Fielding Lewis Wright never served any offices above the state level. Following his service during World War I, he served in the Mississippi Senate and House and eventually went on to be lieutenant governor to Thomas Lowry Bailey. He took the position of governor when Bailey died in 1946 and was reelected as governor in 1947. He governed Mississippi during a time of drastic change. The South, being heavily rural, was working to industrialize and modernize its economy following World War II. Wright worked to ensure this happened. He also focused greatly on the Civil Rights issue, states’ rights and segregation, which ultimately resulted in his political wins as governor.

However, he did not always achieve success. Wright is most well known for running on the vice presidential ticket for the Dixiecrat Party in 1948, a party which failed to win the election and disbanded shortly after. He did not succeed politically following the end of his governor term in 1952 and was defeated, returning to his old job of law practice.

Theodore G. Bilbo

Theodore Gilmore Bilbo served two non-consecutive governor terms, once from 1916 to 1920 and a second time from 1928 to 1932, and was later elected to the US Senate from 1935 to 1947. Prior to this, he served in the Mississippi Senate and was lieutenant governor. His term as governor was quite successful in implementing progressive policies, managing to organize state finances, reform education policies, build a charity hospital, create a board of bank examiners and ban public hangings. He earned the nickname “Bilbo the Builder” because of his success in authorizing a state highway system, building lime-crushing plants, establishing new dormitories at the Old Soldiers’ Home, constructing a tuberculosis hospital and working toward the eradication of the South American tick. His political career is filled with many projects, events and ideas he undertook.

Despite having done so much as governor, what he is most well known for were his racial attitudes, as well as, his time in the US Senate. He spent much of his time feuding with other members of Congress, especially another Mississippi Senator by the name of Pat Harrison. Bilbo represented the poor tenant farmers, whereas Harrison represented the upper-class planters and merchants. Bilbo also drew much criticism for his outspoken views on racial segregation; in fact, he is the only person on this list who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. However, like most other Democrats, he did support FDR’s New Deal administration and even proposed an amendment to the federal work relief bill that would have deported millions of blacks to Liberia. He came up with the idea out of inspiration from beliefs espoused by black separatists such as Marcus Garvey.

He may have done quite a lot in regards to upholding segregation and supporting it orally, but the staple of his racial legacy was his book Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization. In this book, Bilbo summarized his views on race and segregation. Unfortunately, he died in 1947 not long after the book was published. Interestingly enough, on his deathbed, he requested the black editor of the newspaper Negro South to publish the statement, “I am honestly against the social intermingling of Negroes and Whites but I hold nothing personal against the Negroes as a race. They should be proud of their God-given heritage just as I am proud of mine. I believe Negroes should have the right [to indiscriminate use of the ballot], and in Mississippi too—when their main purpose is not to put me out of office and when they won’t try to besmirch the reputation of my state.” He was quite an interesting man indeed.

Ross Robert Barnett

By far the most notable person on this list, Ross Robert Barnett was the Governor of Mississippi from 1960 to 1964. This man was a firebrand and carried that image anywhere he went; his gubernatorial campaign included its own song, based off the state anthem “Go Mississippi.” He garnered spotlight for being an outspoken, staunch segregationist, especially for being a governor with those views during the most intense leftist Civil Rights push. He allowed for the arrests of various Civil Rights activists and Freedom Riders and was a member of the Citizens’ Council. He also fought in a vain attempt to keep Ole Miss, his alma mater, from being integrated. On the eve of the Ole Miss riot of 1962, he attended the Ole Miss vs Kentucky Wildcats game. The crowd numbered roughly 41,000, waving countless rebel flags and unveiling a huge rebel flag on the field. When the student body shouted “We want Ross!” he stepped out onto the field and shouted the now famous sixteen word speech: “I love Mississippi! I love her people! Our customs. I love and I respect our heritage.”

Barnett continued to work against integration, but to no avail. Interestingly enough about him, he was a Baptist Sunday School teacher and often espoused Biblical views on racial separation. He made statements such as “The Good Lord was the original segregationist. He put the black man in Africa. … He made us white because he wanted us white, and He intended that we should stay that way.”

Unfortunately, Barnett would only serve one term as governor. He served in other lower positions and areas of influence, but never again saw the same level of political success and popularity as he had during his time as governor. He is the only person on this list to actually live to see the Civil Rights Movement’s conclusion and is one of the few Southern politicians who lived afterwards for several years to never renounce or backtrack any of his previous racial views and stated, “Generally speaking, I’d do the same things again.”

Mississippi produced some of the finest men in Dixie and still does. It may not have shined during the War of Northern Aggression quite as much as states like Virginia or Tennessee, but it proved its mettle and worth during the Jim Crow Era, specifically, the latter part of it. Mississippi is a beautiful state with a long history of hardiness and stalwart men who refused to cave to the ideals of the weak and evil men. These weak men now control much of the government and more continue to flood here, fleeing the messes they made of their homes in the North and on the West Coast.

It is quite unfortunate that the Magnolia State does not receive the love it most certainly deserves, as the Men of Magnolia were truly some of the best.

Hunter Wallace #racist occidentaldissent.com

[From "The Compatibility of Alt-Right Christianity"]

Connor Grubaugh of First Things has responded to my response to Matthew Rose’s article The Anti-Christian Alt-Right.

Admittedly, I found the narrative about the Alt-Right and Christianity that Matthew Rose spun amusing and unconvincing and responded by lampooning it. After all, I’m a Lutheran who reads Rod Dreher and First Things. I’ve never read Alain de Benoist or Julius Evola. I’ve read Oswald Spengler and Friedrich Nietzsche, but I don’t consider their ideas to be the source of my own worldview.

Matthew Rose has a preconceived narrative: the Alt-Right is anti-Christian. In order to further this narrative, he cites the Alt-Right’s leading atheists – Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer – and dives into the European roots of Identitarianism. Like any good Nietzschean, he traces the genealogy of the Alt-Right to Alain de Benoist and the European New Right and Julius Evola and Radical Traditionalism. This is how he reaches the shocking conclusion that the Alt-Right is pagan and fundamentally anti-Christian.

As I said in the previous article, the Alt-Right is united by the belief that “race exists, race matters and race is the foundation of identity.” This is why there are atheists, agnostics, pagans and Christians who identify and affiliate with the Alt-Right.

The movement has always been internally divided over religion. The people who join the Alt-Right subscribe to a broad range of religious perspectives, but all of us are equally stigmatized and dissent from the mainstream on this particular issue.

The truth is that the origin of my racial views … are American! I find the notion that the Alt-Right is incompatible with Christianity to be preposterous. It is on the same level as the argument made by Russell Moore that the cross and Confederate flag “cannot co-exist without one setting the other on fire.” In reality, the cross and the Confederate flag got along swimmingly well during the historical Confederacy and for generations thereafter. No one in the South at the time perceived any contradiction between the two. Southerners became more intensely Christian during and after the War Between the States. The argument was made that God had allowed the Confederacy to be bathed in blood, its cities destroyed, and its enemies triumphant in order to test and sanctify His favored people.

The Alt-Right’s credo that “race exists, race matters and race is the foundation of identity” was the conventional wisdom of the American South for centuries. This view was also the mainstream view in White America until the Second World War. If Christianity in “its original and most animating form is fundamentally incompatible with the Faustian ethic and race-based mythos of the alt-right,” then it follows that the United States which was founded and settled by Christians would have never existed in the first place.

Every American president from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower was a racist. The Fourteenth Amendment had to be passed in order for blacks to become American citizens.

If the Alt-Right is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, then how did we come to live in this multiracial society in the first place? The answer is that race realism and Christianity were not thought to be incompatible until modern times. In the past, Christians came up with all sorts of ingenious theological arguments to rationalize everything from race realism to slavery to white supremacy to colonialism. The Puritans had their errand in the wilderness as the New Israel. The Spanish conquest of the New World was blessed by the Papacy. Africans in the South were said to be afflicted by the Curse of Ham which doomed them to be the “servant of servants.” Growing up in the Jim Crow South, my father-in-law was taught that blacks were “the beasts of the field” found in the Old Testament.

According to the Ten Commandments, Christians are instructed not to covet our “neighbor’s wife, or his or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The Old Testament is full of genocides. Jesus Christ had nothing to say about racism and neither did Christendom until the 20th century. It was communists who came up with the notion that “racism” is a sin and it was the Soviet Union that started propagating that doctrine in the 1920s. The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t discover that racism was immoral until the 1990s – the last major institution in American society to come to this realization.

The vast majority of Southern Christians opposed the Civil Rights Movement and its hated crusade for “social equality” just as their denominations had split over abolition in the antebellum era.

If anything is true, my racial views are a bit milder than my Christian ancestors who once believed in slavery and polygenesis in the 19th century. Unlike my Christian ancestors, I don’t believe in the Curse of Ham or that blacks are the products of miscegenation with chimpanzees in West Africa. I don’t believe that blacks are the pre-Adamite “beasts of the field” like Southerners did in the Jim Crow South. I only bring this up to point out this was the mainstream view at the time and to show that race realism and Christianity were fundamentally compatible. The politically correct view that race realism and Christianity are “fundamentally incompatible” has been a minority opinion throughout most of American history. It also wasn’t the church which challenged and overthrew white supremacy.

Connor Grubaugh argues that I believe that “Christianity lacks any truth conditions whatsoever—that it is devoid of content, a mere vessel of empty signs and symbols, to be filled with foreign substances and remolded to suit them.” No, I am just not historically illiterate enough to make disingenuous theological arguments, especially ones which are flatly contradicted by the history of my own people. I’m on solid historical ground when I point out that Christianity easily adapted itself to racialism, slavery, imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy and much else besides in the New World, Africa and Asia.

Christians had sound theological arguments to justify all of these things.

How do we explain this? Is there simply no truth to Christian doctrine? My view is that the church has traditionally seen its job as the salvation of individual souls. The Kingdom of God isn’t of this world. The church has traditionally drawn distinctions between spiritual equality – the idea that all human beings have souls and are made in the image of God, which is why the church has resisted polygenesis, Darwinism and eugenics – and physical equality or equality in status and condition. The ease with which the church has accommodated the political establishment and adapted to a bewildering variety of authoritarian and hierarchical cultures through history is due to this otherworldly focus.

