Similar posts

Timmy #fundie forum.iomfats.org

We have determined, as a society, that sex with a person under the age of consent is unlawful, and we have delegated this decision to those whom we allow to draft the laws. Thus, certainly in a democracy, we have agreed, at least implicitly, that no such sexual acts are allowed.

And yet some children who are pre-pubertal flirt like crazy, or are in some way alluring, perhaps sexually attractive. It is not wrong to be attracted to them, though it is unlawful to do more than be attracted in a very passive manner. I surmise that almost all adult males and many adult females have found at least one child in some manner sexually attractive and that none of them will admit it for fear of reprisals.

I argue with your words "Sexual Preference" on the simple basis that sexuality is an orientation. I happen to be homosexual. My preference would be to be heterosexual. Orientation and preference are by no means the same thing even if they occupy the same part of the spectrum of sexuality. Homosexuality is inconvenient in so many ways, though I am stuck with it. I would far prefer to be heterosexual for all of those reasons. But I am aroused by the male not the female.

As puberty takes hold the child turns into the man or the woman they will become, slowly. The animal in us wishes to mate with those relevant to our orientation. The society member in us chooses, usually, to allow time to pass until they pass legal age. But our instinct to mate is something we have to suppress actively. Schoolteachers must have an amazing amount of self restraint.

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

One of the most evil and wicked TV series ever produced is called FIREFLY. The 14-part series which aired on FOX network in 2002 shamelessly glorifies adultery, feminism, lesbianism, public nudity, homosexuality, stealing, lying, lasciviousness, greed, violence, prostitution and portrays men who emphasize family and father's rights as sex-fiends, abusers and religious nutcases.

In one episode, a man gets a prostitute pregnant and then demands to come take his child when born. The whore is outraged at his demand. The “whores” (as the film calls them) contact the Firefly team for help. The men of the team volunteer for free to help in exchange for sex from the whores. Various sex-scenes are shown. At the end of this particular episode, the mother announces to her newborn baby that “this is your father” and then blows his brains out with a gun. This is what feminists think about father's rights. This is a made for TV series which averaged 4.7 million viewers per episode! Is it any wonder why America is falling apart morally, economically, politically, socially and in every other way?

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


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

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

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

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

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

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Matthews #fundie christiannews.net


SFBruce:
Tragically, there are also numerous cases that make the news of heterosexual "couples" who adopt children and then abuse them. Sexual orientation doesn't determine one's qualifications to be a parent. The notion that turning "a child loose in the forest" is better than a loving home is absurd.

Brian Matthews:
There's no such thing as sexual orientation. That is a nonsensical made up propaganda term. I think you mean improper sexual desire, lust.

There's all sorts of improper sexual desires, and improper desires, in general. Some people desire to sleep with their best friend's wife. The impulse is so strong, that many have given in and gone down that dark path of destruction.

Not all our thoughts, desires, impulses, and inclinations are right, and good.

You and the so called LGBT movement are trying to justify, and legitimize yours. It will never happen. The most you'll ever be able to do it to legalize them.

If I remember correctly, however, I think I gave you a way out. But you have to want out.

It's your only hope. Christ will return soon. He came as a lamb. He'll return as a LION. He came as a babe. He'll return as a mighty conquering warrior KING. He came as a sacrifice for our sins. He'll return as a JUDGE of those who stubbornly, pridefully, and FOOLISHLY refused His gracious pardon that He personally bought and paid for with His own blood.

It costs you nothing, but your sin. He will give you Heaven in exchange for your sin! Why would you pass that up?

You don't have to get your act together, and your life all cleaned up to come to Him. You just have to want a new life, and cleansing. It comes from Him. His precious Spirit will take up residence within you, and do these things for you, in you, and through you. You will be reborn, and adopted into God's family as a son.

Dr Lisa Nolland #fundie virtueonline.org

BORN GAY' IS DEAD

Dr Lisa Nolland spells out why the idea is wrong and must now be consigned to the cemetery of thought

Both the church and society have long struggled with the issue of homosexuality.

Is it a crime? Is it an illness? Is it a sin? Is it simply a normal variant of human sexuality? And what difference do the answers to these questions make in the 'real world'?

A brief recent history

In the 1960s, American singer Anita Bryant campaigned against homosexuality, saying that gay people are made, not born, and that they had to recruit youngsters in order to maintain their numbers. This frightened the heterosexual community, and gay people in turn felt under threat.

Then, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was pressurised by gay activists into pronouncing that homosexuality was not an illness, but a normal variant of sexuality. This decision is widely recognised as having been political rather than scientific, but it laid the foundation for the decisive game-changer that was to come.

A game-changer

In 1989 two brilliant Harvard graduates, Kirk and Madsen, wrote the seminal After the Ball, which argued that 'for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been "born gay"-- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood...'

The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: by arguing for 'born gay', gays were able to qualify for special treatment as a vulnerable 'minority group'. Also this strategy elicited much more sympathy for them in the public domain because 'it's not their fault'. That public sympathy remains to this day, and 'orientation' is considered to be immutable.

Ignoring inconvenient truth

In 2007, Professor Michael King made a submission to the Church of England on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Embarrassingly for the College, the document was criticised by CORE Issues Trust as having made no reference to twin studies, which had been central to the scientific discussion for several years.

These studies showed that if one identical twin grew up to be gay, the other usually did not. The inescapable conclusion was that, since both had the same genes and hormonal experiences in the womb, the difference in sexuality must be accounted for mainly by their different experiences and perceptions during early childhood. Gay people were not born that way.

All of this was absent from the College's submission. Missing too was any reference to a major Danish study, published just the previous year, which found 'evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.'

The Royal College's submission claimed that:
• Causation was 'biological', so a person is born gay
• One's sexual orientation is 'fundamental' and thus immutable
• If one tries to change one's sexuality (by therapy) one is liable to be harmed and cited several scientific studies to support these claims.

Importance of postnatal

Unfortunately, the studies didn't support their arguments and, when challenged, the College quietly issued a new position statement in 2014 which says: 'Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors' -- exactly what Kirk and Madsen had recognised but concealed 25 years previously. The College also now acknowledged that 'it is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent during a person's life'.

The word 'postnatal' in the above affirmation is very important because it refers to events that happen after birth -- so the person was not born that way. Yet Professor King continues in denial: 'It is deeply misleading to state that people are not "born gay" and that their sexual desires can change.' He cites inter alia the work of the respected lesbian scholar Lisa Diamond.

Out of the bag

Unfortunately for Professor King, Lisa Diamond's research cannot be enlisted to support his claims. In July 2015, the New Scientist published her remarkable article, 'Sexuality is fluid -- it's time to get past "born this way".' She states: '... whenever someone comes up with a tag line like 'we're born that way', they ultimately do everyone involved a disservice. It is time to just take the whole idea of sexuality as immutable, the born this way notion, and just come to a consensus as scientists and as legal scholars that we need to put it to rest. It's unscientific ... it's totally irrelevant and just politics.'

This amounts to a complete unravelling of the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. But 'born gay' has done its work: the general public has been duped. Now they need to hear: 'You were misled. "Born gay" is dead and was never true!'

This does not of itself mean that therapy can help every individual to change their sexual 'orientation'. It does, however, open up that possibility, which gay activists have long sought to close down.

In California, now, the most draconian legislation to date is being promoted; will the church even realize what is happening and respond?

However, brave clients who have benefited from therapy are beginning to make their voices heard. CORE Issues Trust's excellent (but banned!) DVD, Voices of the Silenced, is being well received. One can purchase it here: https://www.core-issues.org/vos-dvd

May I suggest ordering a copy and seeing for yourself? If you think it beneficial, do pass it on to your church team.

Truncated responses

Some other groups are unwilling to explore the possibilities of change for those who have unwanted Same Sex Attraction (SSA). In my opinion, they are unable to offer a full analysis of what is going on, or engage with how best to respond.

Though individuals are undoubtedly helped through these ministries -- and God bless all the good they do -- the real threat is a pernicious ideology: Cultural Marxism, with its determination to stamp out 'bourgeois' values, and its totalitarian instincts. LGBT issues are but one aspect of what is far more encompassing, and which is rapidly enveloping the West, even the church.

Indeed, there appears to be little awareness that basic freedom is being destroyed, professionals forced to spout the 'Party Line', and millions of children force-fed a diet of LGBT rights. And on and on...

Getting on the front foot

Apart from exposing 'born gay' fraud and promoting the value of ministries like CORE, I would like to leave my readers with three comments.

First: Christians must fully re-engage with both Genesis and Jesus across issues of human sexuality. Who is immune from the damage of sexual brokenness? But here, to note, homosexuality is not an equivalent to heterosexuality: The former is post-Fall while heterosexuality is God-made and God-given. Our very bodies (with a tiny exception for intersex) are heterosexually designed. There is no such thing as a gay body!

Secondly, why has one narrative of SSA been privileged above others and allowed to dominate and silence them? How is that fair? Sadly, those with different stories are ignored and tacitly marginalised. A few years ago, an ex-gay friend preached at an evangelical church; afterwards he was told by half a dozen or so individuals (separately) that they too had the T-shirt but few knew. It was too risky to 'come out' in that way. Voices of the Silenced allows those who have been helped by therapy to speak. Please listen to them: I think they count too.

Thirdly, a dear friend has long struggled with unwanted SSA. He could locate no apparent reason why he had been cursed with it. Recently, though, there has been progress. Now with his third therapist, lights are coming on. But this would not have happened had he accepted he was 'born gay' or must be gay but celibate. In fact, his SSA is but the symptom of profound trauma, which God is beginning to heal.

So 'born gay'-- and all that is claimed along with it -- must go!

Rock It #fundie premierchristianity.com


Homosexuality has advanced by lies, suppression of truth and intimidation.

Not truth.

Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

n a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. <>uAlthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”
https://www.wnd.com/2009/05...

Dr. Collins discussed whether homosexuality was genetic. He concluded that, “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”/4

Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist wrote, “Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.”/5

“People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years. Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”

Maximilian von Auschwitz #pedo #sexist #psycho rapey.org

[Heebpill] If given opportunity, what to choose - sex with 11 years old girl, or 21 years old female

Degenerate would choose 21 old femoid in any time, because 11 year sol "is just a child". Pedo of not great culture, would always choose 11, because he's just fucker, like normal normies, just atracted only to younger females
Simpliest answer for man of culture, is "one , who is prettier". Because, as much as young girl is desirable, no way I would bang young girl, whos ugly, because that is ewww, so sexy roastie is still better option
More difficult, is if their beauty level is on par. So then it depends on how pretty both of them, as if they are just closer to average, then 11 may be preferable, as average 21 female, especially of white race, is too much of fat robust cow, and better younger girl more sexually and esthetically pleasing. If they of higher beauty level, more stacy tier, then 21 with perfect hourglass figure is more tempting, than too childish 11 (and surpassed by 13, who is perfect blend of childish gracility, and feminine curvatures), so on sheer sexyness alone, 21 could be chosen, but in that case another factor comes - in this degenerate world sex with young girls is problematic, so in tgat way opportunity to be offered sex with 1 years old girl becomes more valuable rarity
And if given more factors, like how much time spent with them. If given hour, for only sexual activity, then dilemma bigger, to choose sheer sexyness, or rarity. But if time offered is bigger, like whole day then better spend it with 11 years old girls, instead of annoying old cunt. And if be offered marriage, then undoubtly it better with 11 years old girl, as soon she becomes perfect 13, and can easier be molded into what kind of waifu I need, while 21 roastie is old and damaged, better only to bang and kick her away

Jay Younts #fundie shepherdpress.com

Fox and National Geographic Channels have combined to create a remake of the old Carl Sagan TV series, “Cosmos.” This new series is anything but fair and balanced. The writers of the new Cosmos make it clear they believe there is no explanation, other than evolution and random chance, for the origins of life and the universe. They are certainly free to think that way. However, the new Cosmos is not just promoting a particular view of science. The show is actively targeting and mocking Christians and any belief other than theirs.

The first program specifically went after various Christian beliefs as well as going after the Catholic church with derogatory, condescending comments. The second show portrayed the tree of evolution as the tree of life. Again there were pointed statements about the evolutionary process being ruled by chance and openly mocking the idea of intelligent design. The narrator delighted in pointing out that some people were uncomfortable and had emotional reactions to the reality that we evolved from apes and that our DNA has much in common with trees. This was illustrated with DNA replicas. I guess they thought this was more effective than showing a grinning Carl Sagan hugging a tree in the old Cosmos. Again, I have no problem with Cosmos being allowed to say what they want in the public media. But, as Christians, we would be foolish to miss the pointedness and the arrogance of the attack. Nothing is allowable except random mutation of single cell organisms and evolution to account for life on earth. Fancy graphics and an improved space ship from the first Cosmos do not change what is real.

The choice is clear about how creation occurred. You can opt for random selection or the loving, providential Word of God in the person of Jesus Christ. The former makes morality and ethics just as random as the evolutionary process itself. There are no standards and there cannot be truth. There can only be the fluid and dynamic morality of random chance.

The latter view provides the basis for accountability and purpose in life. There is much at stake here for us and for our children. Observe carefully and be ready to respond to a lost world with the truth that God is the creator of all. We are all accountable to him who has determined the exact places where we will live and who provides us with our next breath. We must be bold, clear and gentle in proclaiming that God is not a figment of the imagination, but the Lord of all creation who spoke the universe into existence.

nutracker2013 #conspiracy imdb.com

Well I have nothing against lesbian and gays, they always existed, they don't bother me, though it's the new lgbt movement aggressive will to brainwash our society in a way that they become the norm and we heteros become freaks (it's their final goal that they want to achieve in the coming years) that I am against.
They are using all the tools of propaganda principles the nazis used and more:
-Brainwashing the youngest (remember the nazis youth?) using music video clips and TV series.
-Permit gay couples to adopt children (also called the selling of humans)
-Oblige every single US movie to include a gay or lesbian scene or couple
-TV ads also are having more and more gay/lesbian propaganda
So yes I am against this destruction of our society by people who are fans of this ''unique thought'' and want to oblige us to adopt their way of seeing things.
How many people dare saying a thing against gay marriage or gay adoption on TV before they are bullied and harassed? While lgbt militia can say whatever they want and do all the propaganda they want without any problem. Hell, I even been banned for couple of hours on Facebook because I dared say to a lesbian that gay marriage is not evolving the society!!!
lgbt = terrorism of thoughts.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological lies and deception

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

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

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

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

Deception in the storytelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIP Wm. Shockley #racist fstdt.com

I was neither born nor raised to "hate" anyone. The use of the word "hate" here is in its purest, most vile form, as it is surely a negative and destructive emotion, and I deny it as part of my natural character. That said, I have determined that cannot really "hate" niggers... I am weary of them. Let me explain. This is the way I see it:

a long, long time ago, far, far away, there was Dark Continent called Africa, free of Niggers. That's right... there were no "niggers at that time. Individual tribes existed I harmony, much like the Native American, hunting and gathering food and other essentials for happy life. There was some war, of course, when the population grew out of control and more land was required for the increase of inhabitants. There were the Productive... those who hunted and gathered and had skills to produce clothing, tents, fishing vessels, etc., and those people were valuable to the community. Tribes had leaders, elders, chieftains Then, as in every society, as the population grew, there became a group of slackers... those who just didn't think their efforts would make any difference. Crime was punished according the its severity and justice not necessarily humane, as we understand the concept of "humane" today.

So, as productive societies expanded, extra farm and ranch help was needed, and some enterprising folks made an industry of "slave transport". If you had a ship, there was money to be made by bringing "cargo" across the Atlantic Ocean to sell to American farmers and ranchers. Tribal elders began rounding up the people of their tribes they could do without... those slackers and criminals and just lazy... and found they could make money by selling them to slave traders. (If I am to believe the story forwarded by movies such as "Roots", I must believe aa continent of people were willing to allow kidnappers onto their land to steal their people by force.)

Keep in mind, there were still no "Niggers". That term was applied later by the owners mispronunciation of "Negro" or in reference to the country of Niger, where many of the slaves originated. Slavery was an industry, and the Negro was merely farm animals like his mule or his oxen, bred like all other live assets, and put to work. But some Negroes went back to the mindset for which they were ejected from their tribes in the first place... they were lazy or rebellious, or had some mental defect that precluded them from usefulness. Oh, but they cost money. A LOT of money for the owner, considering food, housing, clothing, etc., and the slave trackers weren't cheap either, when a slave ran away. This was the birth of the "nigger". Hence, examples had to be made by punishing the run-away or disobedient by whipping or some other type of punishment. Does it make sense that an owner would beat his work animals so that they were disabled from work, as portrayed in "Roots"?

Doubtful. Fast forward to January 1, 1863. The U.S. Civil War, purported to have been waged to free slaves, but in reality, a rebellion by the Southern states in response to an oppressive Government, and slavery became an afterthought, as slaves were popular in the North as well as the South. Take away the slaves, and commerce in the Confederate states becomes non-existent. That was the plan, and the U.S. Government took the high road and made slavery the main issue. On January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation was made into law, making free people out of slaves, most unable to read or write, or even count. (Sure, some rich blacks owned slaves as well as whites, but history doesn't speak of that, as it doesn't suit the narrative that ALL blacks were unequal.) Now, the right thing to do was ship all the freed slaves back to Africa, including the niggers, but America still had a growing population that needed food nd cotton, and all sorts of farm products. So, as the dark people multiplied, so did the nigger, and he became the "American Nigger", a breed unique unto itself.