I suppose you could say that I don’t take American Christianity all that seriously when the Lutheran Church has condemned Martin Luther for anti-Semitism. In my view, it is plainly a subordinate subculture. It follows the dominant Jewish mainstream secular culture like a shadow – the idea that “racism” is immoral, interracial adoptions, political correctness, signaling over gay marriage which has recently become fashionable.

None of this stems from Christian doctrine so much as it does from the dominance of the mass media and basic human nature which is to yearn for social acceptance. Christian leaders want to be seen as respectable and in step with the secular mainstream.

Perhaps this is the real reason why we are now hearing that “the Alt-Right is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.” The Alt-Right is being criticized by the political and cultural establishment. So naturally this is why their handmaidens in the church have followed suit. A few years from now, Christian conservatives will be arguing that transphobia is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The past will also be conveniently discarded in the pursuit of mainstream respectability.

polakfury #fundie reddit.com

Civil Rights History Test

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY NOTE: All answers are "b."

1.What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

2.What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

3.What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

4.What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

5.What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

6.What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

7.What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

8.What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

9.What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

10.What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

11.What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

12.What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

13.What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and had the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

14.What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina while governor, and Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

15.What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

16.What is the Party of President Barack Obama whose liberal socialist policies increased black poverty and devastated both HBCUs and charter school opportunity scholarships for poor black student after President Obama took office?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

17.What Party is against school vouchers and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

And they never did switch. Remember Hillary gave praise to Robert Byrd as a Hero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kajm: And Thank God he's buried them.

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

(argument between two users, leading to this)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesse Lee Peterson #racist rightwingwatch.org

(Uncle Tom’s at it again. And holy shit! is he deep up massa’s ass.)

Right-wing commentator and pastor Jesse Lee Peterson joined a broadcast hosted by neo-Nazis yesterday and expressed his appreciation that the hosts were influencing young white men.

During a Nov. 6 stream on the website DLive, Peterson joined Robert Warren Ray, who is better known by his persona “Azzmador” on the neo-Nazi blog The Daily Stormer, and a person only identified as “Jimmy,” but whose voice sounds remarkably similar to Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin. During the appearance, Ray asked Peterson to elaborate on his frequent claims that black people in America lived better under Jim Crow laws–which enforced racial segregation in the American South, stripped African Americans of their rights, and enabled racial terrorism against African Americans–than they do today.

“Black people were not whining, complaining, and begging and blaming the white man. They were better off then than they are today because they had family and they treated everyone the way that they would like to be treated. And they knew that there were good and bad in all cultures,” Peterson told Ray.

Peterson insisted that Jim Crow laws would have been naturally reversed by a diverse group of “decent people” of different races, but that the civil rights movement “forced things to happen, and you can’t make anyone love you.” Peterson said the civil rights movement “should have never happened” and described it as a “big mistake.”

At the end of Peterson’s interview with the hosts, Peterson told them: “I’m really happy to know that there are other guys like you guys out there encouraging these young men to overcome anger and return to God, because their parents didn’t tell them that, and they’re not getting it in the schools. And especially with the young white males, I don’t want them to destroy themselves by being angry and doing the wrong thing because that’s a set-up from the children of the lie.”

“Children of the lie” is a term that Peterson often uses to describe people he believes are influenced by evil forces.

“I’m glad that the word is getting out that you can speak up, but don’t hate, because if you hate, you’re going to do something that you regret later, and we’re going to have a civil war, and they’re going to call you white supremacist and racist, and they’re going to make laws that destroy white men or anyone that stands up,” Peterson said.

Jimmy asked if Peterson believed there was not a political solution to the societal flaws they collectively perceived, to which Peterson agreed. After Peterson left the podcast, Jimmy praised Peterson for agreeing with him that “these young black men are a major problem” and suggested that the United States would need to have laws against “race-mixing.” Peterson, Jimmy said, “seems like the kind of guy we should be embracing if we’re looking for some kind of solution to the black problem.”

Peterson has long associated with extremists, both hosting them on his show and appearing on shows hosted by extremists. In January, he appeared on a white nationalist podcast and told the host that “unless white people take over, it’s over for America.”

Jimmy Bradford and the Normanna Cemetery Association #racist rawstory.com

Dorothy Barrera was married to her late husband, Pedro, for more than 40 years before he died in February.

He was Hispanic. She is white. Dorothy expected they would eventually be together again when she was buried beside Pedro in the San Domingo Cemetery in the tiny, rural town of Normanna.

But when she looked to bury his ashes in the cemetery, she allegedly ran into the cemetery’s “whites only” policy — an apparent relic of Jim Crow-era segregation in Texas that’s thrust this small community, located an hour northwest of Corpus Christi, into a modern-day desegregation fight.

That’s what is alleged in a federal lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund against the Normanna Cemetery Association, which oversees the cemetery. The lawsuit alleges the association is violating the federal Civil Rights Act by enforcing a “whites only” rule at the San Domingo Cemetery, leaving Hispanics and other non-whites to be buried in the nearby Del Bosque Cemetery.

According to the lawsuit, cemetery operator Jimmy Bradford told Barrera that her request to bury her husband at the cemetery had been denied by the Normanna Cemetery Association. When Barrera questioned the vote, Bradford allegedly responded Pedro Barrera couldn’t be buried there “because he’s a Mexican” and directed her to “go up the road and bury him with the n—– and Mexicans,” the federal complaint details.

The cemetery association later backtracked, allowing the burial to move forward. Details about the association’s governing board are not public, and it’s unclear who makes up the board. A listing with GuideStar shows that the association’s tax exempt status was revoked by the IRS.

Barrera has yet to bury her husband’s ashes in the cemetery. Her attorney says she’s planning to file her own lawsuit, and the U.S. Department of Justice is also looking into the issue.

Bradford and the Normanna Cemetery Association could not be reached for comment. Bradford did speak to a local television station reporter in March and said that Barrera’s husband “wasn’t supposed to be buried there because he’s a Mexican or of Spanish descent, or whatever you want to say.”

“That’s what I told her and that’s what we’ve been doing,” he added.

There are no burial sites for Hispanic residents within the chain-link fence enclosure of the cemetery, according to the lawsuit. Just outside the fence is one headstone with a Spanish surname dated 1910.

“We do think that this particular policy is emblematic of racial tensions that still exist in smaller rural communities in Texas,” said Marisa Bono, the lead MALDEF attorney on the case. “Historically, Texas — especially south Texas — was sort of replete with segregated cemeteries and so there’s sort of an open question on whether this is still a problem.”

Segregated cemeteries were “extremely common” in Texas, largely because of Jim Crow laws, said Jenny McWilliams, cemetery preservation program coordinator for the Texas Historical Commission.

“Whites only” cemeteries have been illegal since 1948 when the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial covenants on real estate. State law also dictates that cemetery organizations may not“adopt or enforce a rule” that prohibits burials based on “race, color, or national origin of decedent.”

But the tarnished legacies of segregated cemeteries have lived on in many areas of Texas where some local leaders have worked to formally deem such policies defunct.

The burial of a white woman in 2008 highlighted Waller County’s history of segregated cemeteries. In 2014, Waco officials announced plans to remove a chainlink fence that cut through the city-owned cemetery separating burial sites of white and black residents. And in February, the Denton City Council renounced an old deed that restricted burials in the city cemetery to white people.

But experts were unable to recall another instance in which a Texas cemetery was accused of continuing to enforce a “whites only” rule.

“It’s unfortunate because it’s against the law,” said Jim Kennerly, a spokesman for the Texas Cemeteries Association. “I guess there’s still ignorant people out there.”

Pogue Mahone #fundie fray.slate.com

Relax! You're an athiest! The cock only crows three times when you renounce Jesus, not when you renounce your non-belief. Remember, a Christian has to answer to God at the end of the day. You don't have to answer to anyone! Isn't that why most of you folks rationalize yourselves into being nonbelievers in the first place?

WorldGoneCrazy-NotMurderedYet #fundie disqus.com

"Or alternatively they could've appealed to the 13th amendment which makes slavery illegal."

You are confusing "legal" with "moral" and "limiting rights" with "slavery."

Equating the abolishment of abortion with "gestational slavery" is the "logical" equivalent of saying that the REAL slavers were the ones who abolished slavery by limiting the "rights" of slaveowners. You can surely see what kinds of absurdities that leads to - reducing the "rights" of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles somehow becomes "slavery."

What you REALLY need to prove is why it is moral to apply the death penalty to innocent humans. (Unless you are going to deny simple science and declare that the human in the womb is somehow not human.)

Good luck making that case!

Russell Moore #fundie erlc.com

The article quotes me telling the photographer that he need not investigate the background of every wedding he performs, but they do not quote the next sentence: “But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for the conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.”

Here’s why this matters. The photographer has, in most cases, no ability or authority to find out the sorts of things a pastor or church elders would about a marrying couple. Most evangelical Christians, this one included, believe there are circumstances in which it is biblically moral for a divorced person to remarry. And all Christians—regardless of what we think about a church’s responsibility—think that marriages between otherwise qualified unbelieving men and women are good things, grounded in a creation ordinance.

It’s possible, of course, that the man and woman who’ve contracted with a wedding singer are just marrying to get a green card. It’s possible that they don’t plan to be faithful to one another. It’s possible that she’s already married to three other men. It’s possible that their love is just a reality show stunt. Or, to take us back to Corinth, it’s possible the blushing bride is the groom’s ex-stepmother. But unless the photographer has a reason to think this, he needn’t hire a private investigator or ask for birth certificates and court papers to make sure it’s not.

In the case of a same-sex marriage, the marriage is obviously wrong, in every case. There are no circumstances in which a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be morally involved in a sexual union (I have no reason to assume that Powers and Merritt disagree with apostolic Christianity on this point. If so, they should make that clear).

Now, the question at hand was one of pastoral counsel. How should a Christian think about his own decision about whether to use his creative gifts in a way that might, he believes, celebrate something he believes will result in eternal harm to others. I recognize there are some blurry lines at some of these points. But what isn’t blurry is the question of state coercion.