You see, I call the American Nigger" unique because nowhere else on Earth has the AN had opportunities afforded them as those in America. Welfare programs have rewarded their excessive breeding by increasing benefits with every niglet they produce. Add in the many support organizations such as NAACP, CORE, UNCF, BET, Congressional Black Caucus, Miss Black America, on and on, and the AN is empowered to feel entitled, especially after four or five generations of lazy, criminal, and abject uselessness. Yes, my friends, I am weary f the American Nigger. I am weary of hearing "MF" in every other statement they make in public, having to look at their underwear above their pants hanging below their black asses, the rap music blaring from, their car stereo at every gas station. I am weary of trying to understand the mumbling and slurring of my language. Hey... let's go back to the "Hate" thing just a minute. I said I don't want to hate anyone, but is it fair to hate the natural traits of a people?

The culture? The mindset and the... well.. the differences. Is that nice enough? Basically, I'm weary of being vilified just because I'm a white man. I never owned a slave and I never met a slave. Matter of fact, my forefathers would probably have worked alongside niggers in the cane and cotton fields. They weren't rich or privileged. I'm weary of being called racist and white supremacist. I would never support, encourage, or condone harm to anther human being. Truth is, I have preferences. I prefer socializing with white people. I prefer living amongst white people. Shopping, eating, walking and driving amongst my own kind. "Preferences"... let me have mine without judgement. Is that too much to ask?

seeker42 #fundie rr-bb.com

You might consider helping him understand HOW its a lie. Take a look at the average for indoctrination: 1. Average amount of hours per child per school year in Public School: 1000 ONE THOUSAND HOURS 2. Average amount of time (hours) by Christians who consider themselves 'serious' and who take their kids to church: 52 hours per year (1 per Sunday)... Lets see 52 Hrs versus 1000 hrs of Indoctrination, and people Actually still wonder, why Christians go to college and 'struggle'.

Best Cult from an 80s TV show 2014

Wulf Ingessunu #fundie inglinga.blogspot.co.uk

[Background: this man founded a cult based around an "ancient prophecy" which was actually written for a 1980s TV series. Here, he responds to his critics...]

Woden's Folk is invariably criticised and attacked by those whose aim is to discredit anyone who opposes the Global Order. These attacks are always aimed at certain key points, the aim being to ridicule and thus discredit our work and thus allow the Global Order to succeed in its own aims. One of the main targets has been The Hooded Man Prophecy since this is an easy one to get at since it has no 'historical' authenticity - so we are led to believe. So I am (once again) going to put things straight and inform the more enlightened of the real meaning of this prophecy.

Firstly, yes this does come from the TV series Robin of Sherwood and was no doubt made up for the series. But that does not invalidate this as a prophecy, but we can only recognise it as such through the knowledge of what its hidden meaning is. The altered prophecy that was given to me in a dream is just that - an altered form of the original Robin of Sherwood prophecy. It is in the altered form that we need to be interested in and which gives the key to it being a valid prophecy for the new world age.

The one interesting thing that can be seen from all of the criticisms made is that they never even mention the content of the prophecy, merely making the criticism about it being from the TV series. Yet, it is precisely this - the content - that validates this prophecy as being important to our era. Since it is clear that none of the people who make criticism even bother with the content we can be assured that their criticism stems from their intention of smearing Woden's Folk rather than producing any valid argument against us.

[...]

In order to understand that The Hooded Man Prophecy is valid you need to understand the above ideas clearly, because without a knowledge of what an avatar is this will never be understood. Only through recognising that a god can actually incarnate in the flesh will we be able to understand what I am trying to say - figures such as Alexandra the Great, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler can only be understood for what they were through a knowledge of the meaning of an avatar. This force can be creative or it can be destructive but it is there to herald a change in the order of things, a change that requires brute force in the Warg Age or Age of Iron, since this is an era of force and fire.

Author of Conservapedia article #fundie conservapedia.com

In 1997, the researcher Gundlach studied the issue of childhood sexual molestation in respect to lesbians and according the medical researchers Gundlach found the following:
"Gundlach (1977) surveyed 225 lesbian and 233 heterosexual women, and found that 30% of the heterosexual women and 21% of the lesbians had been raped. Of the 30 women who had been raped before the age of 14, 26 had an adult homosexual orientation while 9 had an adult heterosexual orientation."

[I'm skeptical of any "medical researcher" that adds up 26 and 9 to be 30]

ChinoF #sexist getrealphilippines.com

Some Thoughts on LGBT Issues after the Colorado Baker’s Win

Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple isn’t liable for anything. The ruling left the question of whether it was bordering on religious discrimination. But for me, it isn’t. Establishments have the right to refuse to give service to customers for their own reasons. It’s not the same as hanging a “No Filipinos/no gays allowed” sign, which could be argued as more like discrimination. But this probably will get the LGBTs fuming, with the SJWs among claiming that it’s “oppression of the state,” or other baloney like that. I thus would like to consider the other side, something like the side of Zaxx’s article, where he discusses negative effects of some LGBT attitudes.

A couple I know in church who’d been traveling to other congregations related that pastors had asked them topic suggestions for sermons. The couple said, just look at TV. Broken families, switching partners, making crime look good, and more. And one example they talked of at length was a gay beauty pageant on TV. During an interview, the contestant was asked if he had a boyfriend. “Yes.” Where is he? “With his wife.” Oh, wait, isn’t there a problem with that? “No, because his wife is OK with it.” Jumping in is this famous actress acting as judge: “I’m so proud of you for standing what you believe in!”

Cringe.

Other gays are not that lucky. Some straight guys just flat out refuse. They’re straight, for crying out loud! But the gay person might feel slighted. Life’s wisdom tells us, it’s part of life to be spurned, but the gay will not accept it. So what might he do? Some gays might take revenge in some way against the straight guy. They might stalk or harass the straight guy, like immature spurned teens would do. Others might try to “out” the straight guy as a gay, although that’s a lie. But in doing so, he commits defamation and harassment.

Since suicide has become a topic in social media after Anthony Bourdain’s death, I’ll just give it a little controversial link to my topic. Let’s say an LGBT person commits suicide after they become spurned by someone. The reaction might be, “the spurner is a bigot,” “the suicide is his fault,” and all sorts of trolling and bullying. But no, these are wrong. Unless the spurner or another person was caught on record to have actually encouraged suicide, there is no fault with them. Better to research the person’s background for the complex web of reasons that led to it – including the person’s own decisions. I will also make that controversial point later – that people with mental illness are not always victims, but could possibly have brought it upon themselves. But back to the current topic.

Let me recall the case of Jeffrey Laude. One of the local ladyboys who was killed by a visiting American soldier, in a situation that our webmaster Benign0 likened to the movie Crying Game. The American was expecting his new sex partner to be a legitimate female. Of course. But he found out Laude was male (a transsexual or transgender if you will), and got mad. He was deceived. He snapped, lashed out and did wrong himself. But Laude’s deception would make him less free of fault than media would like us to believe.

I don’t expect most gays to be like this; I’m sure many of them disapprove of the above behaviors. But there are likely some who may defend wanting to be recognized as a woman while hiding their being a man. The problem is, it is still deception, and if all you are looking for is sex, you don’t deserve to be protected from the consequences. Hiding one’s real sexuality is not a right.

Such gays are working on the idea that, if I want something, I deserve to get it. Perhaps it can be forced by law. Entitlement operates in this scenario. Perhaps the agenda of these particular gays is, it shouldn’t matter whether you screw a man and woman, right? So everyone should be homosexual! They should be forced to be give sex to whoever wants it! People are entitled to this joy they want from others! But wait a minute, forcing someone to have sex… isn’t that rape?

Human rights is based on the precept that everyone is entitled to self-determination, which includes their sexual orientation. This could be seen as in favor of gays as well as against. But when they want something from others, that other person has the right to refuse them as part of their own self-determination.

The problem cited by opponents of laws in favor of gays is that such laws would grant unequal protection, or special treatment. It could also lead to ridiculous provisions that are not fair. For example, if one does not agree that someone is beautiful, it is considered “bullying,” or someone who doesn’t want to play along with one’s declared transsexual orientation (still referring to one as male even when dressed up and really looking like a female) should be punished.

Also, let’s look at these ridiculous genders some have tried to invent. Nature (which determines reality) only recognizes male and female, and these can’t be naturally changed. Or you have a sex change and want to be called the other gender. What if someone disagrees, and says, “you’re still your original gender.” They have a right to do that. You can’t sue them. They’re not oppressing you. That’s life. It’s not meant to obey you, and other people are not either.

The outcry of many LGBTs is mainly against harassment; that I agree with. But being harassed doesn’t give you the right to harass back. If harassment is a problem, you don’t need a new law or special treatment. Existing laws on harassment can be applied to that.

If some people return, what about heterosexual spurned lovers, the same should be true for them? I agree. There have been many women who made false rape charges against men (the story of Brian Banks who was wrongfully convicted because of a fake rape case comes to mind), many “spurned” who “take revenge” against their spurners. And I’ll repeat that example of our former maid’s brother, who was poisoned by someone who thought he was his rival over a girl. That attitude of “I must have what I want” keeps turning people into monsters.

Again, on that wish of people who believe “I deserve to be loved;” it likely means, they want sex. Sex and love are actually two concepts that have long been differentiated. And perhaps being pampered and being a freeloader can be the actual meaning of the “love” they desire. Sorry, kids, none of that is a right, and you don’t deserve it.

The saying, slightly worded, “I will defend your right to disagree with me,” comes to mind. That seems more appropriate if you replace the latter words with “your right to refuse to give what I want to take from you.” What we need is respect, especially respect of other people’s refusal of you. As well the acceptance that we sometimes don’t deserve to get what we want. That applies to even “love.”
If you’re a transgender, better reveal that you are, and there are people who will accept you for what you are. Deceiving other people means not only do you lack respect for others, but for yourself as well. If you feel you have to lie to get what you want, chances are, you want something that you should not have. If you want find the love of your life, you don’t steal someone else’s love of their life. And if you want something to validate yourself, don’t get it by force, like what a gay couple wanted from the Colorado baker. Get it fairly and honestly, and if refused, move on to the next. If there are other people who don’t accept you for who you are, there’s no point wasting time on them. Keep calm and carry on.

Transilvanian #racist stormfront.org

Alright, I don't watch TV per say in that I don't have cable, but my girlfriend and I enjoy a few TV series (Dexter for the action, The Big Bang Theory & How I met Your Mother for the humour) which we watch online for free.

Anyway, we watch the episodes as they're released this season, and I've noticed that race-mixing has been significantly upped in all these three shows. Dexter has a new blonde girl who's into the geeky Asian pervert. The Big Bang Theory is choke-full of race-mixing (the Hindu and the Blonde, the Hindu and ANOTHER blonde, Leonard and the Hindu's sister, the Blonde's best friend and the Jew, and so on... its hard to even keep count of all the crap going on in that series). Finally, How I Met Your Mother now features the two single guys meeting random women, a few of them non-White (especially Ted & Black chicks...). This week's episode had a very special Black girl he met who, on top of her being black was... wait for it... also a genius & wonderfully good person (Graduated from Harvard at 15, donated kidney, climbed the Everest, saved a baby's life....).

Now, I know that race-mixing has been there in TV and in these particular series even in past seasons, but it seems like during the past year (last season and this one) the producers have been increasing the race-mixing to much higher levels, and in every direction one can think of... it really makes enjoying the humor harder and harder...

C.K. Egbert #fundie feministcurrent.com

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS [to her kink-shaming]

“You can’t shame people for their sexual preferences or sexual orientation.”

First, I have already noted that preferences are (often) socially conditioned. Second, the mere fact of having a preference, orientation, or identity carries no weight. We can, and should, make judgments about the content of that preference or identity. Some people strongly identify as white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Some people may consider their sexual orientation to involve pedophilia or rape or murder; the fact that it is their sexual orientation does not make pedophilia or rape or serial murder acceptable.

“You don’t speak for all women. These women don’t see it as a harm.”

I do not deny that a woman may genuinely feel that pain and subjugation is sexy. This is precisely why consciousness-raising is a necessary component to the feminist political project. As a feminist, I can validate a woman’s experience without endorsing the content, which has been shaped by conditions of inequality. For example, I do not deny that women are ashamed of their bodies and feel the need to be impossibly thin, but I do not endorse that they should be ashamed of their bodies or that they should starve themselves.

Harm is not subjective and cannot merely be a product of someone’s feelings. First, because we know that people, due to socialization, invalidation, and inequality, are not always aware of the harm as harm. Second, because we would not say, for example, that men are “harmed” if they cannot have sex with any woman they want or that Christians are “harmed” by homosexuality — even though many clearly feel that way.

“You are denying women their agency and not valuing their individual choice.”

There is never a question of a woman’s agency. At a trivial and metaphysical level, we are always free to choose what we do unless we are unconscious, under the influence of hallucinogens, or physically disabled. I am not judging or arguing against what women are choosing when they “consent” but what men (and some women) choose to do to them. What is important is the social norms, practices, and conditions that make that choice possible. Prostitution could not be a choice if there were no demand and if we did not think that people were things to be bought and sold.

“What if we make pornography with men in the submissive role?”

Equalizing violence does not create equal conditions. We do not solve the problem of racial inequality by having the police arrest and violate the civil liberties of an equal number of white males; we eradicate inequality by eradicating the conditions of subordination and creating positive, material change that truly values all people as free and equal.

William Lane Craig #fundie reasonablefaith.org

The lesson to be learned from the legality of interracial marriage is that just as the law must be blind with respect to the race of persons desiring to marry, so it must also be blind to the sexual orientation of persons desiring to marry. Just as persons desiring to marry cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their race, neither can they be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. When two persons ask the state for the right to marry, the state must ask no questions about their race or sexual orientation. Just as laws which would discriminate against persons’ marrying on the basis of their race are unconstitutional, so laws which would discriminate against persons’ marrying on the basis of their sexual orientation are unconstitutional.

That’s why the term “gay marriage” (which, I noticed, you were careful to avoid) is misconceived. Laws permitting gay marriage would be clearly unconstitutional, since they would not be blind to the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Such laws would sanction marriage for same-sex couples only if they were homosexuals, thereby taking cognizance of their sexual orientation and discriminating against heterosexuals who wanted to enter into marriage with someone of the same sex. To repeat: just as the law must be blind to the race of persons entering into marriage, so it must be blind to their sexual orientation. Laws sanctioning gay marriage would thus be unconstitutional (not to speak of unenforceable!). [Emphasis added]

So the laws governing marriage must have no reference to the sexual orientation of the persons involved. But that is precisely the situation of the status quo! Under the laws of the status quo no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation. Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked, just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. What they are not free to do under federal law, whatever their race or orientation, is to enter into same sex marriage, simply because there is no such thing. Marriage is by its essence a relation between a man and a woman. But the sexual orientation of the persons involved, like their race, is a matter of complete indifference to the law.

So the legality of interracial marriage actually goes to support the current laws, which are indifferent to both the race and the sexual orientation of the persons involved. Those who want to re-define marriage in such a way that it need no longer be between a man and a woman need to come up with some other argument in support of that redefinition than the appeal to interracial marriage.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

A shit test is a test by a woman of a man's mettle. To pass a shit test, a man must simply hold his masculine frame,[1] and put her in her place if necessary. Shit tests have been written about since no later than 1910.[2]

SmellyJelly22 notes, "A shit test is basically when a woman challenges a man with a bit of anxiety she has been feeling. If a man reacts with masculinity, he passes. If he reacts with anxiety, he fails. . . . If I can show the insult doesn't faze me I show myself to be a suitable partner because I can destroy weak emotions in a way she can’t."[3]

Rollo notes, "Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence."[4] According to Powers, everything women say is either a shit test or "Her telling you exactly what she wants or likes about you (e.g. 'you"re an asshole')." Chateau Heartiste advises, "Shit tests are essentially a woman telling you 'Please train me to respect you.' Oblige her."[5]

Women find it sexy when men don't take their shit and call them out on their shit.[6] Charles Sledge notes, "Women want you to put them in their place. They want you to tell them 'no'. To stop them, to put your foot down. They want a man they can submit to but they know that it must be a real man who isn’t going to change for them. So they test you and when you remain your dominant masculine self they love it because they know you are really what they thought you were and wanted."[7] He continues:[1]

Most men fail shit tests as most men have been trained by the media, overbearing mothers, the government, the school systems, and just about everything else that he is supposed to give in to women. Despite that this goes against the natural order of how nature works. The woman gives into the man not vice versa. This false belief that men should give into women has given many men problems with their relations to women. They get stepped on or a woman loses all attraction for them because the man gives in to them. . . . .

When a girl is giving you a shit test, she is challenging you. What she is doing is testing your balls to see if you actually have any or to see if you’re going to be like ninety nine percent of guys and give in to her (in which case she loses all attraction). She is seeing if you are actually a man or if you are a little boy pretending to be a man. She wants to see your masculinity, that is why she is testing you. To see if there is masculinity there.

While a guy can just look at a woman and see if he is attracted to her it doesn’t work that way with women when seeing if a guy is attractive. So a shit test is to see if the guy is actually attractive. Imagine if all women wore burkas a shit test would be the male equivalent of seeing what was under the burka. Is she hot or not. That is what women are trying to see. Is he masculine (and therefore attractive) or is he submissive (and therefore repellent)?