It’s of no harm to anyone else if Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt (both of whom I love) think me to be a hypocrite. It’s fine for the Daily Beast to ridicule the sexual ethic of the historic Christian church, represented confessionally across the divide of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. It’s quite another thing for the state to coerce persons through fines and penalties and licenses to use their creative gifts to support weddings they believe to be sinful.

That’s broader than just homosexuality. I don’t want wedding singers forced to use their lyrics and voices to tell us how great it is that Herod and Herodias or Henry VIII and fill-in-the-blank wife’s name are soul-mates.

This article maintains that there are no circumstances in which the Bible “calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage.” Really?

Does that apply only to the morality of marriage? Should a Christian (or Muslim or Orthodox Jewish or feminist New Age) web designer be compelled to develop a site platform for a legal pornography company?

Now, again, we might debate the best ways to see to it that consciences are protected by law and in the courts. But acting as though those concerned about such things are the reincarnation of Jim Crow is unworthy of this discussion. Moreover, the implications for conscience protection are broad and long-lasting. This isn’t just a tit-for-tat Internet discussion. The lives and livelihoods of real people are on the line, all because they won’t render unto Caesar (or to Mammon) that which they believe belongs to God.

StraightWhiteMale #racist #psycho #elitist changeaview.com

How to end vagrancy and illegal aliens simultaneously

We could get rid of illegals in a month - if we wanted to. Problem is, nobody wants to. Hispanics don't want their brothers to leave. Consumers don't want higher prices for food and services. Investors don't want increased labor costs.

BUT, there is a solution:

Enforce E-Verify and eliminate birthright citizenship (or make it restricted jus soli). Do those two things and we wouldn't even need a wall - the illegals would deport themselves.

OK now what? What about the cheap labor?

Use prison labor (perfectly legal under the 13th Amendment) and vagrants to do the work the illegals are doing now.

How? There is only ONE solution: Offer the vagrants three choices: Stop being homeless OR accept room and board in return for sobriety and WORK (via job shops) OR get arrested and be put to work. The couple of percent who truly are too ill to work, we will take care of (after we've concluded they have no assets or income). The job shops partition out work the illegals are doing now: picking crops, processing chicken, sorting recyclables, cleaning buses, repairing hiking trails, picking up trash, etc. The employers pay back the government to offset the cost of the room and board or incarceration. There are no other solutions. Get tough or accept vagrancy.This is bullet proof. Win Win Win Win Win. If you have a better solution, provide it.

CALVIN FREIBURGER #fundie liveactionnews.org

image
In their never-ending quest to impugn the motives of pro-lifers, abortion defenders have accused us of hypocrisy because some support the death penalty and others oppose various government benefits.

Another variation of this attack has surfaced in our comment threads recently. Sharon Rose says the only way we can justify opposing abortion would be if we’re “equally and as vehemently against war, against the death penalty, against killing of any kind.” Astraspider asks if we respected human life “when we punished 100,000 Iraqis with their lives to avenge 3,000 of our own deaths they had nothing to do with[.]” The alleged hypocrisy of simultaneously being pro-life and “pro-war” is a very popular talking point.

But as with many other pro-abortion efforts, the logic of this attack doesn’t extend beyond the superficial. To start by getting the obvious out of the way, the pro-life movement isn’t of one mind on foreign policy, meaning pro-aborts will need to find some other reason to hate those of us who don’t fit their generalization.

The claim doesn’t fare much better against the rest of us, either, because nobody is simply “pro-war” in the sense that it’s something to celebrate, as if they value conquest and bloodshed for their own sake. Everybody supports American involvement in some wars (just about everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees on World War II, for instance) and opposes involvement in others, based on the unique circumstances of particular cases.

We could endlessly argue the merits of our nation’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any number of other conflicts throughout our history, as well as the various mistakes made in each one. Such a debate, however, would depend largely on hotly contested factual questions, in-depth historical analysis, and navigating the nuances of international politics, and therefore falls more within the scope of a foreign policy website than a pro-life one.

Suffice to say, proponents of a given military action believe their cause is warranted under just war theory: it is meant to end or prevent a greater loss of life than that of the war itself, non-violent alternatives have been exhausted, effort is made to spare civilians as much suffering as possible, etc. Such judgments may be correct or mistaken depending on the case, but they don’t constitute a devaluing of human life.

What our critics are really saying, then, is that we have to be pacifists in order to truly be pro-life. Which is an absurd standard, considering that no right other than thought is completely without limitation. Is it “anti-freedom” to support imprisoning felony convicts? Is it “anti-speech” to support libel laws? Is it “anti-life” to let police officers use lethal force? Clearly not. It’s entirely reasonable, principled, and consistent to value a right while recognizing limitations on it when it comes into unavoidable conflict with other rights.

Lastly, and most importantly, the potential wrongness of any given war and of those who support them has no bearing on the case against abortion. We could concede the wrongness of every single war this nation’s ever fought, and it still wouldn’t justify letting us slaughter the unborn. There is simply no comparison between killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield and the needless and killing a baby in the womb. The former (in just wars) involves someone who knew the risks going in and has defensive capabilities, and is meant to save lives in the long run. The latter involves an innocent, defenseless victim, and saves nobody.

Indeed, abortion’s death toll still dwarfs the American casualty count of every major war we’ve ever fought, and matches the combined total. Crying hypocrisy isn’t enough to clean the blood off abortion defenders’ hands.

Lori #fundie cbn.com

By fifth grade, I was fascinated with Friday the 13th and was convinced that "Jason" was peering through my windows at night. Now I realize that most children believe that there are monsters underneath their beds, but my fixation didn't go away.

In middle school, I met some friends who introduced me to another world. They told me that they could contact the dead and learn hidden secrets about their lives. I'll never forget the time I asked the ouija board who I would marry. It replied, "the Devil." That's when I knew that I was in a very dangerous place

4given #fundie rr-bb.com

[Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on "discriminatory bias" against homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles.]

What they need to call for is a total Exodus from California. All the christians should flee the state, let them have their reprobate ways.

Hierothee #fundie cosmos-liturgy-sex.com

It is now official. The American people, in their quest for “change,” have elected to the presidency the most radically pro-abortion, eugenics-minded, enemy of the natural family and religious freedom conceivable. It hardly needs pointing out that many poor, duped souls see Barack Obama not only as a political figure but as our Lord Sovereign King Almighty and as the Savior of the World. Indeed, he sees himself in these messianic terms. No doubt his messianic self-image will increase several-fold now that he has been officially designated God Incarnate by the American masses.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

What concerns me, though, is the possibility that Mr. Cook, and many of his fellow liberals, actually do understand what Jim Crow laws were, what the Indiana RFRA does, and still believe that a connection between the two is logical. What we’ve seen in American culture over the last few years is a tectonic shift in how many on the left think about the relationship between sexual politics and law. Emerging is a portrait of what my friend Alastair Roberts calls “New Morality.” New Morality is a specific narrative about human ethics, particularly the sexual kind, that places certain moral demands on all who want to participate in public life. The New Morality is specific about what must happen to those who refuse its worldview: They must relinquish the right to be heard.

New Morality is not liberalism, at least the way liberalism is often explained. Most social conservatives see the major threat of liberalism as permissiveness, the sanctioning of immoral or un-American behavior that threatens the social order. There’s still truth in that, of course, but New Morality is actually the opposite of permissiveness, it is prescription. It’s not quite right to think of New Morality liberalism as simply allowing too many things. Rather, by subjugating civil life to a set of postmodern doctrines about the autonomous self, it allows too few. Dissent has become heresy, and heresy cannot co-exist with the pure faith. We used to picture liberalism as pushing the boundaries of our conscience. New Morality liberalism has found an entirely new conscience, and seeks to shrink the margins, not expand them.

The belief that the Indiana RFRA is a license for discrimination is coherent only if one believes that offering any sort of legal recourse for businesses in discrimination lawsuits is itself intolerant. But that’s exactly where the times have taken us. We have arrived at a place where prominent columnists can speak openly about “stamping out” voices who disagree with New Morality. We see private Christian universities punished for hiring policies consistent with their charters and articles of faith. We see the personal lives of judges carefully screened and regulated for anti-New Morality activity. What is being created before our eyes is in no way secular. It is religion, and religious orthodoxy is the price of citizenship.

So then, we come back to the issue of what liberalism means. My question is: Who are today’s liberals? Who are the ones who will protest the creation of a state faith in New Morality and argue for the public inclusion of those with differing opinions? Who will widen the margins of civic life? Where are the true Jeffersons, the spokespeople for pluralism, the lovers of debate and of bottom-up cultural creation?

Can we find those liberals who defer to debate and persuasion rather than fiat and coercion? I’m afraid we have no choice. This isn’t about special protection for or the privileging of evangelicalism; it’s about recovering a sense of belonging for all in the public square. To be liberal is to believe that no social orthodoxy is ever worth more than freedom of conscience. That is precisely the conviction that is at risk today. Against this backdrop, Indiana’s RFRA is a fundamentally liberal law. The question is: Where are its liberal champions?

Eden Decoded #fundie facebook.com

Blacks sound stupid when they say that Republicans are racists. The Republican Party voted to free Blacks from slavery (they initiated the Civil War); The Republican Party voted against Jim Crow (meanwhile the Democrats pushed it into law); Republicans were the ones that voted for us to get land, political status, and voting rights (meanwhile the Democrats consistently passed laws to make it difficult and virtually impossible for Blacks to amass land and wealth to lead politically).

Meanwhile Blacks don't even know that the Democratic Party has over 150 years of White Supremacy and racist policies.

The reason why the Democrats want open borders and easy immigration, is so they can continue to NOT give Black Americans what's been owed to them for decades. The Democratic Party's mission was and will always be to keep Black Americans at the foot of society until they are no longer relevant.

It's absolutely embarrassing to see Blacks dancing on the Democratic stage! You don't know how foolish and ignorant that makes you look. You look like those rats that the Pied Piper led to their drowning death.

The love of sin is the reason why a Black Christian would vote for Hillary Clinton. She stays true to her Democratic roots: racism. She's just upgraded it to abortion (eugenics), NAFTA (closing tens of thousands of factories that employed Blacks; welfare (monetary reward for women that embrace whoredom and having bastard babies); and ObamaCare (giving the false illusion of free with a high price tag).