Oneitis as a reason for failing shit tests

The Rational Male notes:[8]

   The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

   a.) Confidence – first and foremost b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option? c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

Responding to shit tests

Heartiste also advises, "Learn to love the pregnant pause. When a girl shit tests you, don’t respond like a wind-up beta. Give her a blank, serial killer stare and wait… wait……. waiiiiit for it…. ANSWER!"[9]

Agreeing and amplifying

Agreeing and amplifying tends to be an effective response to sarcastic shit tests.[10]

Incel Wiki #fundie wiki.incels.info

Dickpill
image
Turns out if you dick is smaller than 8 inches, you are deficient

A common normie argument is that the motion of the ocean, and not the size of the boat, matters the most in bed. This is nothing but bluepill propaganda, designed to give false hope n’ cope to dicklets. As we examine this blackpill, you’ll see that your penis size could fuck you over if you’re not Chad.

http://www.penissizedebate.com/page40_ideal-penis-size.htm

According to the study above, the ideal dick size was found to be between 7 and 8 inches, and the ideal girth of the penis was found to be between 6 and 7 inches.

3D model experiment

A research group from two American universities presented 3D dick models to some 18+ femoids. The average length of the penis chosen was about 6.3 inches for a long term partner. Compare this to the average dick size of just about 5.2 inches in the US. About 20% of the women (old hags included) even “admitted to dumping a guy because his penis was ‘too small’.” Only about 7% of the foids said that they left a guy for a dick that’s “too large” [1].

The importance of dick size during sex

Again, let’s come back to the belief spread around by normalfaggots. They literally think that you can somehow be extremely good in bed by using your baby dick effectively. Further scientific studies show that this is nothing but BS, since women would experience better vaginal orgasms with a BIG penis.

“Three hundred twenty-three women reported in an online survey their past month frequency of various sexual behaviors (including PVI- penis in vagina intercourse-, vaginal orgasm, and clitoral orgasm), the effects of a longer than average penis on likelihood of orgasm from PVI, and the importance they attributed to PVI and to noncoital sex.

RESULTS: Likelihood of orgasm with a longer penis was related to greater vaginal orgasm frequency... In binary logistic regression, likelihood of orgasm with a longer penis was related to greater importance attributed to PVI” [2].

If you wanna hit that G spot more intensely and accurately, you better have a big wang. Dicklets will commonly cope about “muh girth” while completely turning a blind eye to the main factor that makes pussy easily wet in sex- length.

Further interesting statistics

Size matters: http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/study-shows-the-penis-size-most-women-actually-prefer/

81% of the femoids in the study above said that they prefer an average man with a big dick over a chad with a small one.

61% said that they dumped a man for a dick that was too small.

57% say that bigger is better.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

2006-2008 CBS TV Show Jericho had False Flag Nuke Attack on 23 Major USA Cities to be blamed on Foreigners.

-------------------------------
To respond to this FALSE Flag type Warning to blame attack on Russia, lets look at this TV Series Jericho where this same exact type of event took place, and was blamed by the USA Government on Foreign Enemy, but was in fact done by Domestic Government on the people of America, in the TV Series Jericho.

Running time 43 minutes
Production company(s) CBS Paramount Network Television
Junction Entertainment
Fixed Mark Productions
Distributor CBS Television Distribution
Broadcast
Original channel CBS
Original run September 20, 2006 – March 25, 2008

Jericho is an American action-drama series that centers on the residents of the fictional post-apocalyptic town of Jericho, Kansas, in the aftermath of nuclear attacks on 23 major cities in the contiguous United States. Produced by CBS Paramount Network Television and Junction Entertainment, with executive producers Jon Turteltaub, Stephen Chbosky, and Carol Barbee, the show was broadcast in more than 30 countries.

The show ran on CBS from September 20, 2006 through March 25, 2008. It was canceled after its first full season because of poor ratings. While a fan campaign was able to convince the network to bring the show back for a seven-episode second season, it was canceled for a second time after that run. In November 2008, TV Guide reported that The CW would air repeats of Jericho to replace the canceled series Valentine.[1] In 2007, Jericho was ranked #11 on TV Guide's Top Cult Shows Ever.[2] In 2009, plans were
announced for a possible feature film version of the series[3] and a continuation of the Jericho storylines in a comic book series.[4][5] IDW Publishing released a new comic book series for Season 4 in August 2012.

--------------------------------------
RE:
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
RUSSIAN INTEL LEAK-- “25 American Cities Currently Have SECRETLY PLANTED NUKES”

RED ALERT: NUKE TO DETONATE TO BE BLAMED ON PUTIN
It is VERY important to remember that that there are currently 25 MAJOR CITIES WITH SMALL NUKES SECRETLY PLANTED somewhere within. We know that this will be the excuse to start a nuclear war. The MH17 false flag was nothing other than an attempt to make Americans think Putin would do the utmost evil things imaginable to them. Of course, millions of stupid Americans have no idea what’s going on and believe that Putin shot down the plane. What a joke… As I see it, one of these nukes will be detonated. It’s just a matter of time now. The disgusting NWO will do anything to further their agenda.

When the incident happens, it is important for ALL PATRIOTS to make sure to be watching the fake mainstream news and recording. We need to catch them in lies and mistakes if we are to wake up the rest of the sheep. Always ask, who had the most to gain from downing MH17? More importantly, who would have the most to gain by blowing up a nuke in the US? Certainly not Putin. Be careful my fellow Americans. Danger ahead.

================================
From the King James Bible book of Joshua
Jos 06:01 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.
Jos 06:02 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, [and] the mighty men of valour.
Jos 06:03 And ye shall compass the city, all [ye] men of war, [and] go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
Jos 06:04 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.
Jos 06:05 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long [blast] with the ram's horn, [and] when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.

History repeats itself

1962 Operation Northwoods planned False Flag - a plan for a series of false flags from within the United States government but were rejected by the J.F. Kennedy The plan called for the CIA or operatives, to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere to be blamed on Cuba to create public support for a war against Cuba that recently become communist under Fidel Castro

1964 Gulf of Tonkin, False Flag - Fake Intelligence and the Decision for War in Vietnam Evidence Proves Only August 2nd Battle, Not August 4; Purported Second Attack Prompted Congressional Blank Check for War Johnson-McNamara Tapes Show Readiness to Escalate, Even on Suspect Intel; but Welcomed Justification for Vote

June 8, 1967 USS Liberty was attacked in international waters by Israeli forces Killing 34 Americans and wounding another 174. The Johnson White House Covered up that the Israeli attack was made with full knowledge that USS Liberty was a US Navy ship.

The Gulf War 1 (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) codenamed Operation Desert Storm (Jan 17 1991 – Feb 28 1991) was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from 34 nations led by the United States, against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

Feb - Aprl 1993 The Waco siege and massacre a siege of a compound of religious group Branch Davidians by Federal, Texas state law enforcement and Military between Feb 28 and Apr 19, 1993 killing 76 men, women, and children

1993 Feb 26 World Trade Center Bombing False Flag, The FBI Gave the Terrorists the "real" Explosives using a foreign operative and Let it happen.

1995 Oklahoma City bombing False Flag attack pinned on Lone Wolf Bomber using Truck Bomb while Explosives inside Building did not detonate leaving half of the building standing.

9/11/2001 Terror Attacks False Flag- Regardless of who was behind the attacks, The Federal and NYC Governments Destroyed Evidence, Endangered peoples Health in the Clean up, and Covered up Evidence of Controlled Demolitions of 3 Building with 267 floors of World Trade Center Buildings being destroyed at free fall speed. Blamed on Osama BinLadin by the NWO Media before even the First Tower was brought down.

Patrick Scrivener #fundie reformation.org

Before the advent of MI6 sponsored communism in Russia, the Orthodox Church completely rejected the heliocentricity of Galileo and the evolutionary myth of Druid Charles Darwin. They also rejected the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX which completely condemned all scientific progress—except advances in spying and cryptology.

Even with the Communist takeover of Russia, the GREAT Russian nation forged ahead with new discoveries in space. They were the first to put a satellite into orbit around the earth, and the first to land an object on the moon. Even Communists were too honest to stage a fake moon landing.

Naturally, the MI6 controlled Pentagon started to scream about a missile gap with the Soviet Union. Their perverted reasoning was that since Russia had rockets to reach outer space . . . they could also reach the United States . . . with nuclear bombs!!

This "missile gap" led to an insatiable appetite for money by the MI6 controlled Pentagon. What better way to close the "missile gap" than to use the moon landing money to build rockets that could threaten Russia.

The Soviets were called "godless" Communists by the Rockefeller/MI6 media. Even if the "godless" Soviets had the technical expertise of the Walt Disney studios they would never have faked moon landings!!

NASA's motto is: "if you can't make it, fake it."

MI6 Wernher von Braun was technical adviser to Walt Disney studios as they landed Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on the moon.

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had to travel faster than a speeding bullet to land on the moon. It is a mircle that Donald Duck didn't lose all his feathers!

Which calculations did Walt Disney studios use to target the moon?

The difference is enormous.

The geocentric moon is traveling faster than a speeding bullet while the heliocentric moon is leisurely orbiting a rotating earth.

According to the geocentric model, the moon is moving CLOCKWISE from EAST to WEST at an average speed of 27,000 km per second or 98,424 km per hour. It takes 24 hours and 50 minutes to circle the stationary earth.

According to the heliocentric myth, the moon is moving COUNTERCLOCKWISE from WEST to EAST at an average speed of 10 km per second or 3600 km per hour. It takes 27.3 days to circle the earth.

Diehards still believe in the heliocentric universe and Druid Darwin's evolution despite all the scientific advances since Sputnik 1 in 1957.

They will do anything but admit that the Holy Bible is true.

David Robertson #fundie #wingnut #sexist #pratt christiantoday.com

[Submitter’s note: yes, they finally did it. Fundies are now attacking The Handmaiden’s Tale for muh persecution. Be a Christian in Saudi Arabia, funded by Christian Nation America, and then complain]

The Handmaid's Tale' is ugly and anti-Christian. We have a better story to tell

The Handmaid's Tale is a superbly filmed and acted version of Margaret Attwood's 1985 novel and has won five Emmys – including Elizabeth Moss in the lead role deservedly winning best actor. The liberal metro-elites love it because it portrays their nightmare – a United States run by religious fundamentalists, in which women are oppressed and treated as a subservient class.

The Handmaid's Tale portrays an America called Gilead, in which gay men are hanged, abortion is banned and birth control pills are not allowed. Most women have become infertile and so those young women who are fertile are taken as 'handmaids' to be impregnated by the 'commanders'. Although it's a dystopia, at least the Greens should be happy as the USA finally gets on board and reduces carbon emissions by 70 per cent. And there also appears to be racial equality – at least in the TV series. In the book African Americans are removed to national homelands but in the TV series they have an equal role with the whites – I suspect somewhat cynically that this is because an all-white cast would not have gone down well.

The 'baddies' are portrayed in very religious terms. The female leaders who control the handmaids have 'Irish nun' accents, solemnly intoning that 'fertility is a gift from God' – as the girls are prepared to be raped. The handmaids dress in a nun/puritan style. In one strong scene the handmaids are encouraged to take part in a stoning by the chief 'nun' who tells them that 'God's love gives us blessings and gives us challenges' – the challenge in this case being to stone to death one of their sisters. It gives a whole new meaning to the tough love scenario.

The numerous Bible quotes, biblical language and names are set up to portray a scenario where right-wing religious fundamentalists have taken over the USA...watch out, the evangelicals are coming to get you!

The hypocrisy is brilliantly portrayed. The music from Onward Christian Soldiers is played as the master reads from the Bible and then has sex with the 'handmaid', while his wife is present observing the grotesquely unerotic scene.

The Handmaid's Tale is as much a liberal fantasy as The West Wing was. Moss, incidentally, portrayed President Bartlett's daughter Zoey in that series. The West Wing portrayed a President and presidential team that came as near to heaven on earth as most can imagine. The Handmaid's Tale, on the other hand, is its hellish polar opposite.

So let's return to reality. There are countries where religious fundamentalists are stoning people to death. But none of them are ones where Christians have taken control. Of course you could not have a major network portraying a dystopian future where America has become an Islamic republic. That would be Islamophobic! But Christian fundamentalists are fair game – Christophobic isn't really a term that has caught on yet.

And there are religious cults that do a great deal of harm – including some that profess to be Christian. In an irony that seems to have escaped the maker's notice, Elizabeth Moss, the star of the show, is a committed member of the Church of Scientology – one of the most cultish and harmful religious groups in the Western world. But again of course, Hollywood would not make a series about the evils of Scientology – there are too many well-known celebrities involved and anyway they would be sued.

Neither is this a film series about Trump's America, any more than the book was a commentary on Reagan's America. Ironically, Trump's misogyny, sexism, bad language, sexual immorality, dodgy business practice and opulent lifestyle has more in common with Harvey Weinstein than it does with Billy Graham. The abuse of women that this fantasy series portrays is seen today as much in the increasing number of Hollywood producers and powerbrokers who, after the Weinstein exposé, have themselves been accused, as it is in the religious authority figures who have been found out. The hypocrisy of conservative fundamentalists preaching religious morality while engaging in sexual immorality is matched only by the hypocrisy of liberal fundamentalists preaching woman's rights while engaging in sexual abuse.
The Handmaid's Tale is an ugly series – its sexual explicitness and violence mean that it is out of bounds for anyone with any degree of sensitivity. Unlike The West Wing, which I am now watching for the fourth time, I won't be going near this one again – not just for the ugliness of its sexual violence but also because of the bigotry and anti-Christian hate speech. It is the kind of programme made about Christians that antisemites would make about Jews. It demonises 'the other'. Despite the constant citation of Scripture, the portrayal of Christianity in the drama is the antithesis of what real Christianity is. Real Christianity is not religious hypocrites enforcing their perverted teachings through the barrel of a gun.

Some people say, 'It's only a drama – who cares?' I care. There are those who know nothing about Christianity who when they see this programme will think that this is what it is about. The producers even managed to have a comment at the end: 'If you have been affected by the issues in this programme, call...' as though being part of a religious country run by Christian fundamentalists is a common or likely occurrence.

The Handmaid's Tale is part of a general cultural shift in which Bible-believing Christians are the bogeymen of contemporary society. While in the West we are nowhere near the level of persecution that Christians in many countries face, I'm still not a big fan of encouraging people to hate us on the basis of a distorted and perverse view of the Christian faith.

The way for us to challenge and handle this kind of post-truth alternative-fact fantasy is not to complain, whine and curl up in our Christian snowflake ball. Let's get out there in the real world and be its salt and light – sharing the truth, beauty, love and freedom of Christ. It's not the fear-mongering of The Handmaid's Tale that our world needs, but the Good News of Jesus Christ.

One Million Moms #fundie onemillionmoms.com

Warning for parents! Disney has taken yet another dangerous step into the darkness with its new animated horror-comedy series titled The Owl House.

Following the Disney films about the evil Maleficent and the animated Disney XD series Star vs. the Forces of Evil, this new kid-targeted series is also set in a spiritually demonic realm. The Owl House premiered January 10 on Disney Channel with new episodes scheduled to air on Friday nights.

In The Owl House, Disney introduces kids to a world of demons, witches, and sorcery while inundating their young minds with secular worldviews that reflect the current culture.

Disney describes the storyline as follows: “Luz, a self-assured teenage human girl, stumbles upon a portal to a magical new world where she befriends a rebellious witch, Eda, and an adorably tiny warrior, King.” After meeting Eda, Luz decides to skip summer camp, where her mother had sent her for a dose of reality, and pursue her dream of becoming a witch by serving as Eda’s apprentice.

The show makes light of hell and the dangers of the demonic realm. Even the previews and commercials include such content that makes it difficult for families who watch Disney Channel to avoid the evil content completely.

This series is rated TV Y7 FV, which means it is recommended for ages 7 and older and contains fantasy violence. The first episode is more than enough for most Christian families to realize that The Owl House, created by Dana Terrace, is not a cute, funny show – rather an extremely dangerous one. The second episode of the first season will air tonight, and Disney Channel has already approved it for a second season.

Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) criticized the Disney series for trying “to portray witchcraft as a positive tool to fight evil.”

Here is some insight into the show’s background, according to Newsweek.com:

“She [Terrace] wanted to pick my brain in the early days of the series, when the original pitch was ‘girl hangs out with witch in hell.’” – Alex Hirsh (writer, animator, and voice actor)
“When Dana first approached me, she said that ‘we're trying to make this demon realm a part of Disney. …’ We really wanted to make this demon realm feel like home, and just had to figure out how to do it.” – Ricky Cometa (artist)
“The writers room for the show is full of books on witchcraft, witches, and spells to take inspiration from.”
The visual design of the show is inspired by various European painters such as Hieronymus Bosch, who was best known for his surrealistic depictions of hell. The creator felt that Bosch’s “twisted takes on angels and demons would make for a ‘cool show in that art style.’”

The Bible tells us clearly in Isaiah 8:19-22 that there is a spiritual realm that is not of God. It warns us not to participate in witchcraft or consult with mediums but to call on God. Deuteronomy 18:10-11 also warns us to avoid witchcraft in all forms.

Take Action

Please sign our petition urging Disney Channel to cancel this demonic show, ‘The Owl House,’ immediately.

Various incels #sexist reddit.com

(qwep-mi)
My wife may have fucked over 200 guys when she was younger

But clearly those guys werent good enough since im the lucky guy she married.

(Rambocel)
She was just finding herself dont slut shame

(General_Duggah
I feel like normie and new fags get tricked into upvoting your comment thinking you aren't being sarcastic.