Too many Christians are showing God exactly how lazy they are. Pretending to be holy, when really they are just hiding behind their favorite sins.

Trump doesn't have a record of racism. Nor does he have a track record of disenfranchising Black Men. He's actually created a NEW DEAL contract with Black America: to make it possible for us to have viable businesses, stable families, and the ability to compete fairly in the workplace again.

So what do Black people have to lose by voting for Trump?

The Administration #racist kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

*fundie here is trying to pick on leftists by parodying their talking points, or something*

As a follow-on from the previous entry, the Washington Post just reported on more racial violence in Iraq stemming from the Jim Crow policies of the Yazidi hate-group. Excerpts below.

"DAHUK, Iraq — Extremist fighters have killed more than 80 men and detained hundreds of women in a Yazidi village, Yazidis and Kurdish officials said Saturday, offering a reminder that the ancient minority sect is still at risk despite President Obama’s conclusion that the threat had passed for those stranded on Mount Sinjar.

Islamic State militants drove into the village of Kocho, about 15 miles southwest of the town of Sinjar, on Friday, following a week-long siege in which the al-Qaeda inspired group demanded that residents convert to Islam or face death, said the reports, which could not be independently verified.

The men were rounded up and executed, while the women were taken to an undisclosed location, according to Ziad Sinjar, a pesh merga commander based on the edge of Mount Sinjar, citing the accounts of villagers nearby. Six men were injured but survived, and managed to escape to a nearby village where they are being sheltered by sympathetic local Sunni Iraqis, he said. One of them told him that 84 Yazidi men were lined up and shot and that more than 300 women were taken away.

Yazidi activists and Kurdish officials said at least 80 men were killed and hundreds of women taken away after the fighters entered the village shortly after 1 pm on Friday."

Though unnecessary, we should state the obvious: this is how the Fright-Wing noise machine operates. Notice the designation of the ISIS community as “extremist” when it is in fact they who are marginalized in Iraqi society and Yazidis who are the segregationists.

The fact is that Iraq is a large country and sometimes 80 men are put against the wall and shot. These are random youth robberies gone wrong. To even attempt to pin blame on an ISIS community that itself already suffers so much violence is outrageous. We should be thinking of how to end the cycle of poverty that traps these young men in a world without hope. We should be providing education and opportunity to Iraq’s most at-risk.

Suggesting the existence of a “Yazidi knock-out game” serves no purpose other than to perpetuate a hateful racial stereotype that has no place in modern Iraq.

Many in the ISIS community feel the Yazidis don’t even care about them. Aside from discriminatory housing practices, ISIS civil-rights leaders complain that Yazidis routinely pass them over in hiring and promotional opportunities. One glance at the shocking figures of ISIS under representation will quickly validate the assertion.

Instead of inflaming ancient hatreds by rumor mongering of alleged “massacres,” Yazidi leaders should instead be working to integrate the ISIS people and bring them out of the shadows. And that seems to be the greatest struggle of all. Because at this point the Yazidis have not yet learned to be multicultural. That can be a difficult transition for those with ingrained notions of bigotry. But without that transition, the Yazidi people will not survive.

Peace in both Iraq and the Middle East as a whole hinges entirely on the rejection of segregation and an embrace of diversity. It is only when Jew, Alawite, Shia, Yazidi, Sunni, Christian, and Kurd are living house to house and side by side that harmony will finally come to this scarred land.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

"I have had zero to do with abortion my entire life."

Riiiiight. Says the one stalking pro-lifers on an abortion site. :-)

Yet you stalk those who want to end abortion just like your KKK ideological ancestors stalked those who wanted to end Jim Crow? :-)

What will you do when the ole abortuary shuts down, the deathscorting jobs dry up, and your blood money supply is shut off?

Maize #fundie washingtontimes.com

[On Christian business-owners having to provide services for same-sex couples]

The business owners need to make a stand against any unjust laws that compromise their freedom to practice their religious belief system in the public square. No state has the right to dictate any law that requires any business owner to conduct business by compromising his conscience. That is what Conscience Protections were instituted to guard against. Just because some law is enacted does not mean it is just. Just because some corrupt judge or representatives vote for some laws, does not mean they are just. How do you think the miscegenation laws and the Jim Crow laws were enacted--certainly not by business owners, but by corrupt representatives, upheld by corrupt judges and supported by corrupt politicians in the Democratic party.

thresholder #fundie dailykos.com

Why would a woman say STFU?

For a simple reason. The one we men have to imagine because we've never experienced it.

BECAUSE THEIR VOICES HAVE BEEN SILENCED AND PATRONIZED AND TRIVIALIZED AND SUPERSEDED FOR CENTURIES!

Men have no more idea what it feels like to be silenced than white people know what Jim Crow felt like.

And in THIS PARTICULAR CASE ...

Men have nothing legitimate to say. Women suffer in the millions from male sexual aggression and from being silenced about it afterwards.

And men, even apparently the "well meaning" progressives here, refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their suffering.

As a man, I feel deeply, deeply ashamed of what "we" do to satisfy our aggression urges.

Now, the specific question of this original diary was whether this is good tactics.

Well, what does history tell us? How many examples are there of oppressed people being delivered thru patient, silent acceptance until their oppressors decided to alleviate their suffering? Can you name one?

Protest is about raising your voice in holy, righteous anger. That's what this whole damn web site is about. No one is going to take suffering seriously until sufferers raise their voices and refuse to be silenced. If you don't get that basic dynamic, better step away from political activism.

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

But keep in mind most pervertarians are not homosexuals themselves, or have anything they stand to gain personally from abolishing marriage in the name of marriage equality. They are enemies of the Church, and have found a convenient stick with which to beat the Church: they can claim that laws against sodomy, or laws acknowledging marriage, are just like the Jim Crow laws the Democrats enacted in the South after the Republican Union smashed the Democrat institution of slavery. What the connection is between race-hatred, which is an irrational antipathy of a whole racial group of man based on a trivial external characteristic no one can control or change, and a moral opprobrium against sexual perverts, which a rational antipathy against those individuals who freely decide to transgress the bounds of law and of nature, is a mystery of the Democrat faith. It is a talking point, something said without substance, neither meaningful nor meant to be believed, merely an emotional appeal, like calling someone a bad name, or calling an atrocity by an nondescript euphemism. It is a word-fetish.

Hunter Wallace #racist occidentaldissent.com

[On Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and South Carolina.]

There are about 72 million people in these 7 states. 31.5 million of them are African-Americans, Hispanics, or Asians. The 7 state region as a whole is about 56 percent White. Of the Hispanics, the majority of the 1.8 million Cubans in America are in South Florida, and most of them are of Spanish ancestry, really no different from Italians in New Jersey.

The Asians wouldn’t be problem. The vast majority of them would almost certainly hit the nearest exit ramp as “shit gets real” in this area. The numbers show that the Hispanics are concentrated on the periphery of Dixie. Most of them live in the border counties in South and West Texas.

The 14 million African-Americans present the largest problem. The greatest challenge would be putting them down and restoring white supremacy. An ethnostate won’t be made here in a day. It could easily be created though in an independent nation-state over an extended period of time.

The solution isn’t the restoration of Jim Crow: it is South African-style-apartheid. Segregation was a system that evolved in the context of the Plessy decision. It was effectively the Compromise of 1896.

In an independent Gulf Coast Republic, the blacks would be stripped of their citizenship and voting rights, they would cease to be the social and political equals of Whites, and they would be confined into any number of the counties they have ruined which would be transformed into “homelands.”

The Indians are already on reservations in the Western states. Why can’t we put the blacks on reservations in the Deep South? There would be “White zones” and “Bantu zones.” Gradually, the “White zones” would expand over time in much the same way that the Jews have created Israel.

The White population would flourish and quickly rebound. Deprived of the welfare state, the black population would stagnate or decline. Millions of blacks would emigrate to the United States or other foreign countries.

In the distant future, after the culmination of a successful struggle for independence, after we have reestablished white supremacy, after we have used our independent national government to impose an apartheid system, after the White population has rebounded and the toxic poisons have been expunged from our culture, after generations of Whites have invested their lives in this great nation building project, then at last we would arrive at the White ethnostate in the Gulf Coast Republic.

Michael Williams #racist #wingnut amren.com

A Young White Man’s Struggle with Identity

This is part of our continuing series of accounts by readers of how they shed the illusions of liberalism and became race realists.

I am a white man in his mid-twenties who grew up in a middle-class home. My mom was a liberal public school teacher and was passionate about helping “oppressed” immigrants and minorities. She taught at inner-city schools and worked as a missionary in Haiti and Mexico. Looking back, I realize I was deeply influenced by her — especially since I had no real father figure. I was taught to not see color, and that in general, the reason why minorities and immigrants struggle in America was because of racist whites.

I was a rebellious teenager, and made plenty of trouble for myself throughout high school. Eventually, my bad behavior made my mom decide to pull me out of my majority white school and enroll me in the almost exclusively black school she taught at. She thought the black kids would “straighten me out” and “show me what it’s really like to have it bad” — but that isn’t what happened. Instead, I ended up coming to admire the black “gangster/thug life” and started using drugs and causing as much trouble as ever.

The next year she sent me back to the majority white school I had been pulled out of, but the trouble didn’t stop. I began using more and more drugs, and became addicted to Oxycontin. After that it was a downward spiral. I was willing to do anything to get the drug, and I started hanging around bad characters. By the end of high school, I was selling drugs and robbing people in order to fund my addiction.

Not long after I graduated, my parents kicked me out and I started “couch-surfing,” while still selling and using drugs. This ended with me going to a treatment center for a year and a half — but once I left, I quickly picked up my bad habits once again. I started selling crack and other drugs in a black ghetto, and my life was centered around getting high. But I soon found that I was not welcome there, and even hated. Not because I was dealing drugs, but just because I was white and operating in black “turf.” That period of my life was marked by many fights, a lot of close calls, and a revolving door of jail cells, treatment centers, and homelessness.

In the midst of all this chaos, I fathered a child with a black girl. Though nobody in my white family was bothered by this, some of my black “friends” and relatives of the mother openly voiced their disapproval of interracial relationships. Regardless, becoming a father motivated me to grow up, become a man, and change so I could be a good dad to my daughter. I sobered up and started working any job I could get.