(thumpar72)
Im kekking merely imagining it

(incelsinterlinked)
Just finding her super-STDs more like.

Better get a c section for your kids so they don’t catch something sliding out.

(Salvador66)
IT cucks in a nutshell.

(warmestblack)
It is feminist thinking. Females trying to be males. They think their high N count experiences somehow make them more valuable to men. Maybe they’re coping by trying to frame it this way. And just lol at the men who fall/cope for this. News flash you stupid whores. Men want you in your prime, and high N counts are repulsive.

(satansbarbedcock)
The fact that they think getting fucked is an acomplishment is truly amazing.

As amazing as them thinking, against all evidence, that fucking hundreds of men has no negative effect on their personality, character or ability to pair bond

nooo3949

Men want you in your prime

For foids, there really is no prime. They can get a man any time they want at any age.

(FACEandLMS)
Think of it this way:

It doesn't matter how many guys licked the icing off this cake: I'm the one who gets to take it home 15 years later.

(AdventTrooper)
wOmYn aRe NoT cAkEs FoR yOu To CoNsUMe

(EvanTheFactMerchant9
Now you get to lick their icing off the cake

(LDAR_666)

200 guys

LOL this is cope. The average thot has fucked 200 guys by 9th grade. By the time they marry a betabux the number is well over 1000

(INCELMAN2000)
> The average thot has fucked 200 guys by 9th grade.

Cope level: Length of average BBC, average girl has fucked 2000 guys by preschool.

(EvanTheFactMerchant)
Sperm are the ultimate orbiters. Millions of them rushing to one egg all at once, desperate to be the one. Hypergamy starts before conception. It's fucking over.

(AggresiveCuck6)

Try 2000. You are in a fantasy land if you think girls reserve themselves that much

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

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

Christian Answers #fundie christiananswers.net

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said…

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.”6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17).

But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising, God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.”1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity.”6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41).11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

[See: What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer]

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

David G. Brown #fundie returnofkings.com

Straight Men Will Soon Be Called Homophobic For Not Sleeping With Gays And Trannies

David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there’s something worth tweeting here.

In 2017, straight men who refuse to date biological males dressed like women were shamed on a number of occasions for being “transphobic.” We should expect that at some stage, very possibly in 2018 or 2019, heterosexual males will also begin to be attacked en masse for not wanting to have sex with men.

Obsessions over “gender fluidity” and the rise of SJW brainwashing amongst kids, including those in elementary school, mean that expressing a perfectly normal and healthy heterosexual preference is becoming increasingly hard. In Australia, one notorious transgender Marxist, Roz Ward, went so far as to make up “statistics” saying that half of all teenagers are sexually attracted to their own sex. What will the claimed figure be in 2018 or 2019 and how will that impact on guys who know they are only attracted to women?

You don’t have a right not to date transgenders

After straight men understandably began to report transgenders messaging them on Tinder, outlets such as The Huffington Post came to the rescue, decrying the rampant “transphobia” in the dating market. In another instance of typical SJW hysteria, a contestant on The Bachelorette got into hot water for verbalizing a common enough concern of men, namely that heavily dolled-up transgender “women” regularly try to pass themselves off as biological women. With this sort of putrid political climate, it is very easy to imagine a time when not being sexually attracted to Barry or Steve will be equated with anti-gay “bigotry” as well.

Indicating the warped social totem pole that is regularly putting transgenders above women, straight females are also being shamed, albeit to a lesser extent than heterosexual men. CNN, for example, just couldn’t figure out why the majority of women weren’t open to dating this transgender “man,” as if genitalia were a completely irrelevant part of sexuality. Who would have known!

The stage is set

SJWs do not want tolerance. They want a kind of uniformity, where the groups we are meant to accept and praise actually end up dictating what someone else can or cannot do sexually. The failure of most men (or women) to want to date a transgender is a setback, for sure, but this will not stop SJWs from continuing their agenda in the same and other ways.

Even “men’s” magazines are now part of the fray, joining a series of outlets celebrating supposedly straight males who screw gay guys. GQ continued its abysmal fall in 2017 by publishing “The straight men dating men and the gay men who fall in love with them.” Salon, however, is a very unsurprising offender for its long-term pushing of straight men’s “malleable” sexualities. All we are missing at the moment are widespread calls for men to stop being “homophobic” and give themselves to other men fully.

Just wait and see

As a result of the negative reception most folks gave to the idea of dating a transgender, some might say that this article is alarmist. Well, I would counter that since we have already seen the sexualization of children according to SJW ideology, it is perfectly foreseeable that straight adult males will be encouraged or shamed into wanting sex with men. If this article is proven wrong, it will be either due to blind luck or because we see positive, long-awaited developments in the West.

Remember, probably well over 50% of discussions about sexuality nowadays concern lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender experiences, despite people of these orientations comprising perhaps 4% of the population. If this is not a sign that your heterosexuality is considered abnormal or not fully acceptable by SJWs and their enablers, I don’t know what is.

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

The Differences Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Relationships

Sometimes you hear gays or lesbians say, “We’re just like anybody else. We have two kids, a dog, a mortgage, and we worry about the economy. We just don’t want anybody telling us who we can love.” My friend Brady, who used to be part of that gay sub-culture, calls the homosexual lifestyle “a façade of normalcy.” And it is only a façade.

Consider the huge variance in the stability of relationships. Despite a high divorce rate, 57% of heterosexual marriages last over twenty years.{5} The average length of homosexual relationships is two to three years.{6} Only 5% of them last 20 years.{7}

And consider the issue of promiscuity. In heterosexual marriages, over three-fourths of the men and 88% of the women remain faithful to their marriage vows.{8} Most sexually active gay men are promiscuous, engaging hundreds of sexual partners over a lifetime.{9}

The concept of a committed relationship is very different for the two groups. Most heterosexual couples are faithful and stable. When homosexual men are in what they call a “committed” relationship, this usually includes three to five outside partners each year.{10} Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Church, told the Dallas Morning News, “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses. . . . We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can’t marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there’s no deception. Each couple has to decide.”{11}

In Holland, which legalized gay marriage in 2001, the average is eight outside partners.{12} One study of gay men who had been together for over five years could not find one single monogamous relationship.{13} Not one!

Women in lesbian relationships often stay together not because they want to, but because they’re stuck financially and emotionally. “I heard one speaker say at a Love Won Out conference, “We don’t have partners, we have prisoners.” Of course, that’s not universally true, but over the years of walking toward Jesus with women who were no longer in lesbian partnerships, I have heard over and over, “We didn’t know how to do life apart from each other.”

Heterosexuals live longer, happier lives. Sexually active homosexual men live a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. They are at huge risk for contracting AIDS, and run a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight men. The gay community experiences three times more alcoholism and drug abuse,{14} and much more promiscuity and domestic violence than the straight world.{15} Gay men can expect to live twenty years less than their straight neighbors.{16}

And finally, a home with a mom and a dad is the best possible place for children. Homosexual parents put kids at risk. The American College of Pediatrics discovered that children raised by gay parents tend to be more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation in the family, have homosexual experiences more often, and are encouraged to experiment in dangerous, destructive lifestyle choices.{17}

Please hear me: We’re commenting on the extremely high-risk behavior that is part and parcel of a homosexual lifestyle. That’s not the same thing as condemning the people who engage in it. A homosexual lifestyle is a façade of normalcy, but it can be changed.


Answering Arguments for Same Sex Marriage

Let’s look at several arguments being offered for same sex marriage.

The first is that marriage will encourage faithfulness and stability in volatile homosexual relationships. But the nature of homosexual and lesbian relationships is broken to begin with. Two broken people will not create a whole, healthy relationship. The best description I’ve ever heard of same sex relationships is “one broken little boy looking for his daddy, connecting with another broken little boy, looking for his daddy.” And the same is true of women. Neither a marriage license, nor the approval of society, can fix the nature of a relationship that is irretrievably broken at its core.

Another argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure hospital visitation. But it’s the patient who decides. If he appoints his partner as a health-care proxy, even if he’s in a coma that document will insure access to the hospital. We don’t need marriage for that. It’s a smokescreen.

A third argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure survivorship benefits. But that’s what a will is for. You don’t need marriage for that.

Some say that we need same sex marriage for Social Security benefits. This is an interesting argument, since Social Security benefits were created to address the financial inequity of father as breadwinner and mother as stay-at-home caregiver. Homosexual relationships are usually two-incomes. It’s very rare to have one stay-at-home caregiver of the kids, since homosexual relationships do not and cannot produce children naturally. When they do, they are borrowing from God’s plan for creating families.

Then there’s the discrimination argument. There are really two issues that fall under this argument: denied liberties and denied benefits.

Concerning the issue of denying the liberty to marry, this argument doesn’t hold water. Any person can marry whoever he or she pleases, with certain restrictions that are true for everyone. You can’t marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone; there is no discrimination here. The problem is, some people don’t like the restrictions.

True discrimination functions against an unchangeable identity, such as gender or color. Homosexuality is a lifestyle, a chosen behavior. Even sexual orientation is changeable. It’s not easy, but it is possible.

The other issue of discrimination is denied benefits. But benefits are granted to families because society has an interest in providing a safe place for children to grow up and be nurtured. So the government provides child-oriented benefits such as inheritance rights and tax relief to ease the financial burden of children. Insurance policies and Social Security benefits provide for the money gap between wage-earner and caregiver. These benefits are inherent to families. The essence of marriage is about building families. Homosexual relationships cannot build families legitimately. They have to borrow from heterosexual relationships or technology to create children.

Cactus clawfinger #fundie reddit.com

Honestly, the left really fucked us, and themselves. Without aggressive ethnic replacement programs, the west could be as accommodating towards minority groups as it wanted, hell even keep anti-white discrimination policies in place to get the warm and fuzzies. Now the stage has been set for a massive civilizational conflict, like Sunnis and Shia fighting over control of Iraq in zero sum fashion.
I hardly think pro-white advocacy is illegitimate, all other groups do it all the time. Difference is, your not going to sit in on an NAACP meeting and hear people talk about physically removing whites and instigating a race war. I don't get why this is so hard to understand that this is a dead end.
South Africa is a shitshow. The whites fighting to maintain apartheid have been pretty much vindicated (at least in terms of existential self-interest, if not morally) as it looks like the country is going the way of Zimbabwe. I suppose it just depends which side your loyalties lie. Just like Israel vs. Palestine is an existential struggle where good guys vs. bad guys doesn't matter so much if you have to live there.

To compare America to South Africa or Zimbabwe is way overblown, however. If you're sucked in to the 24/7 outrage news cycle, you might think the sky is falling. I've lived in a multi-cultural area for over 10 years, including shitty neighborhoods, and the legitimate episodes of racial conflict I've seen I could count on one hand and have most of my fingers left over. People for the most part get along. There are ways to advocate for white interests, or fight to assure white homogeneity in certain areas of the U.S., without having to adopt an absolutely sociopathic orientation towards non-whites, in a way that might actually work and seem fair enough to the average person. The alt-right as I see it, is not doing this, even though a simple raising of awareness of their ideology is pushing people to the right in favor of idiotic, delusional leftism.

The Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Rebutting Republican Myths

Monarchies are un-democratic!
Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world. Further, in most republics (even the United States) the President is not directly elected by the people anyway. However, being democratic is not necessarily a good thing. Benevolent leaders and bloodthirsty dictators have both come to power through democracy.

Monarchies are too expensive!
Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.

Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair!
Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.

Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?
The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.

Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date!
Certainly monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?

What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that!
Actually, far more people have been butchered in wars or massacred by those in power since the start of the revolutionary period than in all history previously. Nero or Attila the Hun were unsavory characters but nowhere near as bad as republican monsters like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. It has only been in the post-revolutionary era of mass politics and political ideologies that governments have taken to killing their own people in huge numbers. Nero was cruel to his own family and later persecuted Christians who were still a tiny minority and Attila the Hun, as ruthless as he was toward his enemies, ruled his own people well from what we know and with justice. No monarch ever wiped out as many of their own people as the communist dictators of the Twentieth Century, all of whom did so in the name of “the people” and “fairness”.

Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live.
Some people believe this, but it simply isn’t true. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic and truck driver during World War II, the King of Thailand is a renowned jazz musician and composer, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has painted illustrations for several books, including the Danish edition of “The Lord of the Rings”. The Emperor of Japan grows his own rice, the King of Cambodia was a practically anonymous dance instructor before coming to the throne and many royal heirs take ordinary jobs, often in obscure places where they are unknown, after finishing school. Despite what people think, royal life is not all champagne and caviar. Compare this to many presidents who have often never worked outside the public sector in their entire lives, never served in the military (as most royals do) or ever known any other life besides making speeches and casting votes.

At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job.
Not true at all. Some republics have ceremonial presidents that are supposed to be non-political but they still invariably have a political background and are beholden to the party that appoints them. A monarch, on the other hand, is above all political divisions and has a blood connection to the history of the country, its traditions and most deeply held beliefs. No politician could ever represent a people in the way a monarch can whose family history has been the history of the country itself.

Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them!
That argument could only begin to make sense if most monarchies had fallen because of a conscious decision by the whole people to see them end. This has certainly not been the case. Most monarchies have fallen because of brute force exerted by a powerful, motivated minority or because their country was defeated in war and their state collapsed. How about looking at how people live? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. Last year, 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?

Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people.
Actually, that is precisely why they can represent everyone in a way no politician ever could. President Hollande of France is an agnostic socialist, so how can he truly represent those French who are Catholic or capitalists? President Napolitano of Italy was a long-time communist, which is certainly not representative of most Italians. President Obama of the US, a liberal from Hawaii, cannot have much in common with a conservative from South Carolina. Yet, a monarch, because they are set apart, can represent everyone because they are not from any particular group.

Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppressed.
Historical fact says otherwise. Time and time again history has shown that the end of monarchy makes things worse for a country, not better. In France it resulted in the “Reign of Terror” that saw tens of thousands of people get their heads chopped off. In Russia, the loss of the monarchy allowed the Bolsheviks to take power who then created the Soviet Union which spread oppression around the world and murdered millions of people. In China the result was a chaotic period of warlord rule followed by the bloodiest civil war in human history and then a communist dictatorship that took the lives of 60 million people. The end of monarchy in Germany and Austria resulted in divided republics that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, devastate the continent and butcher 9 million people. The fall of the Shah of Iran allowed a radical theocracy to take power that has spread terrorism around the world and brutally oppressed its own people. These are only a few of the examples that could be cited and the facts are inarguable.

EmpathicDesign #wingnut #homophobia deviantart.com

Supporting the LGBT intentionally undermines heterosexuality and the suffering that they endure.

Heterosexuals are unfairly underrepresented and suffer great discrimination by having their suffering and ordeals ignored and downplayed to protect the pride and unfounded outrage of LGBT individuals who refuse to acknowledge heterophobia out of spite and revenge for historical abuse and a false sense of victimhood, despite not being a part of the events that inspired the LGBT movement.

Heterophobia needs to be addressed and prevented, more than all LGBT related phobic attacks, because without heterosexuals, humanity will fall into extinction, heterosexuality is the only moral sexual orientation and heterosexuals suffer silently and are constantly refused organizational representation; and no moral individual would silence women or people of color and their struggles and ordeals, it would be reprehensible to do so.

M.

Family Research Institute #fundie familyresearchinst.org

The gay lifestyle is a lonely and isolated one, but not primarily because of discrimination and intolerance. Even in San Francisco, easily the most gay-friendly city of this country, the gay life is not a happy one. Rather, it is a lifestyle of either shallow or short-lived relationships; brief, noncommittal and often violent sexual encounters; sexually transmitted disease; normative promiscuity, and gay vs. gay violence. In the final analysis, the gay life is a short life. Our study of over 7,000 gay and lesbian obituaries, published last year in Omega (4), indicates clearly that gay males are dying on average at age 42 in this country, over 30 years sooner than average married heterosexual males. The same holds for lesbians, who are dying on average at age 44. How can we discriminate against smokers because of the medical risks and not do the same for homosexuality? The last thing we need to do is to encourage a lifestyle that is so self-destructive and dangerous to its participants.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I believe the message of the AiG ministry has been very “prophetic.” Even when I began teaching on creation vs. evolution back in 1975, I was already asserting that atheistic evolution and morality were connected and that, over time, immorality would grow as people rejected God’s Word and accepted evolution.

I taught that the more people believed that life arose by natural processes, the more they would also believe that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless—and morality could be whatever a person determined. Or, as Judges 21:25 states, when there was no king (or absolute authority) in the land, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The late Dr. Henry Morris (considered the father of the modern biblical creation movement) had also been writing about this connection between evolution and morality in most of his early books.

Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality. But notice that as generations have been indoctrinated into believing naturalistic evolution, Christian morality has declined. Armed with so-called “science,” secularists have become bolder in opposing Christian morality.

In our Western world, we are seeing more and more people (like Bill Nye “the Science Guy”) who boldly claim that evolution is “science” and are using it to promote an anti-Christian worldview. More than ever, secular activists are vehemently opposing Christian morality, such as marriage being between one man and one woman and abortion being murder. And we are seeing very amoral and immoral behavior growing across the culture, especially, it seems, among the millennial generation. While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.