My change in lifestyle made me start to think about race. As I was working hard, my “homies” still came around, but they never wanted to do anything but get high and get into trouble. A lot of my “friends,” most of them black, drifted away from me because I was doing something positive with my life instead of destroying it with drugs and crime. That was too “lame” for them. One of my closest black friends began constantly lamenting the fact that I was changing and wasn’t “the good old guy who just wanted to kick back and get high” anymore. But he still hung around, so I would say things to him like, “Hey I know we both have criminal records and drug problems, but if I can get sober and work to have a decent life, so can you.” I tried to be a positive influence, but he always had excuses.

One day, I told him, “I’ll help you put your resume together and I’ll take you to go apply to some jobs.” He said he would do it, but when I picked him up, he just wanted to get high and went on a long speech about oppression saying, “You don’t know how hard it is for a black man in America, it might be easy for you to just go and get a job, but not for me.” I asked him, “What makes you assume that it was easy for me? Just because I’m white?! And second, how are you going to cry victim when you haven’t even honestly tried to work hard or change? I’m offering to help you get a resume together, but you want to get high instead? No one is holding you back but yourself.” We argued and then went our separate ways.
Many blacks would rather live the “thug life” than work hard to make an honest living. Yet they make excuses, blame society, the police, and the white man for all their problems. Some blacks are hell bent on destroying themselves and everyone around them because they feel like victims, and they will never take any personal responsibility. I came to realize that the only thing I had ever had in common with blacks like that was a victim mentality and the desire to get high. Once I stopped being a victim and sobered up, none of them wanted anything to do with me anymore. Now that I was doing positive things with my life, they weren’t even happy for me, just envious.

I moved on and kept to myself in the years that followed. And after a few years of hard work and self-improvement, I got back together with the mother of my child and we moved in together. I was proud that I didn’t make excuses for myself, and did the hard work I needed to do to get my family back together, and made myself into the man and father they needed me to be. I don’t regret any of this. I did not want my child to grow up without a father, like I did. Fatherlessness is a huge issue in America today, leading to all kinds of dysfunction.

With my life in order, I turned my focus to education and the pursuit of truth. I dove into topics such as psychology, history, economics, politics, and ultimately — race. The more I learned, the more unconvinced I was by the “blue-pill” liberal worldview I grew up believing. When I discovered race realism, I was impressed by how many facts and statistics lined up with my own experiences living as a criminal in “the hood.” From there, I discovered the alarming realities of the “great replacement,” liberal censorship, and the violence committed by antifa and Black Lives Matter. The more I dove into the facts, the more I saw that Ben Shapiro, Jordan B. Peterson, Charles Murray, and Jared Taylor were telling the truth. Simultaneously, I realized how insidious the Left was in trying to smear, censor, shame, and shut down these thinkers. It was at this time that Donald Trump was elected, and I began seeing the protests, riots, rage, and unrest coming from the left. A political line in the sand was being drawn, and the Left was no longer open to dialogue: they were only interested in taking power by force.

White liberals claim to be on the side of minorities and other “oppressed” groups, but they know nothing about them. As a white man who lived the thug life in the hood for over eight years, I know that they hate the white liberals’ pandering, and when white boys imitate them. Most of them hate the idea of assimilating into white America: they want their own jurisdictions, culture, and rules — and they hate when whites intrude, peacefully or otherwise. Believers in the “melting pot” theory have never lived in a black community, but they like to imagine that they are great “warriors” and activists for justice and equality.

As a white man, and as a father to a black and white child, I felt that fully understanding racial issues was an absolute must. My daughter’s mother and I had many conversations about these matters, and — fortunately — she agreed with almost everything I was discovering about race. She saw the destructive tendencies of blacks firsthand. When she worked hard at her job or studied hard in school, other blacks were jealous and treated her with contempt for “acting white.” She has never been able to understand why most blacks have such a big chip on their shoulders, hate whites, and maintain a victim mentality when they never experienced slavery or Jim Crow themselves.

She doesn’t make excuses for her own shortcomings and has never cared that other blacks claim she isn’t “really black” or hated her for her success or for having a child with a white man. Because of this, our family remains strong and united. Some may accuse her of hating her own race, but the truth is simply that she refuses to buy into the lies and propaganda that blacks must fight against whites in order to succeed. She loves her own people, family, and race. She also appreciates and respects white culture and realizes that whites built this country and made it prosperous. She loves America, and doesn’t want it to change, so she supports the national identity of America as a white nation, and has no desire to see it taken over by blacks, immigrants, or “social justice warriors.” I believe more and more blacks are waking up and coming to support America instead of hating it.

I may have a mixed child, but I am a full supporter of the US, the white race, our culture, and our honor. I will die before I see our great country defiled and overtaken by leftists and foreigners who hate our culture and want to replace it with theirs. My grandfathers both died to defend this land, and it is my duty to do the same if the time comes — and every day it feels more and more like that day will come during my lifetime. The increasing amounts of censorship, indoctrination, government largesse, and white ethnomasochism that we see can make the future look bleak. But there is hope in the fact that if people wake up to the truth now — and stop being afraid to speak their minds — we can turn things around and preserve this great country — maybe even make it greater.

GameTrek #conspiracy #homophobia #racist deviantart.com

Apartheid regime - was basically part of colonial tatics which is pretty much segregation mo st likely brought on by the Zionists actions after WWII in 1945. During Hitler reign many "Jews" fled to the Palestine region, the government literally segregated Palestine and petitioned to make it a state of the Jews ( like a founding state for the religious practice ) and the UN gave troops to do the Zionists dirty work. Many arabics both Christian and Islamics/Muslims basically was forced to live in the areas provided where many had their land strip. Even if a Jewish person own land they were forced to move to areas where Jews were located.

All happen after 1945 and before 1948. "Apartheid regime" was most likely inspired by the Zionist along with the "great white flight" and Redlining of property.

The great migration - where blacks left south to escape racism 1900-1970
The great white flight - where many whites from the military came home and did not want to live next to anything different. 1945 - 1990
Redlining - where ( again Jews and supremacists ) literally purchased property of people leaving and encouraged blacks to move into cities and whites to move into suburbs. Creating the White Supremacists of Long Island
and the Black Ghettos. That being said many Jews during the 1970's in NYC
left buildings ) Ghettos. That being said creating the stereotype of "blacks in ghettos" mentalities.

The film is homosexual propaganda marketing the word "Moffie" appose to the negative plural of faggot.

Moffie is basically slang towards men big negative oppose to "flowery". It can mean many things like cross-dresser,

Flowery is a guy/boy/man who is soft spoken and appears feminine manor but is not. Like many dudes are just flowery ( 1960's peaceful mentality ).
Not gay...........however a moron who does not understand this slang might thing "Moffie".

Otherwise the film is propaganda.

"Apartheid regime and its culture of toxic racist machismo"

The Apartheid regime had not cultural, toxic racist machismo. In fact their is nothing wrong with that asides being labeled "toxic" which is a broad point. The point being as with the "Great White Flight" or even "Jim-Crow" was another reason to hold back South Africa

Apion33 #racist removeddit.com

In treatment of ethnic minorities, National Socialist Germany was among the fairest of all countries at the time, especially compared to Britain and America, two countries which Hitler despised specifically for their racism. Both “black” American athletes of the 1936 Berlin Olympics and “black” American POWs during WWII have remarked that they were treated more respectfully in National Socialist Germany than back at home where they were subject to Jim Crow laws. Moreover, a major theme of wartime anti-Allied propaganda was the racist abuse of colonial natives by the British Empire and other colonial powers, from which Germany was trying to save them.

Loyal citizens of all ethnicities were considered part of the National Socialist German folk, and the Waffen SS was the most multiethnic, non-segregated army in history, in an era when ethnic segregation was the norm among Western armies. The Nuremberg Laws – which required segregation only of tribes such as Jews and Gypsies (who themselves had chosen to maintain a separate identity from Germany as a whole), not “black” people or any other ethnic minority - were anti-racist laws to prevent racism by tribes against the rest of the population. The attempt by racist Wilhelm Frick in 1935 to “expand” the Nuremberg Laws to apply to other ethnic minorities resulted in his gradual removal from positions of authority from 1936 onwards. As a matter of fact, a circular was issued in 1936 to all NSDAP Gauleiters explicitly ordering employment protection of Germans of ethnic African ancestry to ensure the Nuremberg Laws would not be abused to discriminate against innocent people.

TLDR: National Socialism is anti-racist.

Hunter Wallace #racist #wingnut occidentaldissent.com

[From "Southern History Series: The Rise of Modernism"]

If you want to understand how and why the South is the way it is today, you won’t find the answer in the distant past. The roots of the present crisis trace back to the Second World War and the Cold War, begin in the North and overwhelm the South during the Civil Rights Movement.

The South as it existed from Redemption through the Great Depression was a totally different world. It was becoming more homogeneous, not heterogeneous. It was poor, not wealthy and bourgeois. It had a colonial extractive economy based on agriculture and mining, not on services and commerce. It was overwhelmingly rural, not urban and suburban. It was highly personal and deeply rooted, not anonymous and alienated. It was segregated, not integrated. It was strongly Protestant, not agnostic, atheist or apathetic. It had a rural elite that celebrated traditional values based in the county seats, not a metropolitan middle class animated by economic growth. The Solid South was Democratic, not Republican. It was racially conscious, not racially masochistic. It built monuments to the Confederate dead as opposed to tearing them down. Its people got their news from other people at the country store or through the editor of their local segregationist newspaper, not through television.

The following excerpts come from Numan V. Bartley’s book The New South: 1945-1980:

[...]

The southern white-collar legions were a rising force in society and politics. Despite the frequent references to a “new middle class,” its membership, aside from being overwhelmingly white in racial composition, was a more diverse aggregation than some contemporary accounts implied …

They were better educated and more widely informed on public issues than southerners generally and, according to opinion polls, were more tolerant on racial matters. Their families were in the vanguard of the stampede to suburbia and of the introduction of far-reaching changes in southern lifestyles. They formed the base for the open-schools movement and for the moderate position in southern politics.”

[...]

Let’s stop here for a moment and think about the consequences of the technological revolution that swept the South between 1940 and 1970. The tractor and mechanical cotton picker destroyed sharecropping which unsettled millions of people in the lowland South. Similarly, the mechanization of coal mining led to an exodus out of Appalachia in the 1950s. The television transformed Southern politics by making local racial conflicts – things like the lynching of Emmett Till or the rebuff of John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma – into narratives of international significance in the Cold War.

The invention and spread of the air conditioner homogenized the Southern climate and made it attractive to transplants. Florida went from being the smallest Southern state to one of the largest states in the country because of the air conditioner. The bulldozer began to level the areas around our major cities which is where suburbia was created and millions of people moved from rural areas into the suburbs of the new ballooning metropolitan areas where the Baby Boomers were raised on the television.

There was a shift in power from the rapidly depopulating Black Belt, which had been the historical stronghold of white supremacy and segregation, to the metropolitan areas and their suburbs. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Black Belt was placed under black majority rule. The White middle class of the suburbs and the metropolitan elites became the dominant class in the South after 1970.

“Some academics and progressives bemoaned the materialism and shallowness of urban middle-class lief. Robert J. Steamer wrote in 1963 that a typical member was a “rootless nomad whose primary, and sometimes, only loyalty is to business. His political ideas are substantially barren, because at bottom, materialism is his life philosophy, but translating his thought into political maxims we get free enterprise, fiscal sanity, balanced budgets,” and certainly it was true that the South’s uptown business leadership frequently equated sensible social policy with what best served the exigencies of the real estate market. …

A South Carolina observer remarked about moderates, “I don’t think they take the Negroes seriously as people … They look at it as something … that doesn’t really have much to do with them.” Middle-class metropolitan southerners threatened the paternal order because of their commitment to atomistic individualism, consumer materialism, upward mobility, and unfettered economic development.”

Sounds familiar.

[...]

This would be me … not a deracinated ideologue or a fanatic, but someone who clings to the old ways, values, traditions and sense of identity of the Black Belt, someone who values my roots, ancestors and social stability as opposed to chasing after social status or worshiping the GDP. I despise mainstream conservatism because I am a Southern conservative populist. We’re not retreating from mainstream conservatism anymore though. We’re going on the offensive.

[...]

This is an interesting passage.

The most striking thing about the “white supremacy” and mass shootings narrative is that under actual white supremacy in the Jim Crow South we didn’t have mass shootings. We had plenty of guns, but none of this nihilistic anti-social rage and alienation which is at bottom an attempt to escape from the sick anti-culture that we live under in our own times. The people who engage in mass shootings want to draw attention to their profound psychological angst and pain.

[...]

The American dream of living in a nice little house in an artificial community with “good schools” adjacent to big box stores was a nursery of countless social and psychological problems. In hindsight, it was probably healthier to live in a shack with no electricity or an indoor toilet. In those days, you inherited your beliefs, values and politics from granddaddy who sat on the front porch and told you who you were and where you come from. Now, you absorb all the Jewish poison that is pulsating through the “mainstream” culture around you while in college or through being immersed in the mass media.

What’s the solution? Think of it as a great catastrophe that we have lived through. The old organic culture has to resprout from its roots in much the same way that a clearcut forest grows back.

Darth Executor #fundie theologyweb.com

I don't know why you're asking me this since I think conservatism is an outdated ideology that does not override the normal (IE: non-liberal) brain's tendency to trust people that look like them (or at least share an identity with). Conservatism works in a culturally cohesive society, something that never really described the United States to begin with. So what conservatives should have done is, first and foremost, stop being conservative. Being conservative in a significantly progressive population is like catching a cold while suffering from AIDS.

A better question is how should conservatives have responded to liberalism, since it's liberalism's machinations, both pre and post Jim Crow that did the actual damage. The answer of course is the Holy Trinity of good politics: Imperial rule, abolishment of the aristocracy and establishment of a minor Christian theocracy (pagan or Buddhist would probably work well too from a materialistic point of view).

TheIncelPill #fundie reddit.com

Incels are the least entitled people in America

Women
"We want a guy who is fit, social, tough (but sensitive), cool, and "independent" (I.E. - wealthy). He also has to have enough time between his job and friends for his passions and me. Oh, and body matters these days, so we won't accept anything less than an 8/10. We want someone who understands us, but is also a "bad boy". If he doesn't meet our standards, we reserve our right to shame him and, if we married, divorce him, taking his kids with us.
Normies: "You go girls! You're all so strong and independent!"

Feminists
"We can't be judged for our life choices. If we've had a hundred cocks, you must accept our sexuality. All men who want virgins are evil, and all men are pigs, period. Men need to sacrifice themselves to make room for us in the workplace. We also are entitled to time off when we have kids. If you make a single comment that can be construed as anti-women, we will shame you until you get what you deserve."
Normies: "Oh yes sister! Aren't women wonderful?"

Liberals
"We want more social security, more welfare, more vacations, and more sick days. Health care should be free, along with day care and college. But our taxes shouldn't go up - businesses should pay for our pampering. Not only do we want a higher minimum wage, we want all Americans to have a basic income, where they don't even need to work to get money. Everyone who disagrees with us is a Trump-supporting hatebigot and a backwater hillbilly."
Normies: "These are the people who will lead us to a new generation of enlightenment!"

Minorities
"We want jobs we are barely qualified for just because we have brown skin. We want reparations, representation, and revenge - everything that is associated with white pride is racist. Meanwhile, we get to scream out our pride, and yell at those who don't express admiration for us in the right way. If you don't like how we're dividing the country, we will ruin your entire life."
Normies: "DAE New Jim Crowe? Please, take this constant white guilt away, my colored masters!"
Incels
"We'd like a girlfriend."
Normies: "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU FUCKING MANBABY VIRGIN SHIT! YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING! STOP OBJECTIFYING WOMEN, GET A LIFE, AND STOP WORRY ABOUT GETTING LAID NECKFREAK! STOP COMPLAINING DON'T YOU KNOW SEX ISN'T EVERTHING YOU CAN LIVE WITHOUT SEX! THERE ARE STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA YOU LITERALLY WANT TO FORCE WOMEN TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU? I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT, WHY...

how about this #racist amren.com

It works like this:

1. Blacks' performance at basically everything is inferior because slavery made Blacks think they were not as capable as the White man. You can think your way into anything. This weekend I plan to think my way into the safe at the local Wells Fargo.

2. Jim Crow did the same thing. If you separate two races in the same country and one race fails appallingly while the other does not, the successful race must be blamed. A sense of inferiority is responsible, just like how humans are responsible for the low IQ of cuttlefish with our presumptuous claims that our species is more capable than theirs. If we just raise cuttlefish like people, we will see that they are just as smart as us. They even throw up their arms and turn red in frustration sometimes! See, they're just like us. Now we just need to teach little Cuttly to breathe air and free him from his internalized aquaticism. I promise it will work.

3. Ignore all the evidence that self-esteem has no effect whatsoever on school performance or IQ. Also ignore the evidence that blacks have very high self-esteem compared to other races in the US. It's self-esteem, okay?

4. Everything you Whites have, Blacks should have had and would have had if the White man had not killed their self-esteem. You bastards!

5. The White man is dirty, but hating him makes you clean. With the cleansing power of this hate you are released from the oppressive responsibilities of finding a job, mating or bathing.

s gre #racist wnd.com

The liberal's "golden" ***!!! The white man's
Frankenstein!! White Americans of all stripes, so beat-down, guilt-ridden, and psychologically scarred by America's history of slavery and the subsequent century of murderous brutal mostly southern Jim-Crow racism, rampant lynchings shootings burnings and raping, saw in this unknown "clean well-spoken" *** with the Hollywood grin an opportunity to once-for-all and forever rid themselves of national guilt, absolve themselves from any further racist culpability, and forever appease and muzzle the ever present civil rights race hustlers!!
So desperate was white America to wipe the slate clean and remove themselves from ever being called racist again, that they en-mass ran into the voting booths and, throwing away all sanity and connection with reality, blindly flung themselves at the African-mud encrusted feet of this fraudulent illegal-alien muslim marxist homosexual psychopath monstrosity!!! And yet even now, with horrified eyes wide open, realizing the hellish horrendous mistake they made, white America is STILL paralyzed by the fear of being called racist and of ***
rioting, and as such STILL cannot bring themselves to fully examine his pathological criminality, to fully identify him for the foreign enemy he truly is and deal with him accordingly! Instead, he CONTINUES to get away with his criminality! There is criticism without action, and even that criticism is often prefaced with I'm-not-a-racist pathetically timid self-effacing statements such as "I like him as a person", or "He's a good family man", or "I don't think he means bad", or, "I'm not going to accuse him"! And he laughs! He laughs as he allows American diplomats and soldiers to be slaughtered in Benghazi! He laughs as his tax payer funded muslim brethren overseas slaughter Christians with impunity! He laughs at you fools as he, instead of wiping your slate clean, wipes his Kenyan behind with your Constitution! He laughs ....as he wipes his Kenyan behind ...with YOU!!!!
As he rampages he laughs as he should! He is the monster! I blame YOU white America, you are his CREATOR...and you continue to feed him with your COWARDICE!!!

KD #racist theamericanconservative.com

Germany, as it formed, was composed of a variety of ethnic groups with different identities centered around region, religion, etc. Jews were part of the ethnic stock that formed Germany.

Jews were an advanced or “privileged” minority in Germany, with high educational attainments, and were accordingly over-represented in elite positions. Thus, they had political influence beyond their numbers, and Bismarck had close relationships with von Bleichroder (who is problem the paradigm for anti-Semitic stereotypes).

Its not that Jews weren’t Germans, but the fact that the Nazi movement exclude Jews, and held that they were not real Germans, that led to rhetoric intended to provoke other German ethnicities against the Jews. I was parroting typical sentiments.

Today, you often hear that something “doesn’t look like America” in reference to an over-representation by certain ethnic groups, which is supposedly bad.

Jews were an advanced ethnic minority in Germany, and while they had education and wealth, once the Nazi’s came in, they had no more political influence. In fact, their education and wealth was “proof” that they had stolen it off the backs of “honest Germans” due to centuries of oppression. There privilege became the “justification” for their physical removal.