Now, it’s a challenge to read Charles Darwin’s books like On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. His writing can be very convoluted and difficult to follow. But what is clear is that Darwin believed humans are not special as the Bible states (i.e., made in God’s image), but just animals. As a result, he declared that morality was a result of evolution, shaping man into a highly social species through the process of natural selection. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, “Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

My point is that there has always been a connection between evolution and morality. Over the years, I’ve heard many evolutionists (like Bill Nye) and even some Christians claim that evolution is all about “science.” They vigorously rejected my insistence that evolution involved a worldview that helps build a relative/subjective morality. That’s why many people were shocked (though I wasn’t at all) when Bill Nye released his new series on Netflix that pushes shocking immorality and is sometimes anti-Christian.

Kids and adults enjoyed Nye’s TV series years ago where he did lots of fun things to teach science. Even if you watched his series back then, you would have noticed how he promoted evolutionary ideas in biology and geology. But he did it in such a way that most children would not have really noticed—and many parents probably didn’t see those pro-evolution sections. But kids were subtly indoctrinated. Even before his famous “Science Guy” program, Bill Nye had his television debut when he performed a comedy routine. It included a number of sexual innuendos.

For the many of you who saw my 2014 debate with Bill Nye (available uncut online or as a DVD), you will remember how I emphasized that the creation vs. evolution issue was actually a clash of two worldviews. Nye rejected this, of course, claiming I was the one who was talking about religion, but he was all about “science.”

In that debate I revealed the connection between naturalistic evolutionary beliefs and morality. Nye totally rejected this view. But people are now starting to see that what I stated in the debate is now being played out before their very eyes.

A recent article in the Christian Post reported (please excuse the crudeness):

On his Netflix show “Bill Nye Saves the World” on Sunday, the man famous for his 1990s series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” cheerily featured “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” star Rachel Bloom performing a lewd number called “My Sex Junk” and a video called “Ice Cream Sexuality,” a clear derision of Christian sexual ethics.

Nye’s new show occasionally references science and scientific language with the purpose of promoting left-wing causes.
Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, told the Christian Post, "These sad videos prove that atheistic Darwinians are so committed to blind faith that they very well may be invincibly ignorant.”

But really, this is what the belief in naturalistic evolution has always been about! I’m sure many of you have heard of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. He was an English novelist and grandson of the famous contemporary of Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” who, as an aggressive secular humanist, heavily promoted Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. He clearly saw Darwin’s naturalistic evolution as a justification for his secular humanist worldview.

Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about Brave New World: “The novel presents a nightmarish vision of a future society in which psychological conditioning forms the basis for a scientifically determined and immutable caste system that, in turn, obliterates the individual and grants all control to the World State.”

In 1937, Aldous Huxley made this statement in his book Ends and Means:

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.

We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world.

There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word—a battle between two worldview religions. Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

And the only way to ultimately win this struggle is for people to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb: “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).

This is why the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter exist. As we answer questions that will point people to the truth of God’s Word, we also clearly present them with the gospel. We’ve never hidden the fact that evangelism is our ultimate purpose—which is why we receive so much opposition from secularists. At the Creation Museum we present the saving gospel in different ways. That includes the stunning movie The Last Adam and the powerful new exhibit Christ, Cross, Consummation. We also make evangelistic tracts available free to our guests.

At the Ark Encounter, the gospel is featured in a number of ways including through the new movie As in the Days of Noah. The gospel is also powerfully shown in the massive exhibit Why the Bible Is True, with a graphic-novel approach. In that exhibit, we walk guests through the various “doors” of Scripture and then challenge visitors to go through the most important “door,” the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have just created a new gospel-witnessing tract on the “doors” of Scripture. It has been produced in conjunction with our new Ark exhibit, and we freely offer it to each guest who wants one at the Ark Encounter. I’m very excited about this new resource. It’s one more evangelistic tool to share the gospel at the Ark Encounter. And now you can order this “Doors of the Bible” tract from our online store and share it with someone who needs to hear the gospel.

I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel. And it is through your prayers and support that you are enabling AiG to continue all its many vital outreaches—to impact millions of souls for the kingdom of Christ while countering anti-Christian influences, like Bill Nye.

Colonel-Knight-Rider #racist deviantart.com

[Not the complete work. Just the, ahem, “highlights”.]

[…]

In Missouri, my mother found the public education system was clearly flawed, as evidenced by the Montessori preschool model, so homeschooling became our choice of education from grades K-8. With that, my brother and I gradually became conscious of persistent politically liberal bias and racial discrimination against Caucasians in education, so we developed strong rebuttals to incorrect assumptions and overgeneralizations of political conservatives and Caucasians like us. While our parents emphasized education with minimal time for many (but not all) of the films, TV series, and video games that many of my peers love (and every summer was spent studying something!), we received a rich cultural knowledge from all decades preceding 2000. In adulthood, though, we have increased our knowledge of 21st century popular culture thanks to Web searching and being more actively involved in reading the news. Altogether, we two brothers were raised to succeed and to think deeply about life.

As time passed, I learned more and more of the legacy of my mother’s father, a renaissance man in whose honor I was named. He proposed to his future wife the first of two times at age 10 […] and he had Herculean strength that let him balance people on one hand. Most of all, he saw good in everything and everyone, something I aspire to do even when faced with the fiercest of adversaries.

[…] The San Francisco Bay Area was where I spent my elementary and most of my middle school years. There, I attended various homeschool “park days” and made some acquaintances, but I wish I had more social skills to make lasting friends—come to think of it, some of them needed social skills improvement, too.

The family moved up to the Seattle Area in September 2005 for 8th grade through high school. I discovered the power of distance learning, which I found was like homeschooling with remotely submittable homework. At a homeschool co-op, where I attended extracurricular classes, I met Stephanie, an aspiring impressionist painter whom I assumed would be the love of my life until six years later, when I learned I’d been accidentally convinced that her family didn’t drink alcohol when they did (but I learned not to raise my expectations in women too high, so that was good). In 2007, I met another girl whom I assumed would be the love of my life—Jana, a possible incarnate angel (not an incarnate winged humanoid but an incarnate thought from God) who encouraged me to pursue singing on stage—until I chose to email Stephanie more frequently over her (regrettably! ^^;) and we lost touch.

[…]

At about age 9, I watched the film Super Mario Bros., loosely based upon the eponymous video game series, and believed it my destiny to remake the commercial and critical failure, confident that my work would succeed.

At age 16, I saw 2008’s attempt to reboot Glen A. Larson’s classic 1982-86 TV series Knight Rider and became fascinated with the idea of having a hyper-competent automobile for a sidekick. Since I’ve always loved the idea of suits of armor as symbols of protection and strength, I pictured an actual, armored Medieval knight inside a talking car, and the image of superhero “Captain Knight Rider” was born. I soon after changed the name to “Colonel Knight Rider” after watching an episode of the classic period sitcom Hogan's Heroes, whose main character happens to be named Colonel Robert E. Hogan (Bob Crane), because I felt “Captain” was an overused title for costumed vigilantes. Until I volunteered to help out with the Webcomic Nash & Friends, this image was nothing more than an abstract concept in my head. He had no defined world, personality, friends, or enemies for years.

[…]

Today, I’m a young accountant who consults with a startup where my father acts as CFO, and I have a contract accounting job with a customer base relations aid company that may become a full-time position—if God decides it's a good match, of course.

E.A. Koetting #magick #conspiracy #god-complex #mammon becomealivinggod.com

BREAKING: I’m keeping this newsletter powerful and brief. Chances are you’re SERIOUSLY WONDERING why the eBook wasn’t made available on time…

I’m going to reveal why I believe there is a real, hard core, sinister conspiracy against this Become A Living God project, and every single one of my living, talismanic books.

That’s right. A conspiracy of MAGICK.

Against ME.

And against YOU. (Guilty by association)

Continue reading below right now…

Hey Friend,

“WHAT HAPPENED?”

“ARE YOU OK?”

“DID SOMEONE HURT YOU?”

“ARE YOU ALIVE?”

“SOMETHING’S WRONG!”

“ANSWER ME!!!”

These are the questions and comments I received from my MOST FAITHFUL, LOYAL AND TOTALLY COMMITTED sorcerers and magicians on the day my Become A Living God eBook was set to release.

*** SHOCKED, BUT NOT SURPRISED

On Wednesday at 10am you were probably as excited as I was for you to download and immediately start reading my latest work.

But yet, 10 o’clock came, then 10:15, then 10:30, 10:45… still no announcement or book available… I was literally nowhere to be found.

Of course, my inbox, help desk, and social media profiles started FILLING with questions from disappointed aspirants wondering WHAT’S UP? ARE YOU OK? I’M READY TO GO!

The truth of the matter is that all my core computer systems completely crashed. Even my website programmer’s computer crashed. Our technical software began acting very bizarre.

Our email system shut down.

Our shopping cart software malfunctioned.

Our host-server blacked out.

And finally, as our growing frustration and confusion reached a crescendo…

My website developer contacted me and demanded that we reschedule.

So… to ensure you ALWAYS have the most perfectly excellent and thoroughly rewarding experience with my books, programs and material…

I decided to postpone the release.

*** UNMASKING A CONSPIRACY IN THE MAGICK COMMUNITY

If you’ll recall, my Book Of Azazel endured intense challenges, roadblocks, and interferences from “the universe” during production.

TORNADOES and weather storms hit the area, disrupted equipment, and more.

Let me repeat that.

A *TORNADO* hit the area.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Virtually *EVERY TIME* I’ve released a product, something strange just “went wrong” and totally disrupted the process flow.

— I am STRONGLY considering the possibility that there is a conspiracy of magick aimed at trying to defeat the publishing of my knowledge.

In fact… I KNOW THERE IS.

Several of them. And I’m 99% sure I know which specific dark orders and cults see me as a massive threat to their monopoly of power.

*** REVEALING THE OPPORTUNITY IN DISGUISE

As you know, I’ve devoted my life to black magick in an extremely hard core way.

It’s essentially the foundation of who I am.

And when I tell you that no matter how hard these feeble, weak magick orders and wimpy “witch covens” try to stop me…

>>> I’m only going to REDOUBLE MY ENERGY and
>>> push forward with more intensity than ever.

Failure and frustration are FOOD to me.

These emotions FUEL ME TO REACH ULTIMATE VICTORY.

And I vow that I am going to make these trangressors regret ever having such a dumb idea as to try to hurt me.

So here’s the plan as it stands:

#1: I’m Giving You “Become A Living God” eBook FREE

Try it. If you don’t like, don’t pay for it. If you respect the potency it possesses, then you’ll be billed for it 7 days later.

#2: I’m Also Giving You My All-New Interview Series: “Interviews With A Magus” – FOR FREE

Same deal. Try it. If you like it, then stay on it and you’ll be billed. If you don’t think it’s awesome, pay nothing and keep it as my gift.

#3: Get Book Of Azazel At Normal Price at

www.nephilimpress.com
HERE’S THE KICKER: I’m doing a Triple-Launch

I’m going to launch All Three at the same time:

– Become A Living God 1st Edition
– Interviews With A Magus debut
– Book of Azazel

I want these three Godlike Grimoires of Magick to act like a turbocharged JET PACK WITH ROCKET FUEL.

I want them to EXPLODE like a nuclear bomb dropping on our tiny little community of magick.

I believe combining these three magically-charged programs together will create a truly profound impact on not just the world of magick… ON THE ENERGY OF LIFE ON EARTH ITSELF.

I don’t know the exact date that you’ll get this triple-package yet, BUT PREPARE NOW AND TOTALLY COMMIT THIS VERY MOMENT TO HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING FULL SPEED!

I want you locked-and-loaded for when I give you the green light.

In early May… your power, your life and the world of magick is going to change forever.

Buckle up!

Talk soon.

Godlike Power,

E.A.

Anonymous author #homophobia #transphobia #racist survivalist-information-site.my-free.website

(Mod speaking: I removed more bits that seemed unnecessary)

Non-heterosexual orientations serve no logical or beneficial purpose for the species or the world (except in very specific and extreme circumstances like overpopulation, but even then, the condemned are too negatively impacted), so why should they continue? Confront a "progressive" (someone who is rabidly pro-heterogeneity, at the very least) with this question and all you will receive are obfuscations and/or abuse.

I have tried on several occasions to get members of any of the pro-heterogeneity camps to provide a valid logical and/or moral justification for the continued existence of non-heterosexual orientations, transgender mentality and other similar aspects, but unsurprisingly, none of them managed or were willing to do so, the pathetic, brainwashed and horrendously outclassed tools. Anyone who feels compelled to respect and/or defend those aspects is so ridiculous that the word 'pathetic' is seriously inadequate for describing them.

Although I learned of my heterosexuality very early on in my life, I did rather intensely fear turning homosexual somehow, during my childhood and teenage years. These fears were amplified after reading news stories about people spontaneously becoming homosexual (the veracity of the stories is unconfirmed) or developing the sexuality after suffering from a serious medical problem (one story was about a man who suffered a stroke and, after surviving, he claimed the stroke turned him homosexual). Even in the present, on rare occasions, I still experience small spikes of fear of transformation. Insurance against this is desirable for everyone.

It should go without saying that I resisted the pro-LGBT+ conditioning without any difficulty. It was like a bullet ricocheting off tank armour, which is a fitting comparison for all the other types of mental conditioning that were attempted on me. Thinking about this resistance gives me a momentary rush of mild pleasure. I have always had negative sentiments towards LGBT+ aspects, which is further proof my mind is not warped or inferior.

I think the vast majority of heterosexual people who say they are not repulsed by same-sex activity involving the same gender are liars. I think the non-hostile (not anti-European) ones who claim they are not repulsed are suppressing their true feelings, probably because the feelings cause them to feel ashamed or immoral somehow. The anti-Europeans lie because they want to further reinforce the European guilt complex and because they want further denigration of Western society.

Armchair Psychologist Award

TheGuruLikes #transphobia reddit.com

Trans identifiers who claim to be homosexual on the basis of the sex they identify with are immaturely and pathologically focused on physical attributes at the expense of the substance of homosexuality.

Through spreading rhetoric of "genital preference", they're regressing the public debate back to a time when society framed the nature of our relationships only in shallow terms of sexual activity. It's a manipulative misappropriation of public sentiment via a childish form of retribution for an apparent lack of self esteem. What's most insidious is how their tactic sows confusion, misunderstanding, and self-doubt around the nature of our sexuality among naive homosexuals.

How many of us homosexuals have put much thought into considering what it truly means to be oriented to intimacy with a partner of the same sex?

I see the fundamental essence of homosexual attraction as an emotional connectivity with one other's biological sameness. External body parts and secondary sex characteristics merely touch the easily observable surface, but since that's the maximum extent by which a heterosexual trans identifier can relate, they are limited to a superficial and inadequate set of assumptions about the nature of homosexual orientation, much less heterosexual orientation. It's ignorance. Our easily manipulated gay brothers and lesbian sisters are also ignorant. Their minds are so consumed by underclass ideology that they've no capacity left for realizing that the alphabet diversity game is stripping us of our shared yet individually born identities.

Attraction to same sex physical features are an outer layer of our sexuality whereas desiring same sex romantic intimacy is fulfilling an innate psychological impulse to be unified with the same sex. Only same sex partners can provide the necessary relativity to each other's mutual homosexual desire. The same applies to heterosexuality in the inverse. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are opposite sides of a complex coin. It would be far more appropriate to place those two phenomena in a box together than it is to group either with sex identification. Gender theory further distorts and unnecessarily complicates the distinction.

Trans identifiers are at most a novelty in terms of sexual experience. It doesn't matter much that they approximate the look of the other sex. In the end, the state of knowing that person is biologically the same forms the fundamental basis of an emotional connection with a same sex partner.

Hopefully a silver lining to the the rise in trans theory lunacy is that it will catalyze more of us to better understand what defines our sexuality, thereby helping truth to ultimately contain this public mental health crisis.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[Extracted from Slavery Reconsidered - All formatting in original]

Whip hand: the free-thinking Carlyle Club abolishes Whig history, serves up some primary sources, and cottons on to a south-side view in this, our masterful third issue. It’s bound to please!

Question: what’s wrong with slavery?

[...]

You know, it sounds like the good people of Detroit would benefit a lot from some sort of a combination of adoption, which provides stability, security, and lifelong support, and lifetime employment, which provides stability, community, and social harmony, especially for low-skilled workers (like in Detroit). Now, if only American history could furnish us with an example of a social arrangement combining adoption and lifetime employment… But I digress.

[...]

That reminds me of something Thomas Carlyle wrote in [i]Shooting Niagara[/i] (1867), a pamphlet considered extreme even by Victorian standards:

Servantship, like all solid contracts between men (like wedlock itself, which was once nomadic enough, temporary enough!), must become a contract of permanency, not easy to dissolve, but difficult extremely, — a “contract for life,” if you can manage it (which you cannot, without many wise laws and regulations, and a great deal of earnest thought and anxious experience), will evidently be the best of all. […] Of all else the remedy was easy in comparison; vitally important to every just man concerned in it; and, under all obstructions (which in the American case, begirt with frantic “Abolitionists,” fire-breathing like the old Chimaera, were immense), was gradually getting itself done.

[...]

Anyway, since the practical, day-to-day realities of slavery were much better than you have been led to believe, this idea makes no sense, and you need to re-assess slavery. Maybe it wasn’t bad after all.

Are you re-assessing slavery?

You’re not re-assessing slavery, are you?

Okay, try the second idea: slavery was bad regardless of what it was actually like, because slavery contradicts Liberty, Equality, and other, miscellaneous abstractions (Human Dignity springs to mind), which are to be considered good regardless of how much misery they have created over the centuries. In that case, congratulations: you, like the abolitionists, have got religion. Kindly keep your Church far away from the State.