To talk about the Ottomans, you had a rise of nationalism which set off the Armenian genocide. The character of the world dramatically changed since the beginning of the Ottomans and the end, and the Armenians, will remaining wealthy and educated, became subject to political repression when they lost influence on the regime. Again, the claim was made that they didn’t really belong.

It is clear that majority European societies can have non-European minorities granted equal rights and even ethnic quotas to protect them. However, it is unclear that there is any example of a stable society with a significant non-European minority, which didn’t end in apartheid or in the European minority being expelled or killed.

The only countries I am aware of with a sizable European minority are Brazil (which just went 49%) and South Africa. Both are far from politically stable, and both have historically had some form of apartheid and/or military dictatorship.

You can look at Haitian independence, Congo independence, Algerian independence, Zimbabwe. Further, in Africa, in Uganda they threw out the Asians. Nigeria had a civil war over genocide against the Ibo. In Asia, you can look at human rights abuses in Sri Lanka against the Tamils.

I can name a dozen advanced ethnic minorities subjected to ethnic cleansing. You don’t seem to be able to name one.

Further, I have a historical model that explains why Tutsi were killed by Hutu, why Jews were killed by Nazis, why Armenians were killed by Turks, but why under Jim Crow or Apartheid South Africa, for example, there was never genocide, just segregation and voting restrictions. [Although clear and brutal repression against political challenges to the regime.]

You, on the other hand, can’t name one backwards ethnic group that suffered genocide at the hands of an advanced group. Nor can you offer any historical reason why a white minority in American won’t ultimately suffer genocide or physical removal.

Amazingly, white politicians, in exchange for 30 shekels of silver, are putting whites on the historical track for self-inflicted diaspora and genocide.

Anon1 #fundie t.co

This piece is more about the Asian experience in America than it is about the frat guys on trial, who are mainly props in the author’s tale of woe. His bitterness is really something to behold. And he’s not alone- check out the responses he got when he posted it on Twitter. Tons of people, mostly Asians, are saying it’s the most profound thing ever, it moved them to tears, etc. I don’t know what portion of the U.S. Asian population holds Kang’s views, but clearly he’s not alone.

He recounts evil deeds that America has done to Asians at various times, but these don’t seem to done lasting damage if the demographic data are to be believed. Asians outperform whites on a variety of social indicators. Upon entering the U.S., Kang himself rose immediately into elite academic institutions and prestigious media gigs. The sense I get, from various comments he makes throughout the piece, is that he just feels fundamentally alienated from American society. He’s more bitter about that than about any specific discrimination he can identify.

And if that’s the case, my question for Kang and his Twitter friends is: What the hell do you actually want us to do? You’ve been admitted here by the millions, you have access to education and careers, you can get citizenship and participate in the political process. This isn’t the Jim Crow South we’re talking about here.

If his bitterness comes from a sense that he can never really fit in to the white majority culture, then it follows that he considers the majority an ipso facto problem, and is going to keep bitching until it’s gone.

Nya Major #sexist edendecoded.com

Many black women are leading black men to be anti-Trump because it's the end of the road for some of these women. These black women have been using their alliance with their Liberal white daddy for decades to checkmate the black man and to enjoy a false sense of power over him.

Check the lives of these type of women. They're the type who don't typically have a man, can't get a man or can't keep one. Nor do these women have a family. Because a family would consist of having a man as the head of it.

Instead what you have is female-led communities that are filled with: high crime, poverty, fornication, abortion, occult stores, liquor stores, hair stores, bars, nightclubs and trap houses: that are being presided over by rebellious women who've spent the last 40 years telling God how they don't "need a man" - which is precisely why they don't have one!

These women hate Trump for the same reason they hate every Republican: because Republicans don't cater to the dysfunction of black women.

Conservatives don't treat black women as victims the way liberals do. Instead they require accountability from black women just as equally as they do from black men and everyone else.

Sorry black men, but most of you are too easy. It's the truth, and every black woman in America knows it. A little batting of the eye lids, swishing of the hips, pedicured hands and feet, showing a little cleavage, and pretending to be a woman in distress is all that is usually needed to bring out the simp in most of you. Couple this with the fact that most black men today have been raised by single moms who teach you to actually hate yourselves - and we have the perfect recipe for creating the type of men who'll put up with any amount of dysfunction coming from today's black women.

Donald Trump has an agenda that he termed a New Deal for Black America. Look it up. It would effectively end decades of urban blight and economic depression that black Americans have been suffering under through racist policies carried out and overseen by Democrats. Just look at Flint Michigan for a perfect example. Years of Democrat leadership has given us one of the worst water crisis in history!

Notice how the liberal media never talk about Trump's New Deal for Black America? That's because it would actually help strengthen the black man's position.

Here we FINALLY have a U.S. sitting president who has a specific agenda to bring the African American community in urban cities out of the financial and economic dumps and into the modern era by:

•focusing on job creation,
•strengthening black families (which include the black man instead of excluding him), and
•encouraging entrepreneurship for black men and women - and now the Democrats want to be the party of opposition to everything Trump does?

This nonsense about Russia has less to do with Russia and more to do with attempting to stop Trump from rolling out his agenda to put working class black and white families on a better financial footing; which would effectively end much of the racial/class problems currently plaguing the nation.

Trump's New Deal for Black America would also end the destabilization of the black community by:

•helping black men become equally employed and earning healthy incomes.
•taking the power of provision away from black women alone.
•and redistributing that power equally along the sexes.

And Democrats can't have that now can they? They thrive from the basic discontent from Americans who feel isolate and ran over by governmental policies that were basically created and implemented by Democrats! It's the ultimate sleight of hand deception. Remember: Democrats are the party that fought FOR slavery and Jim Crow laws that completely disenfranchised black Americans.

The Democrats helped implement the current child support/child custody laws that deprive fathers of the right to have easy access to their own offspring. The only reason why any woman would oppose correcting these inequalities is because she wants them to persist.

SO BLACK MEN: steer clear from black women who support an anti-Trump agenda. They are a death trap for the black man's soul. These women don't honor black men, don't like black men nor respect black men.

These women are full of man-hate and have a great disdain for Jesus Christ too - though they'll claim to love and serve Christ with all their heart and soul. Because if they truly loved Christ as they claim, they would respect the divine order He placed in first the home and then the Church: which these type of women never do. And for this reason so many of them have started becoming pastors and preachers and are okay with creating households that women are the head over.

But to God be the glory; He'll make everything right. And what you see in the image below, will come to pass again to liberate Black Men: a time in history - 1869 to 1873 - when all black men had equal rights in the United States, and were elected and appointed to senatorial and representative positions in government.

Many black men have already removed the blinders and have realigned with their political party of freedom: for financial freedom, spiritual freedom, legal freedom, and simply freedom to be a man!

Hunter Wallace #racist occidentaldissent.com

Walter Russell Mead’s “Compromise of 1977? destroyed the Jim Crow South and turned every Southern metropolitan area into a minature Mogadishu.

Megan Boken in St. Louis puts another pretty White female face on the barbarism of the black intifada. This is the result of MLK’s Dream, free negroes murdering and rioting against their masters without end, and we all know how it is deliberately covered up by the media to keep Whitey in the dark.

We’ve taken a much needed break lately from the black crime stories because dwelling on it for too long wears you down and because our gutless leaders like Mitt Romney won’t even address the issue out of fear of being labeled a “racist” by the media.

Putting an end to this is one of the many reasons to support Southern independence. Washington only cares about the Trayvon Martins of America and building the next monument to Rodney King.

Hunter Wallace #racist occidentaldissent.com

[From "John Wayne: “I Believe In White Supremacy”"]

The media is going crazy with faux outrage over this:

“Wayne was also asked about educator/activist Angela Davis and discrimination. He responded, “With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

[...]

There is so much truth in these comments.

1.) First, Jim Crow was a Southern system of race relations, and most of America had been integrated for generations before segregation ended in the 1960s. W.E.B. DuBois, an early 20th century civil rights leader, graduated from Harvard in 1895.

2.) Second, John Wayne’s position was mainstream in the early 20th century. The British, for example, saw their African colonies as “trusteeships.” They were educating and civilizing black Africans to prepare them for eventual independence. The famous African explorer David Livingstone summed it up in his formula: Christianity, commerce, civilization. Rudyard Kipling called it “The White Man’s Burden.” British colonialism in Africa was more paternalistic than malicious and most African colonies were a financial drain. In fact, the British dealt with the Boers more ruthlessly than any African tribe.

3.) Third, the mainstream consensus used to be that it was reckless and unwise to grant African colonies independence that were unprepared for it. Churchill made this point to FDR. Europeans in Africa abolished slavery and cannibalism. They introduced Christianity. They introduced air travel, railroads, electricity, hospitals, sanitation, public health measures against malaria within a span of less than 75 years, etc. They build modern cities like Leopoldville and Stanleyville in the Congo.

4.) Fourth, the early 20th century was a time of relative peace and rapid social and economic development in Africa, especially compared to Europe and East Asia which went through World War I and World War II. After World War II, the US and Soviet Union both embraced anti-imperialism in order to expand their spheres of influence in the Third World at the expense of the European powers. They wanted the British and French out of Africa so that they could move in.

5.) Fifth, the combination of decolonization, anti-racism, political correctness and independence led to disaster in nearly every country in sub-Saharan Africa. The only possible exception is Botswana which has wisely managed its wealth from diamond mining. Most African states were barely prepared for independence and even those that had developed a native intelligentsia and some degree of Western institutions like Ghana destroyed themselves pursuing Afrocentric Marxism. Thrusting independence on African states that were grossly unprepared for it created nothing but misery for the vast majority of several generations of Africans who ended up under “big men” like Mobutu and Mugabe.

6.) Sixth, the same thing had happened in Haiti and Liberia long before it overwhelmed the rest of sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. It is worth noting that the states where “white supremacy” lasted the longest like Guadeloupe and Martinique or Barbados and South Africa led to a higher standard of living for blacks. Compare Haiti to Guadeloupe and Martinique.