If neither idea suits you, it might be a combination of the two, sort of circular in shape: everyone knows slavery was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal, which was terrible for them, because they were whipped and beaten ceaselessly for no reason, and if you say they weren’t, why, you’re just excusing slavery, which everyone knows was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal — and round and round we go, abandoning even the pretense of straightforwardness, and always returning to Liberty, Equality, and we might as well throw in Fraternity, so ultimately the argument turns out to be a popular late 18th century murderous insurrectionary war cry.

Metapedia #racist #crackpot en.metapedia.org

Europeans presented an angle of 80°, the Negro an angle of 70° and the orangutan of 58°. Another oft-noted difference between Negroes and Europeans is the girth and length of their erect penises. Negroes are found to possess penises an average 130% the length and 155% the girth of the average European, as well as showing a stunning value of 160% the "veininess." These differences are believed to be derived from the decreased intelligence and increased animal sex drive of the Negroid, with larger penises allowing for more efficient and brutal rape of children.

Anon Truthseeker #conspiracy #racist #psycho exploringthehiddentruth.wordpress.com

Adrenochrome is generally known to be harvested from the pineal glands of penguins in places such as Antarctica (the South Pole, an order of such is described in this WikiLeaks Leak between Podesta and one of his friends… However, this obviously does not meet the global Zionist Elite’s needs for getting intoxicated and drunk on their conquests. Therefore, tying into pedogate (which was recently rolled up and uncovered by the United States DOJ), the Zionist Elite instead kidnap children, rape, and torture them in order to concentrate the Adrenaline/Epinephrine in their glands, then harvest the Adrenochrome from the glands while the subject is living (adrenochrome does not last long in
a corpse) and finally murder the victim after the drug is extracted. Alternately, the subject may be kept alive for repeated extractions; in this case, a needle is
plunged into the eye to extract the adrenochrome from the brain stem without cutting into the skull. This was satirized in the first episode “Whom the Gods would
Destroy”, of Series 1 of the British TV series Lewis (2008). Of course it all seems like a joke, but we know how the Zionist Elite love to rub the truth in our faces
in plain daylight (what are “Google Adreno” and “Google Chrome”?).

But where do the Zionist Elite acquire living subjects to harvest?

This constant need for living subjects, to harvest the chemical out of their adrenal glands, is why Zionists do not want peace in Israel. The status quo of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made Palestinians into de facto and de jure second class citizens, who can be legally harvested at any time by any Israeli citizen
for organs, tissue, and precious adrenochrome.

One Million Moms #fundie #homophobia onemillionmoms.com

Unfortunately, Disney Channel’s content is deteriorating at warp speed, getting worse almost every month.

One Million Moms warned parents about the demonic show The Owl House when it first premiered on Disney Channel in January. But the dark program has much more for conservative parents to be concerned about now that the network introduced its first bisexual character in the most recent episode of The Owl House.

The lead character, Luz Noceda – a 14-year-old girl who wants to become a witch even though she has no magical powers, has now come out as bisexual. Disney confirmed this new development.

The series’ creator, Dana Terrace, identifies as bisexual, so she wanted to write about a bisexual character. She tweeted, “At first, ‘certain Disney leadership’ was not too fond of the idea of having an LGBTQ+ character.” Terrace persuaded Disney to allow the character anyway.

"{I} was very open about my intention to put queer kids in the main cast. I'm a horrible liar so sneaking it in would've been hard, {…}" she said in her tweet. "{I} was told by certain Disney leadership that I could not represent any form of bi or gay relationship on the Channel.

"Luckily my stubbornness paid off and now I am very supported by current Disney leadership," she said.

1MM believes it is important to warn parents that bisexuality has been introduced on the Disney Channel. Our supporters deserve the opportunity to speak out against this series.

The series is rated TV Y7 FV, which means it is recommended for ages 7 and older and contains fantasy violence. Disney Channel has already renewed the program for a second season.

TAKE ACTION

Please sign our petition urging Disney Channel to cancel this dangerous show, ‘The Owl House,’ immediately.

Marie Ross #racist thewhitevoice.com

[Bolding original]

How Anti-White Propaganda Takes The Disguse of Advertising

Anti-White propaganda under the thinly veiled guise of “advertising” has further escalated their tactic by endorsing/depicting violence toward WHITE MEN!

Preface: One can carefully select a program or so on TV per week (very little time in comparison to the average person), yet still be the recipient of the hideous barrage of offensive “commercials”! Most everyone is on the internet. They’ve made their presence there just as well. The examples I’ll list are but a few of countless ones circulating (via both TV & internet).

I’m far from naïve, yet still find it quite difficult to comprehend why so many White people freely subjugate themselves to such humiliation and violence. Sure, they’re getting paid cash for their “services”, but no amount of money is worth one’s dignity-psychological, physical, subliminal, "jokingly", or otherwise.

What to do about this? BOYCOTT and spread the word! When I do take a few moments, I rather enjoy tactfully (often with a facetious tone), scolding them (corporate office, “contact us”, etc.), and informing them the message is on behalf of hundreds of thousands.

Last night, some friends and I had a good laugh at a Cheerios commercial on TV. It was a nostalgic collage of commercials of theirs from the 70’s & 80’s. A few days prior I read their sales have been suffering. We know why that is. Two “ads” celebrating the miscegenation agenda. Too late, but thanks for showing your true colors! ß pun intended.

*Warning* If you watch these, high blood pressure and anger are likely to occur.

Dodge Dart: This is an actual series with the same two actors as neighbors. The theme is always the same. White man-you’re an IDIOT. So far, this is the worst I’ve seen of their “marketing strategy”, when it starts to get violent.

Old Spice-vending machine: Obnoxious, violent African is extremely threatening and degrades an intentionally “wimpy” White man at least half his size while using the word "power" several times:

Official Super Bowl ad (yet another reason YOU should boycott the NFL!) Joe Namath and Ronnie Lott (I suppose he is/was an NFL player? IDK nor care) Shame on you Joe Namath.

Madden 15 trailer. Oh, this is beyond inflammatory. Black on White violence, miscegenation by taking the White man’s woman after humiliating him, and just odd displays. If you dare to look, I suggest you mute, or lower the volume to a minimum. NFL boycott reasons!

Subway: Another repeat offender! They have numerous ANTI-WHITE MALE “commercials”. Here’s but one: The Authoritative African and a White femaleßadding insult to injury, look down on the White man as a foolish individual who won’t/can’t? defend himself:

Kia Forte “Hotbot”. While the male violently attacked with an obvious feminist flair to it appears to be a non-gentile despite his light hair & eyes, the average American would see him as White, so keep that fully in mind viewing this violent little ditty:

Last but certainly not least: Although this product appears to be a foreign brand of candy, the message is as obvious as it is disturbing:

These appear to be clear messages by the destroyers (as covered in Murdering Multiculturalism by Joe Adams)- http://www.thewhitevoice.com/storepage/ Uncomfortable as it is, we should take acute heed of these hateful messages.

Faith Facts #fundie faithfacts.org

When the subject of Gay Marriage comes up, how are Christians doing at communicating the harm to society with the secular world? Do we have logical reasons to present without being perceived as being "Bible-thumping"?

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:

1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

Rev Michael Bresciani #fundie americanprophet.org

Infantophobia and Homophobia - Reality vs. Perception
by Rev Michael Bresciani, April 10, 2010

Infantophobia is a neologistic word whose life expectancy may be no more predictable than the unborn-children it makes reference to but, the word homophobia has a life all of its own, even if in reality it does not deserve one.

Recently attention has been focused on the merging lines of reality and perception in the American psyche. Studies show that those lines are both merging and even blending together in our national life. The effects of Hollywood films, TV, gaming, the internet and fictional literature have left some Americans in a hazy middle of the road lurch where reality and perception have overlapped and, in some cases perception has fully overtaken reality.

One study showed that for millions of Americans their knowledge of a historical event is so colored by Hollywood that they would discard the history they learned in classrooms and substitute it completely with an altered Hollywood version of the same event.

The effect of TV is even greater. Entire political preferences and moral stands are often derived from the tube and the prevailing wisdom of the day is reflected in the common verbiage of a nation that seems to have no other underpinnings on which to stand. If we are what we eat then we are also what we have been feeding our brains.

In an online video presentation of Michele Obama speaking to the LBGT (Lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) she used the word homophobia to describe anyone's resistance to the general acceptance of any and all of these sexual preferences.

Michele is reinforcing the idea that some untold number of Americans are cringing and trembling in mortal fear of the neighborhood going to pieces because of the un-closeting of the new hordes of emerging homosexuals. Here is where a better definition is needed and where perception should be given a jolt of reality.

Even if, as President Obama has said Americans are, "clinging to their Bibles" and using quotes from an "obscure passage," the use of the word homophobia is hardly appropriate. The indiscriminate use of this word has long since passed out of the realm of reality and is now enjoying its debut in the fantasy world of hyperbole and perception.

The word, homophobia, has already become the dusty and faded bulb we pull out year after year to hang on the Christmas tree; it is no longer a real fruit growing from a real tree planted by any national emerging social trend.

Oddly the passage many are said to be referring to is not obscure but is 30 years newer than the gospels themselves and was penned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. Paul wrote, "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. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Ro 1:26-28)

In spite of this passage it is very hard to find anyone who actually has passed from acquiescence to this verse on to hatred of homosexuals. Since I rarely quote myself and risk crossing the fragile line between journalistic license and pure narcissism I think it is safe to remind my readers of something I've previously written.

In an article entitled The PC Wars of 2010 and Beyond - Spiritual wickedness in high places, I said "In over forty years of discussion with Christians about homosexuals I have never met one single person who said they were afraid of homosexuals. It is that fact that drove me to search for the root cause of the entire debate between the gays and the church."

I didn't include the fact that in that same forty year period I met countless homosexuals that do suffer from theophobia or Christophobia. They are not always afraid of God but rather they fear that Paul and others who are said to have spoken in God's stead were correct and that God meant exactly what he said. They respond to this fear by arguing against the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures; even though most of them don't even know what this terminology means.

God doesn't have an opinion on anything but he does establish laws that will not be changed by anyone's opinion or dis-belief; be it the LBGT or Michele Obama. The best they can do is to raise the same question that the arch deceiver raised in the Garden of Eden and proposed to Eve which was, "hath God said?" (Ge 3:1) Nothing new here.

The root cause of infantophobia can be easily ascertained by looking at the reams of statistical materials that are readily available since the inception of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade. It is not for reasons of incest, birth defects or rape that most women seek an abortion but according to every major study it is the fear that they will not be able to support a child.

Women are afraid that they will not get an education and be denied job opportunities and that an unwanted child would compromise their future chances at getting anywhere above the poverty level in life. The key word here is fear, is there a phobia for this kind of fear? Wait a while; the PC doctors will have one in due season. In the meantime didn't we all assume that the phrase "land of the free and home of the brave" included our women? If ignoring fear is what makes greatness, heroes and amazing Americans then what does a long list of phobias make?

In the search for the root cause of infantophobia one fact consistently rears its ugly head. When encountered, it stifles the search for any further answers. It is such a staggering revelation that it makes the difference between the perceived problems of homophobia look like extraneous nonsense when compared to the realities of this scourge known as abortion.

What is that fact? It is the comparison between the actual real-time results and the disparity that exists between homophobia and infantophobia. The 2007 FBI statistics on "hate crimes" said that gays were called names 335 times; they were shoved or pushed 448 times and were done bodily harm 242 times. This is exactly 1025 times too many for anyone and there is no excuse for it but let's not stop there, let's go on to the comparison and the important question it raises.

Infantophobia resulted in the deaths of 50,000,000 unborn babies in America since 1973. That's fifty million in case you have trouble with commas and zeroes. That is about 4,000 (four thousand) per day on average. Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?

Did you miss the question? Let me repeat it. "Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?"

I won't appendage this piece with my usual scriptural selection but rather, I will resort to the language of children, at least those who were allowed citizenship. Phobia-Schmobia: grow up America and return to your senses!

Proof of the Creator #fundie thefirmament.org

[Just a small sample from this extremely lulzy proof of god's existence.]
Looking back again to Noah's Ark, God told Noah to make the Ark 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. Using Ezekiel's formula to convert cubits to inches, we find 300 cubits times 24 inches per cubit is 7200 inches in length. 50 cubits times 24 inches per cubit equals 1200 cubits in width. To find the area, we multiply the length times the width. 7200 inches in length times 1200 inches in width 8,640,000 square inches. Remember the diameter of the sun was 864,000 miles.

Gene and Earline Moody #fundie moodymanual.demonbuster.com

Goals of homosexuals are marriage to children, multiple spouse marriage, polygamy, group marriage, promiscuity (open marriage), same-sex marriage, and destryouing marriage between a man and a woman.

Forced homosexual roommates, gays in the military, radical feminism, lesbian separatist movement, anti-discrimination ordinances, minority status based on homosexuality, graphic pro-gay sex and AIDS education, mandatory sensitivity training, hate crimes, speech codes, fines, Hollywood promotion of homosexual love making and of gay rights agenda in movies and television, public finding of homosexual pornography; invention of gay speak - gay, homophobia, diversity, sexual orientation; unmasking of powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals, homosexual marriage and adoption, attacks on churches, and pederasty.

Ap0calypse #fundie incels.co

Actual incel definitions vs what society wants incel definitions to be

A surge of new guests and members are exploring incels.me recently, and I would like to take the time to clarify some of the confusion that has been going around, particularly about our definitions and ideology. Here are some words that are twisted by anti-unattractive male activists.

Incel
(society definition)-Hateful, violent, misogynistic male terrorist that is unable to get laid due to females around him being able to perceive his misogyny, creepiness, low confidence and bad personality automatically. They believe they deserve 10/10 females and that all women should be enslaved and have their rights taken away.
Example: You see that 10/10 6'4 male model that has sex 5 times a week? He is an incel since he says stuff that I disagree with online.

Cool Fact: According to their incel definition, it is just an anomaly that females are unable to detect bad personalities in tall/attractive males before entering abusive relationships with them. But lonely males on the internet that would actually make loyal partners are the problem.


Incel
(actual definition)-Any male who is unable to get laid due to his appearance and to a small degree, mental problems (autism, Aspergers, Actual Depression). Due to dating standards, genetics (mostly), and society, many males are unable to get laid due to their appearance. Problems like hair loss, short stature, poor eye shape, and overall facial structure are purely genetic, and have been proven to be the key factors in determining one's reproductive success. Males who are average/above average height with a decent face are not considered true incels since there will be females attracted purely to his appearance. Females cannot be considered incels due to how male biology functions. Due to their higher sex drive and other factors, males have a diverse amount of tastes in different types of women. Traits that would spell a death sentence for males will have hardly any negative effects on females. In a female viewpoint, they can consider themselves incel, but this is usually due to the fact that most men they see are invisible due to their height, face, or baldness; while tall and handsome men are the only men they desire. Since these tall handsome men are in high demand, they can by picky when choosing long term female partners and will discard so called femcels.
Example: You see that short, balding, unattractive male over there? He is an incel no matter what ideology he believes in.

Blackpill
(society definition)-"I will espouse misogyny and hatred towards all women"
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? Why do you want to enslave all women to be your sex slaves????


Blackpill
(actual definition)-"I can identify the importance of genetically controlled physical features in males, which determines their overall happiness, dating lives, and treatment by society due to overwhelming data and past/current abuse due my appearance. If you are considered below average looking in the society you live in, your life will be considerably harder."
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? I can see how your negative dating experience due to your short stature has impacted you life, I appreciate your viewpoint on the matter and wish you good luck.

Chad
(society definition)- Any male that is attractive to women due to his confidence, feminism and personality.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". Women only go out with me because they see my meek and submissive personality as a chance to use my money and resources while giving me sex once every two months. Most of my past relationships resulted in my partner leaving me for a more attractive male, but since I am a self identified feminist I will get laid much more than any male model.

Chad
(actual definition)- Any male that is attractive to the majority of women due to his physical appearance. Males with a nice jaw, good eye area, and tall stature typically fall into this category. After years of crucial dating and socializing experience due to their enhanced genetics in their youth, they are usually very confident and outgoing, and will live happy lives. Due to the halo effect, Chads can get away with things usual males cannot in social scenarios. Also, most chads don't even need confidence to get relationships since women will go out of their way to lock them down for a relationship.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". I am 6'4 with a handsome face, I can install tinder and get laid faster than you can possibly imagine. Tinder experiments have shown that I can say literally whatever the fuck I want and still have females be attracted to me.

thoughtsandreplies #fundie thoughtsandreplies.tumblr.com

[ Heterosexual marriage has its downsides, too, you know. The currently-high divorce rate is a great example of this, as is the high rate of adultery amongst heterosexuals. But does that mean that heterosexuality, in and of itself, is wrong? Of course not. So why think that homosexuality is wrong, then, just because it has some downsides? It seems like the only real argument you have against homosexuality is that it goes against the Bible. But since when is everyone required to follow the Bible? ]

There is a reason there is no such thing and never will be any such thing as ‘gay marriage’. Because marriage is definitively the bringing together of a man and a woman to secure to their children their natural parents.

David Blankenhorn’s Protecting Marriage to Protect Children Sept 19, 2008
Marriage has always been a partnering of opposites, male and female, and to pretend two gays can be married is to not know what marriage is. 


HeroicNews: Why Marriage can Never be Gay, Dec 28, 2013


It is critical for healthy child rearing to have stable consistent parental relationships from either side of gender dimorphism. Daughters need respectable fathers to learn to expect to be treated with respect. Boys need mothers to teach them the value of respecting the weaker sex. And children learn by watching all the time their parents, without their even realizing it. And absent the dynamics of a opposite sex relationship a hideous void rends asunder their formative years. 

CBS News: Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, June 12, 2012


The divorce rate statistic that’s been going around for the past few decades is actually a wanton deception. Thomas Sowell explains it best:

“In a given year, the number of divorces may well be half as large as the number of marriages that year, but this is comparing apples and oranges. The marriages being counted or only those marriages taking place within the given year, while the divorces that year are from marriages that took place over a period of decades. To say that half of all marriages end in divorce, based on such statistics would be like saying that half the population died last year if deaths were half as large as births. Just as most people were neither born nor died last year, so most marriages did not begin or end last year. “-Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed

CNS News: How Does Gay Marriage Hurt Us? Here’s How! June 17, 2014


Marriage is a religious and cultural institution and just like most people in western society know nothing of how fundamental the Christian world view has shaped our society, so too are most ignorant of how Marriage supports society.

To garner the beginning of an understanding just look at the repercussions of the destruction of the Black Family. [which btw was on the rise when the socialism of the Great Society destroyed it]

Just as you cannot demonize heterosexual relationships because of their particular failures, you cannot attribute homosexual relationships with successes they are by nature incapable of achieving, specifically because of the natural differences of the sexes which cultural revolutionaries so ardently try to deny the existence of… 

Masha Gessen Gay Marriage Activist, “Marriage shouldn’t exist” Apr 23, 2013


It seems like the only real argument you have against homosexuality is that it goes against the Bible. But since when is everyone required to follow the Bible?

Take note, and look back at the exactly ZERO times I brought up the Bible. 


In my previous post I explained the morality of LIBERTY, the definition of mental illness, and various statistics. In this post I’ve explained the nature of marriage & why homosexuality must fall short [gender dimorphism] marriage’s relevance to child rearing, faulty divorce statistics, and noted the definitive repercussions when the family is dissolved. [We absolutely know that a child is less well off without both a father and mother, period].

Nowhere did I ever suggest an ironfisted theocracy. =/ I said, in toto, Liberty trumps your feelings. & Homosexuality is unhealthy. 

You seem to be inventing what you think I’d say rather than reading my words. =/

As you can’t get that much clear, I don’t see the point in distinguishing between universal nature of one thing [homosexuality] and the failings of another [marriage] within individual instances and or trends in a relatively small time segment of cultural revolution. =/ 

Humans are by nature flawed. To point out the nature of homosexuality and it’s unachievable virtues, and those same virtues found redonkulously in TradMarriage is not to overlook the failings in particular TradMarriages.

Of course [since you brought up the Bible out of the blue] ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that love of yourself is only the basis on which to grow. The Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself, is the next step. And courage requires reaching out to ‘other’s. 

In homosexuality this natural development of human morality is squashed. Getting along with a life partner so different as to be another gender altogether is the natural means to forcing human growth. 

And just fyi, the likes of J.D. Unwin have studied anthropological matters which to me suggest the probability that fidelity in TradMarriage relates to measures of advancement in civilization itself. 


BUT without the Bible you really have no idea where we would be, AT ALL. Classical Liberalism was of Christian derivation, esp. the Christian Philosophy called “Scottish Common Sense”. There never would have been any kind of abolition movement. The world before Jewish laws of the old testament giving indentured servants specific legal rights shows only a glimpse of what the imminent pagan world was like. They had to institute laws against child/human sacrifice because it was a real normal thing going on. 


Every Atheist in the world cannot lift himself off of his intellectual belly without the moral foundation of Christian pluralism.The golden rule is the basis for the non aggression principle. Civil rights are derived from Natural Law a Biblical concept. 

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Thousands Of Varieties Of Foods Couldn't Have Just Happened

In a recent episode titled, “How The Earth Was Made” by Walt Disney's H2 (History Channel), the narrator (Mike Rowe) refers to the earth's creation as an “Accidental Aftermath” and a “Cosmic Glitch.” Do you really think it was mere astronomically improbable coincidence that we have a choice to eat between beef, lamb, chicken, pork, lobster, fish (and other varieties) of meat? If there were no divine Maker, then what factor determined that there would be cattle? What factor in the evolutionary process decided that we would have pork? Can you image the world without any of the awesome varieties of fruits, vegetables, meats, spices and foods that we enjoy?

Terry_Bean #fundie disqus.com

Like the 8 studies done in 3 different nations proving homosexuality is not genetic, thus not born that way.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.” Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

Incel Wiki #fundie incels.wiki

Macrophallism

Macrophallism is an indisposition or condition defined by an erect penile length measuring 2.5 SD+ more than average. Although the macropenis is defined by being something abnormal, the ubiquity of porn has made macrophallism seem normal. This has resulted in a lot of angst and shame for 90% of men who don't measure up. Macrophallism may be normal for tapirs, which are South American herbivorous mammals who have penises so long they sometimes accidentally hit themselves in the face with it. Nonetheless, tapirs are pretty mch shortcels. That's where horses come in. Horses are pretty tall and they are also pretty well hung. Is it a coincidence that horses are seen as sacred in the western world?

In the incelosphere, macrophallism is wdely consider to be a trait held by gigachads. Since most guys can't live up to this standard, we now have phenomenon such as double stuffing, whereby a woman has a threesome with two men inserting their dicks into one vag. Although the average erect circumference is 4.6 inches, combined, they become 9.2 inches of girth.

Michael Brown #fundie charismanews.com

I have no desire to pile on with more comments about Josh Duggar, who appears to be a very serious and committed Christian and who has made no excuses for the sins of his youth and who deeply desires to make a positive impact for the Lord in the years ahead. I simply want to share some redemptive thoughts, supplementing some of the excellent statements made by others, including former governor Mike Huckabee and Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore.

1. Jesus really does change people. While critics of the Duggar family want to indict them (along with other evangelical Christians, especially those with large families) for Josh's actions, and while many seem ready to throw Josh under the bus, the fact is that while he did sin grievously, through repentance, faith and counseling, he became a new man. Jesus really does transform sinners.

How many of us did wicked things as teenagers? I was shooting heroin at the age of 15 and broke into some houses and even stole money from my own father before being radically converted at the age of 16. I was profane, filled with pride, anger and lust, yet the Lord had mercy on me and totally turned my life around.

Some of us continued to live like this into our adult years, only to find mercy and new life then, meaning that the transformation was even more dramatic.

For me, the first lesson from this story is this: Whoever you are, whatever you've done, there is hope in the Lord. As Mike Huckabee said, "'inexcusable' ... doesn't mean 'unforgivable.'"

As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, and you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

2. There's no excuse for sin, so own up to it. In today's culture, almost no one is guilty of anything. It's someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility, not our own. We're all victims, and the reason we do bad things is because someone else wronged us. Isn't that how we think today?

I've even heard athletes apologize for some really heinous actions by saying, "I'm not happy with the way things happened," rather than saying, "What I did was wrong and I have no excuses. Please forgive me. I'm seeking to get to the root of my problems and address them."

What a vast difference between the two attitudes.

As Proverbs states, "He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy" (28:13).

According to the accounts we've all heard, Josh confessed his sin to his parents as well as to the proper authorities, and as a family, they worked through the issues. Now, half a lifetime later (he's 27 and is married with four children), when confronted with a police report about his past, he did not minimize his sin nor did he excuse it. He also resigned from the fine Christian organization for whom he worked, not wanting to bring any negative attention to their work.

When I see someone respond like this, I am filled with hope. In fact, over the years, I've seen that people who committed uglier sins but took full responsibility and repented did far better than those who committed less serious sins and tried to sweep them under the rug.

3. Even godly families have kids who mess up badly. Nancy and I only had two kids, and we sought to be godly parents and set godly examples. Yet our older daughter went through a real period of rebellion in her teen years.

As parents, we felt miserable, and I would wonder what I was doing wrong.

Of course, we dealt with her rebellion head on and prayed like crazy for her to really encounter the Lord, but while it was happening, it was terribly deflating spiritually. What kind of father am I? How can I be so ineffective?

Today, we all laugh about those years, and our daughter, who is now 37 and is a devoted wife and mother, is so grateful for the way she was raised. (She and Nancy are the best of friends and are in constant contact.)

The fact that the Duggars, who successfully raised 19 children in the Lord (who can imagine that?), had to deal with one of their kids committing serious sexual sin at 14 should actually encourage other parents rather than discourage them. And perhaps, they can teach us today how this tragic incident helped them come together as a family and draw closer to the Lord.

4. Josh can be an ambassador on behalf of the abused, even helping the abusers, as well. While it can feel like your life is over when your past, largely private sins become public (how many of us would like for that to happen?), the fact is that Josh's future can be bright in the Lord.

He can call on others who are sinning to come clean and get help, using his own example redemptively. And he can encourage those who have been abused to realize that they are not guilty and should not feel shame, also encouraging churches to embrace those who come for help rather than making them feel as if there is something wrong with them.

Why should those who have suffered abuse be stigmatized? They should be our priority for healing and restoration.

5. We need to be careful how we judge. There are many fans of the Duggars who are upset with what they feel is a witch hunt against a godly family, representing one more attempt to remove them from reality TV. (Let me say without qualification that there is life after reality TV, and if the Duggars never do another broadcast, their lives can still be overwhelmingly blessed.)

But would we have had this same attitude of judgment if this was the child of a gay couple? Would we have said, "This proves that gay parents are no good!"?

I certainly believe that kids deserve a mom and a dad and that, optimally, they will do best with a mom and dad, but I don't indict all gay couples because of the failings of one of their kids

So, if you want to show mercy, be consistent. We can all fall into the trap of selective compassion.

6. There are consequences to our actions, but with God, our worst mistakes can become stepping stones to spiritual growth.

Most of us have done things we wish we could take back, and in some cases, the consequences of our bad choices and sinful actions last for decades. Yet with the Lord, no matter how great the stigma of our sin, if we will humble ourselves before Him, He can take those stumbling blocks and turn them into stepping stones, to the point that the worst things that ever happened to us become the best things that ever happened to us.

To the core of His being, God is a redeemer, and I'm personally praying and believing that for Josh Duggar and his entire family, God will turn this painful situation around for greater good.

Let's watch and see.

HalfAsianTruthTeller #racist stormfront.org

The TRUTH ABOUT WHITE MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN FROM THEIR EURASIAN SON
Asian women and their insistence on breeding with white men is not something based on love, but rather on hate (largely of Asian men), yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind. If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of hypergamy. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not. If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

For this reason, I curse my own mother, I am glad she is dead, and I hate every ounce of the whore, slut, white-worshiping piece of trash that my mother, an Asian woman from Hong Kong, was. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Eurasian men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own mothers.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain a failure, full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me.

I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children, the worst case being Elliot Rodger, whose sentiment, at times, I emulated with. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, and have a poor reputation among people who know me as being antisocial, distant, and prone to lunatic beliefs; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Eurasian male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints. Some, in many ways, would consider him a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs (hapasons.wordpress.com) that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened. He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am both antisocial, have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women mating with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is what brought me to this country, and I would have killed myself had I not been saved by my wife.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. THIS IS A PATENT LIE.

This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are TOO CONTROLLING, PATRIARCHAL, AND CONSERVATIVE. I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death. Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of

The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal. The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise and hate my own mother with a vehement passion that is borderline violent. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally cuckolded by my own mother, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be negotiated, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by OUR OWN MOTHERS.

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION for actively being part of the self-congratulation group of Asian women who HATE ASIAN MEN AND THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD FOR ASIAN MEN. For this, my own mother is a guilty whore, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Eurasian” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men. The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead. I am essentially considered crazy by the larger community, have been outcast to China, will die alone in a small apartment, am suicidal, depressed, and unable to work.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother. Luckily, mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I hate Asian women who refuse to date any such race, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

James Laffrey #racist whiteswillwinparty.org

Preface: Don’t say publicly what I’m saying. Somebody has to say what I’m saying, so I am saying it, as my duty. But you need never say it. Just do it. Be a silent hero — until Victory Day. Furthermore, be smart. Use your White intelligence. Advice is here, but surely you will think of other methods, perhaps easier or safer.

As JB Campbell has said, and as I say: “Save America. Kill the jews.”

Blunt? Yes. Manly? Yes. Correct? Absolutely.

We must kill the enemy population that has invaded our country. The enemy is jewry. Get started. Kill one jew. We greatly outnumber them, so the personal quota for each of us can be a mere one. Of course, the more the better, thus the quicker the problem is solved.

Do you have a gun? Consider using it. You could use the M.O. of the Africans among us who shoot people and get away with it every day. Most guns are noisy and leave evidence. If you account for those factors, you can enjoy the use of one of the most effective weapons our White ancestors ever invented.

In regard to noise, consider a different type of gun. Pellet gun, for example. Very low noise. Effective at close range. Cheap.

There are other kinds of “guns.”

If you are near a very large body of water, then a type of speargun may be a weapon of choice. You see the jew on his boat in the marina. You help him get the point that this is our country, permanently.

Nearly anywhere, a bow and arrow may get the job done in almost complete silence. Jews are poolside, or in a convertible waiting at a red light, and you put this new idea in his or her head. Or you know the university professor is at his desk, so you carry your lightweight bag into the nearest restroom and string up, or do so outside his door, then silently take aim and pierce that enemy’s arrogant exterior for all time.

Note: Wear gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints on anything at the scene. As always, be careful about where you bought the weapon, pay in cash or another way not connected to you, and consider disposing of whatever weapon after one use so that you are not in possession of any evidence directly linkable to the deed. Thus, you remain free.

Whether man or woman, working within personal contact range of your target(s) opens up a variety of effective weapons to choose from. I prefer to avoid the weapons for cutting, thus avoiding troublesome blood transfer.

For example, a man or a woman can use a “necklace” — any kind of wire, rope, strap. Nobody will suspect you when carrying a child’s jump-rope. And next time, switch to a guitar cable, or a speaker wire. Next, use a long narrow strap off a purse, or a belt. Variety will help keep you free. Suggestion: Apply the weapon above the adam’s apple.

A technique: Have an appropriately large loop half tied already. Then, approach, apply, and yank ends to tighten. Likely finish the knot. If the jew is standing, consider turning, then bending over enough so the jews’ feet lift off the ground. Carry it like Santa carries his sack to the very nearby concealment area you already chose. (How long will the jew grunt and flail? Try holding your breath while imagining you are under great duress. How long can you do it? That’s how long. Not long at all. But at this point, the enemy is unconscious not dead. So, don’t remove the necklace. If you want to remove the necklace, wait another minute.)

There are other weapons that people don’t think of as weapons. How about a can of very toxic spray? You are on a bicycle, for example, and you stop by a jew to ask for directions. And you absolutely soak his or her nose, mouth, and eyes with the paint, varnish, bug poison, or whatever. You want this jew to be seated in a car or other situation preventing quick escape before you apply enough poison up the nose and/or in the mouth to be fatal. A fatal result is important. Why? No witness, no “victim” to potentially identify our White Weekend Warrior.

Or maybe you are good with toxic pharmaceuticals. Jew doctors poison our people every day with them. (That’s how the jews got rid of Michael Jackson, though we don’t concern ourselves with the demise of Africans. That’s likely how the jews finished off Gen. George Patton. Also, countless hospital-bound Whites have been medically murdered.) Administer liberally. Spray or inject. Consider, if necessary, how you will prevent the target from shouting for help.

Or maybe you have secret possession of a tazer. Follow a jew into a restroom. If nobody else is in there, zap the jew into full heart arrest. Again, be careful about security cams, or be disguised. Put the jew in a stall so you will have minutes if not hours to calmy exit the scene and the area. (I prefer exiting the state.)

Other non-”weapons”

“Accident” a jew. Push one off a train in a place of certain death. Push one off a tall bridge. Push one off a runner’s path into icy waters. Tourist overlooks. Cruise ships. Ferries.

Likely operate in the evening or at night — usually not in view of witnesses or a security cam. Or, if you like, go well disguised so distant witnesses or cameras won’t matter.

The time of operation will depend on the kind of target you select and the location of that target. For example, if the location is in a university bathroom/toilet, the time of day may not be important, though outside darkness always aids a clean exit from the location.

In addition to locations mentioned above, consider parks. Near banks, universities, hospitals. For example, it’s easy to go to a university you don’t know and act like you belong there. Nobody knows you don’t belong there. Many universities have park-like areas on their grounds. Vanderbilt University in Nashville is just one of thousands of campuses where the international population provides cover for anyone dressed like a student, teacher, professor, or administrator.

As I said in the “Need A Job?” article (also linked above as “advice”), your good guerrilla deeds for our race and country may pay for themselves if you choose a situation in which you can disable the target and then liberate our money from them. Where would this likely be successful? Where will you find targets likely carrying a significant amount of cash? (Only cash is safe. Leave a little cash on the jew so as to muddle any claim of robbery.)

Jews have more money than we do, despite the pretences of many of them. Medical professions, university professionals, jew students, jewesses entering or exiting a beauty salon. Politicians. Judges. Lawyers. Near their offices and workplaces you may find those professionals and their high-level staff.

Of course, prime locations for finding obvious jews — though in sight of their security cameras — are their synagogues, Bnai Brith offices, youth organization facilities, luxury resorts, and exclusive restaurants. By the way, if your town has a university, it has a synagogue and a Bnai Brith office, though you probably don’t know their locations. Find them. Whether or not you choose to work near one, it is good to know where they are.