7.) Finally, it eventually got so bad in sub-Saharan Africa that Europeans intervened to put a stop to the civil wars in Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and Liberia, tried to stop the clan violence in Somalia, split South Sudan from Sudan, intervened in Darfur, rescued Ethiopia and the entire Sahel from famine, fed the Hutu refugees who fled from the Rwandan genocide, etc. The UN has more or less taken over Haiti. Sub-Saharan Africa would be vastly better off today if it had remained pacified under colonialism until it had learned to become prosperous like Hong Kong.

“Woke” journalists are condemning John Wayne for pointing out the obvious truth that sub-Saharan Africa was grossly unprepared for independence. It was their romantic attitudes that destroyed Congo, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Guinea-Bissau and lots of African states.

David G. Brown #fundie returnofkings.com

Hillary Clinton Pulls Out The Lie Book To Try And Stump The Trump At The First Presidential Debate

Monday night’s first Presidential debate, held at Hofstra University in New York, lacked some of the rhetorical fireworks between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton that many had anticipated. Still, the performances of both candidates confirmed earlier assessments made by Return Of Kings. Republican nominee Trump highlighted how America is continuing to lose out economically, socially, and in terms of its national security to other states and organized groups, including ISIS. By contrast, Clinton deployed a series of diversions and straight-out lies to bait again those perennial victims brainwashed by Democrats over decades: millions of blacks, Hispanics, young people, and non-SJW women.

The First Presidential Debate: Hillary Clinton And Donald Trump (Full Debate) | NBC News

(starts at 26:00)

The problem with Clinton’s performance is that she relied on “zingers,” as the mainstream media calls them, which are considered factual and superb just because she says them. They are either inaccurate or, just as bad, banal platitudes about “justice,” “fairness,” and “equality.” These feel-good lines are devoid of either context or proof. Compare this to Trump, who zoomed in perfectly on the cancers afflicting the US: deference to rivals and enemies, failing to ask allies for proper support, and a basic refusal to act in the ways that are best for America.

Here are three key areas in which the Trump-Clinton divide was most prominent during last night’s debate:

Hillary can’t shake off her globalist past—and future

Trump astutely homed in on Hillary Clinton’s previous “gold standard” description of the toxic Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade” proposal, support which the Democratic nominee claimed to have backtracked on only months ago. He linked this praise to her fawning endorsement of NAFTA in the 1990s. NAFTA, as Trump pointed out, has led to the erosion of American manufacturing and the strange situation where Mexico is allowed to export its goods into America with much smaller financial barriers than the reverse. The TPP promises to do the same and, when it comes to US based-interests, will only benefit transnational corporations.

Clinton was unwilling to categorically rule out backing the TPP again if elected President and avoided criticizing Barack Obama for wanting it implemented. She also said nothing of substance in relation to combating China’s extremely anti-free trade behavior, most notably the constant devaluation of its currency. In the context of a $20 trillion US national debt and trade deficits that balloon ever more, the likely Democratic inaction on this front is alarming and only surrenders national, rather than corporate interests. What she did do was to try to placate those wanting a welfare state, promising things like “debt-free college” and a minimum wage rise. But how can those she will get the money from, “the wealthy,” pay for both these shopping items and simultaneously pay down the debt?

When the topic switched to terrorism, the Democratic nominee refrained from discussing how ISIS began its rise when she was Secretary of State, an inconvenient truth she was quickly reminded about. Expanding on this bad judgment point, Trump alluded to a related national security failure of the “experienced” Secretary Clinton: the United States’ persistent bankrolling of other states’ safety at the direct expense of its own. The whole point of NATO is that it is an alliance, but America always seems to foot the bill, just as it does in its relationship with Japan. In response, Hillary Clinton was unable—or simply refused—to articulate how this is either a desirable or affordable state of affairs. This is telling as nationalist vs. globalist arguments grow more salient within the current American political discourse.

Gender pay gap madness

Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly brought up the gender pay gap, a long-discredited myth that ignores how women, even those employed full-time, work on average less hours than men. This political fiction, one perpetually drawing in millions of self-victimized female voters and emasculated white knights, fails to acknowledge the greater presence of men in higher-skilled and therefore higher-paying industries as well.

Despite the certainty that this kind of argument would be raised, Clinton took it to a new, far more delusional level by suggesting that women deserve the same pay for inferior work. She claimed that Donald Trump “said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.” He actually did not say this, as a fact check used in a [i]USA Today[/i] article illustrated months ago.

Yet even if he had made the statement, this is perhaps the least controversial soundbite, real or imagined, that anyone has ever used to try and discredit Trump. The falsely attributed words are one hundred percent in line with the idea of “equal pay for equal work.” If your work is not of the same quality as your peer, you should not get equal pay. How, for example, is a junior female lawyer who brings in less clients and billable hours than her male counterpart deserving of equal pay? What Trump did say is that he favors paying employees based on performance.

Necessary corrections aside, Hillary Clinton’s line is merely a prelude to the affirmative action she will unleash upon the American economy if elected. Having already implied that women deserve equal pay even if their work and performance cannot be described as equal, expect concrete legislation that will force employers to hire women over men, irrespective of their credentials, socioeconomic backgrounds (preferential treatment allows many Middle American men to be leapfrogged by women from privileged families), and the real requirements of the job.

Race-baiting… again

Hillary Clinton reverted to re-peddling the tired old fantasy that 2016 is the new Jim Crow laws era. Forgetting that countless non-blacks are in jail for non-violent offences, too, she falsely portrayed African-Americans as the victims of police harassment and racist hysteria over crimes that are not murder, rape or serious assault. To boot, she pushed aside the higher involvement of blacks in violent felonies. Clinton further outlined how outright (white) racism, not certain cultural values and black-on-black brutality, purportedly explains almost every conceivable problem confronting African-Americans today. Plus, she did not ever call out the truly deplorable rioters in Charlotte, nor condemn overall the opportunistic troublemakers that comprise Black Lives Matter.

Trump absolutely schooled his opponent, however, when it came to the astounding rate of violence in Chicago, Clinton’s city of birth. In a metropolitan area where gun laws are amongst the most restrictive in the nation, black-on-black crime especially has decimated African-American communities. Clinton’s crude racial politics quickly became stuck and the candidate herself appeared to be flustered. After all, Chicago, which Trump was using as an example of the general malaise of crime found across the country, is controlled locally by Democrats, like most major cities.

The desperation of Hillary Clinton, a representative of a party which has failed America’s minorities and made them poorer, became evident when she mentioned a racial discrimination lawsuit, not a finding of guilt, brought against Trump forty years ago. With nothing to offer blacks and Hispanics, other than the same old dud policies on a national and municipal level, she had to invent a boogeyman to distract people.

But the media still lauded Clinton

Regardless of her cheap antics at the debate, almost every mainstream media editorial from CNN’s to the LA Times‘ waxed lyrical about Clinton’s supposedly epic performance on Monday night. That sycophancy will only grow from now until election day. But if takes so much concerted, stooge-like media support to help her win, what does that say about her as a candidate?

Right now, though, we should be both proud of and amazed at where Trump is at the moment. Only six months ago, people were bellowing that he would still lose the Republican nomination. He could never ever win, the experts said. Moreover, just a year ago, his candidacy was considered a laughing stock by elites and nearly all supporters of the Democrats.

So who’s laughing at Donald Trump now? Not many people, and certainly not a very concerned Hillary Clinton.

Pale Rider #racist washingtontimes.com

You are truly ignorant if you don't understand the dynamics of the democrat party in the South.

I know what I am about to say is politically incorrect in every sense of the word, which is exactly why it needs to be said. Understand this:

After the South lost the War of Northern Aggression, it was a decimated, lawless land, for the most part. Whites, particularly women, were targets of the newly freed slaves and Yankee carpetbaggers who descended on the vanquished population, and rape and murder followed.

Seeing that the US Govt was in no mood to help save our families through committed law-enforcement (after all, abolitionists were in favor of murdering Southern slave-owners and their families anyway), it fell to what was left of Southern manhood to find an effective way to deal with the situation --- hence, the Brotherhood of the Ku Klux Klan was born.

Now let me stop a second and just say that none of this justification of the Klan is EVER mentioned on TV, in the press, popular media, etc. Hell, it pains me to say this, not even the current NRA leadership understands this. However, I know that many a rapist whose neck was stretched deserved just what he got (and still does today), and the fact that the very presence of the Klan on horseback in the moonlight in certain, shall we say, high-crime areas, kept others from straying was a huge benefit for deterrence.

Now, over the many decades since 1865, the South instituted certain laws to keep the races segregated (just as the dictator Lincoln believed they should be), because this is the most effective way to prevent miscegenation, among other degeneracies. These culminated in the very effective Jim Crow laws that are routinely dismissed, but make no mistake, they were effective. These lasted until the democrat LBJ enacted his so-called War on Poverty, and which dramatically changed, FOR THE WORSE, both white and black races in this country.

You see Southerners had identified with the democrat party since Thomas Jefferson started it, and they were naturally anti-Lincoln/Republican, but had started moving away when the Democrat Party of FDR began instituting his socialist policies, then continued to move away from the party of LBJ. You might say, Southerners did not leave the Democrat Party, the party left them.

I realize it's a very difficult mental exercise to understand the subtleties involved in these political machinations, but what is left of the the conservative South found a home in the Republican Party, and they still form the backbone of the party.

William Gilroy #fundie rawstory.com

A man who considers himself a “sovereign citizen” tried unsuccessfully to have the judge overseeing a criminal case against him arrested, West Hawaii Today reports.

William Gilroy was arrested in January after taking part in a protest against driver’s licenses, the paper reports. The protest was dubbed the “Freedom Ride,” after the famous protest during the Civil Rights era when black activists rode buses to protest segregation in the Jim Crow south.

Gilroy refused to show proof of insurance, even though he said he has insurance, because doing so would constitute an “invasion of privacy.”

He told the paper he considers himself an organization,“William Michael Gilroy, American private citizen and international organization.” According to Hawaii Today, that is a common belief among sovereign citizens, a strange subculture whose adherents believe they are above the law because they do not recognize it.

Gilroy directed the bailiff in the court room to arrest the judge, Michael Udovic, but Udovic responded by telling Gilroy he was running the risk of being held in contempt and being arrested himself.

“Mr. Gilroy, I don’t want to throw you into jail,” Udovic said, according to Hawaii Today.