Normally, choose a target no one would connect to you. I crave to remove from our country the jews I have personally known before I became jew-wise. But to be safe, I must leave them for another admirable White Weekend Warrior.

Again, don’t leave any personal evidence. Tell no one.

Gloves of near skin-tone color will go unnoticed after dark, thus not arousing suspicion by the target or passersby.

Partner? Choose only someone who you can absolutely trust. Otherwise, work alone. Having a partner is very helpful in regard to having a lookout, having a helper to silence or restrain the target if necessary, or having transportation at the ready.

During the work, don’t carry cell phones and such devices that provide electronic evidence to the enemy jews and their accomplices in their corporations and the government.

Consider a simple “disguise” for a vehicle, if using a vehicle. For example, give potential witnesses something to focus on, such as a sign or symbol or bright cloth, and then permanently and safely discard that item immediately afterward. Also, consider disguising the license plate with well-placed mud, or tape that confuses the letters of numbers, or alternate plates for “work” use only.

The only solution for enemy invaders of our country is death. Henry Ford a hundred years ago published enough proof to warrant their execution. But our previous truthtellers left the main job undone. We have to kill the jews. It is impossible to win a war if you leave all of the enemy standing. Jews are the invaders — no matter how many generations ago their ancestors first invaded. Every single reduction in that enemy population is helpful.

Every day, deaths occur for which the “law enforcement” agencies never find who caused them. Many of those deaths are caused by low-IQ Africans and Mestizos among us, but their crimes go underreported by the jewspapers. There is no reason to fear that the jews and their accomplices in “law enforcement” will solve our stealthy, high-IQ deeds of heroism. Again, tell no one. And don’t be tricked into telling.

All jews will die eventually, as will we. We must merely hasten their deaths. Before I die, no matter when that day comes, I’ll know that I’ve done my share, and I will die with honor. If enough of my fellow Whites join in delivering justice upon the jews, we will win soon.

By the way, make no mistake about it, we don’t intend to be martyrs. No, no, no. We intend success in every deed and to enjoy our final victory.

Save our race. Save America. Kill the jews.

Whites Will Win!

Michael Hill #racist leagueofthesouth.com

When God foiled the building of the Tower of Babel on the plains of Shinar he did so in order that the people might be scattered into separate nations and no longer be one people with one language (Genesis 11:1-9). In the previous chapter, we are told that the sons of Noah–Shem, Ham, and Japheth–and their descendants would occupy specified parts of the earth. For example, we read in Genesis 10: 5 regarding the sons of Japheth: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” It is clear, then, that God intended men to live separately with their own languages, kith and kin, and nations. Therefore, nations (i.e. peoples) have a Biblical mandate to exist and thereby to protect their interests from those who would destroy them either by war or more subtle means.

Because of a resurgence of godless multiculturalism and universalism (the new Tower of Babel), white Western Christians are threatened with extinction as a separate and identifiable people because of their own weakness and lack of Biblical understanding about the God-ordained principles of nationhood. While all other “nations” (i.e. groups based on race and ethnicity and “blood and soil”) are encouraged to preserve themselves and their cultures, white Christians in the West (the descendants of Japheth) are told that we must give up everything we have in order to placate those different from ourselves and who bear some alleged grievance toward us (i.e. slavery, “racism,” hatred, etc.) Sadly, it is often “Christian” ministers who lead the charge toward multiculturalism, pluralism, and universalism in the name of God himself. But they are false teachers.

By the grace of God, the philosophies and institutions of Christian liberty are the creations of Western European whites. In this age of rabid “political correctness,” this salient truth is buried beneath the monumental lie that all men (and hence all cultures and civilizations) are “created equal.” But truth is a stubborn and resilient thing. And the truth is that for at least the past 400 years, Western Christian (i.e. European-American) civilization alone has enjoyed the fruits of ordered liberty and abundant material prosperity. Elsewhere in the world despotism has been the order of the day. However, let us not boast for the simple reason that God has ordained things thusly out of His eternal wisdom. The Western world’s blessings of the Gospel, liberty, and prosperity are just that, a blessing. In Acts 16: 6-9, Paul and Silas were headed for Asia to spread the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit forbade them to go into that region. Instead, the Spirit led them, by means of Paul’s dream, westward into Macedonia. Thus the Gospel was forbidden to Asia in that day. Conversely, it was God’s will that it be spread into Europe. Of this we cannot boast. Rather, we can only thank God that in His providence He saw fit to bless our ancestors with His word and all that flows from obedience to it.

Our white European-American ancestors had no trouble enunciating the obvious truth that Western Christian civilization was superior to all others. Moreover, they had no hesitation about defending it, as their God-given patrimony, against those who would denigrate or destroy it. Just a century ago, our civilization was still distinguished by a robustness and self-confidence born out of a realization of the natural superiority of the West and its ways. None but the most crack-brained utopians believed in social, political, economic, and cultural equality, nor did they believe in the equality of the races in intellect and accomplishment. Unfortunately, the present century has witnessed the old order turned upon its head.

Today, the descendants of those European-American whites behave as a shamed and defeated people. Not only do they refuse to proclaim the God-ordained superiority of their own civilization and its venerable institutions; they also refuse to defend the very ethnic and racial particularities that gave form and definition to that civilization. “White” has become a dirty word, and few whites can even use the term now without wincing and casting furtive glances to and fro. But to deny one’s identity in such a manner is to dishonor the God who made us what we are and who separated us from the other races for His own eternal purposes. While blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other groups revel in their natural peculiarities, whites will not dare even admit that race is one of the primary factors that determine who we are and what we create on this earth. This is a simple and fundamental fact of God’s creation. We are who we are simply because He has commanded it.

Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and American disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor”–the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.

(..)

Again, it is a cold and hard fact that if white Christian European-Americans should lose control over the North American continent to non-white minorities, then it will cease to be the civilized place we have known for the past several hundred years. As blacks and other minorities (e.g. Hispanics in the American Southwest) have gained political control over towns and cities, the decline in the quality of life for whites has become precipitous. Whites have quietly deserted the very places their forefathers built rather than stay and be subjected to the crime and disorder that frequently comes with minority rule. Especially intolerable is the never-reported epidemic of black-on-white violent crime. Whites, then, do not leave because they are “racists” (whatever that means), but because they fear for their lives and property in an unfamiliar and inhospitable environment. They have become cultural outsiders.

What will happen when America is no longer a “white Christian nation?” The “Civil Rights” revolution of the 1950s and 1960s (the Second Reconstruction) was more about special privileges for blacks and other minorities than about “equality.” Moreover, guilt-ridden whites have acquiesced to a campaign of silence about the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime (the media’s dirty little secret that never gets reported). It is an open secret today that many black and Hispanic leaders are calling on their followers to “get even” with Whitey for perceived past injustices.

There are, however, some blacks who see the truth and are willing to speak it. One is syndicated columnist and George Mason University economist Walter Williams, who opined that the antebellum South was absolutely right to defend its largely Anglo-Celtic civilization from the machinations of Yankee Abolitionist meddlers. Then there is the late Elizabeth Wright, whose views undoubtedly shook liberal egalitarians to their very core. Wright noted, “I am not fooled by the ‘diversity’ folk into believing that the institutions of this society will be preserved and honored by those who happen to share my gene pool. . . . The multicultural ideologues . . . make it clear that they view these institutions with contempt. They are working for nothing less than total control. . . .”

Wright indeed pegged the multicultural egalitarians correctly. Raw power is their one and only end, and they will use any means necessary to obtain it. And when they do, white European-Americans will be their first target. Then we will understand what “equality” really means. Wright believed that “when these people [i.e. blacks and other minorities] come to power, their major aim will be to institute their ‘enlightenment’ policies in all quarters of society. . . . I have heard them refer to liberties such as freedom of speech as no more than . . . ‘jive ass claptrap’ . . .” She continued: “I predict that, once in power, they will actually create laws to impose interracial unions, in order to finally bring about the ‘raceless’ dream society. . . . He . . . who insists on union with his own kind will be dubbed an intractable racist and sent off for further re-education.”

It goes without saying that few whites today would have the intestinal fortitude to say what Elizabeth Wright said, and that is precisely the problem. Even in the benighted and “racist” South, most whites will no longer speak and act in their own interests. However, the situation in Dixie, as bad as it is (especially in the big cities, yuppie suburbs, and wimpy churches), is much better than elsewhere. If a spirited defense of white, Western, Christian civilization is to be mounted on these shores, it will be in the South among those of European descent who remember the glories of their past. As likely as not, the South will find it necessary to break away from a decrepit Union that has already succumbed to the poison of multiculturalism and then form a new polity dominated by the mores and institutions of our own civilization.

(..)

Wright’s clarion call was refreshing indeed. But it is white Southerners themselves who must muster the courage to act and act soon. Demographers predict that whites will be a minority in this country by 2040 (this is already true in California and several other States). If we are not willing to fight to preserve that glorious heritage bequeathed us by men of honor, genius, and principle, then we truly deserve the disinheritance that will befall us within the next half century. We are sowing the wind because of our inaction regarding immigration and multiculturalism. We will likely reap the whirlwind.

Mac Brazel #conspiracy conspiracies.net

One of the worst kept secrets among government agencies was finally revealed by the CIA in 2013, as Area 51 in Nevada was finally acknowledged as a test ground for the United States government. After years of strange sightings above this remote location approximately 100 miles outside of Las Vegas, the Freedom of Information Act let Americans know about many of the things that occurred in the place known as Area 51 since the Cold War. The famous U-2 spy plane along with many other of our most secretive planes were built and tested at Area 51. Up until recently we were never 100% sure about what existed in Area 51, but with the magic of Google Maps we now know there is something behind those barbed wire fences.

In face Area 51 security adds to the hype as anyone coming even near the fences around this area will be apprehended by a small army of military and other government security. Obviously, with this much security in a place that is not advertised to the public means that there is probably something to hide. While much of it is government and military classified work, others suggest that there may be more. Let’s look at some more of what we do know.

Lockheed Martin “Skunk works” is one of the lead manufacturers in Area 51 and has created many flying objects that have been mistaken for UFOs by people who live around Area 51. The SR-71, a plane that flew at speed above Mach 3, was one of the many planes that was built and tested in Area 51 during the last 50 years. Also many military aircrafts such as the F-117 Nighthawk, the first radar evading aircraft which was made famous during Operation Desert Storm, were said to be tested and manufactured in the place known as Area 51. Despite all of these claims, many believe there are deeper darker secrets inside this secret location and many of this has to do with extra-terrestrial aircrafts and aliens. Let’s take a look at some of the most common Area 51 conspiracy theories.

Area 51 Conspiracies
The Roswell New Mexico UFO conspiracy

Spawning a popular TV series with the same name, countless cable television series and many documentaries the alleged Roswell alien crash in July 1947 was the encounter that put Area 51 on the map as far as it goes with alien conspiracies. While we save the in depth coverage of this event for another post, we will cover a brief overview of what happened below that backs up some of the alleged Area 51 conspiracies.
Mac Brazel w/ Roswell debris

Mac Brazel w/ Roswell debris

In July 1947 a rancher by the name of Mac Brazel found strange metal strewn over his land in New Mexico. Brazel took this debris to the authorities in Roswell. The commanding officer at the time Colonel Blanchard was also intrigued and he ordered an investigation. After collecting the shrapnel and other evidence off of Brazel’s property, the first Army command at Roswell issued a press release stating that they had recovered some type of “flying disk”

After this the Army later retracted the statement and suggested that it was shrapnel from a weather balloon. Not until some 30 years later in the 1970s did the Roswell conspiracy theories become popular among theorists, when Jesse Marcel commented publicly about the Roswell event. There are numerous different theories tied to Roswell and Area 51, with one of the biggest is that Area 51 is used as a hiding ground of the flying objects and secret alien bodies that were discovered in this wreckage.

Other Alien Area 51 Conspiracy Theories

Besides the alleged events that took place in Roswell, New Mexico there have been many more claims of UFOs and extraterrestrial beings being taken to and biopsied at Area 51. Ever since the Roswell event in 1947, there have been numerous alleged conspiracies that have said to taken place at Area 51. Mysterious flying objects in the sky and alleged crash debris has been always tied to Area 51 by alleged theories. In 1996 the New York Times wrote a famed article that detailed many things alleged by UFO experts and conspiracy theory experts when it comes to Area 51. You can read more about these here.
The Aurora Project

While many of the UFO and alien conspiracy theories may or may not be true, the fact that the United States government now admits that Area 51 is real is a fact. Many of our national defense planes and other aircrafts are thought to be built and tested in the large area above and around Area 51. Many of these secret aircrafts put the Area 51 conspiracies to rest, as they are aircrafts that have never been shown to the American public.

One of the most talked about stealth aircrafts of all-time known as the “Aurora Project” is thought to be flown around the Area 51. This aircraft is allegedly the fastest aircraft ever created with speed up to Mach 6. Many look at the runway of Groom Lake, which is supposedly 6 miles long, as a clear indication of a place that supersonic aircrafts are tested.

Area 51 is one of the most widely recognized secrets in the United States. While only a select few know for sure what happens in this facility, many believe that there are supernatural events and government tests that would change the way we feel about the universe. Will Area 51 conspiracy theories last forever or will the United States government eventually come clean about everything that happens behind the barbed wired fences?

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

...

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

...

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.
3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]
they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]
they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

...

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

...

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

Joe Dallas #fundie hiswonderfulworks.com

Joe Dallas equips listeners with the basic tools and concepts necessary for a Christ-like response to the Gay Christian identity. Joe brings us in for a transparent look at his journey from the downward spiral into sexual promiscuity to promoting the Gay Christian identity and finally to landing on the solid ground of his identity in Christ.

During Joe’s journey, The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches was one of the first organizations that claimed both a Christian base and a pro-gay base and where he heard the pro-gay interpretation of scripture for the first time. He was confronted with men and women of all ages and all types who identified as Gay Christians. If you haven’t already, you will meet someone who says “I love Jesus, I have been born again, I believe the Bible is the word of God and I’m openly gay or I’m openly lesbian and God is fine with my lifestyle”. Joe’s in-depth teaching will better equip you to dialogue with people holding this position.

Joe begins with these terms and concepts to help us better understand and follow along with his discussion:

Gay Christian Identify – Terms and Concepts

Saved – born again and positioned in Christ
Gay – orientation, identity or behavior
“Gay is not as simplistic as a term as we might think it to be because it can refer either to an orientation or an identity or a behavior or a combination of all 3.”
Orientation – result of the sin nature – not a choice
Identity – alignment with a sinful tendency – is a choice
Behavior – erotic connection with same sex – is a choice
Five Point Progression

Discovery – deep feelings others don’t have
Conflict – lasts for a season “I didn’t ask to be gay”
Resolution Attempt – tried everything, “it” doesn’t work
Revision – to accommodate the temptation
Gay Christian Identity – adoption / embracing
Many people believe that if you are born again you will no longer have same sex attractions and desires. They often refer to the apostle Paul stating that “if any man is in Christ he is a new creation old things are passed away and all things become new” (2 Cor 5:17). While we do become new creations, the Bible also states that we will experience a struggle between the flesh and the spirit.

Joe puts it this way, “When someone tells me well I tried to pray the gay away and it didn’t happen. I would say who on Earth told you that was going to happen? All of us have sinful desires of the flesh sometimes we are completely relieved of those desires at other times we are allowed to still wrestle those desires. As time goes on they may diminish and other times they stay and at all times we are still told to crucify the flesh walk in the spirit and not live under the power of any particular sin.”

Joe’s teaching ends on a powerful note from Dr. Paul Morris who says, “but if I were a homosexual Christian this one question would bother me, am I interpreting scripture in the light of my proclivity or should I be interpreting my proclivity in the light of scripture?”

Ann Bernhardt #fundie thinkinghousewife.com

So there is tremendous chatter about this guy from Liberia, and we now have enough of the backstory to see just how maliciously negligent the so-called protection agencies really are. But what I want to focus on is Thomas Eric Duncan – the Liberian who after hauling his sister’s still living yet rapidly disintegrating body to and from the hospital thought it would be a great idea to take a three-legged flight to Dallas, and then just casually forget to mention at the Dallas emergency room the whole “I hauled my sister, dying of Ebola, to and from the hospital a couple of weeks ago.”

There is speculation that Duncan is a psychopathic arch criminal, or that he was recruited by musloids to make the trip. Nope. I doubt this very, very seriously. Then how in the world, you may ask, could he possibly DO THIS? I’ll tell you the likely answer if you really want to know, but I warn you, our culture has conditioned even the “strongest” of you to reject the truth I am about to lay out. Are you sure you want it? Fair warning has been given. Complaints will not be fielded.

The AVERAGE I.Q. amongst Liberians is 67. Anything below 69 is considered severe impairment. Only people who are profoundly mentally retarded, such as with severe Down Syndrome, have lower I.Q. scores, and many folks with milder Down Syndrome actually have I.Q. scores in the 70s and 80s. What we are talking about in Liberia is the AVERAGE IQ of non-impaired human beings. AVERAGE. Which means, by definition, that half the populace is above 67, and half the population is below 67.

CITATION HERE. A ranking of nations by average IQ. Fascinating.

Mr. Duncan, in all likelihood, got on a plane bound for Dallas because all was [sic] was thinking was “the Americans will save me”. He gave NO THOUGHT whatsoever to the consequences of his actions or to other human beings, nor did any of his family members, because people who are dim-witted think only about themselves and the immediate gratification of their immediate needs and wants. We see this manifested in our own western cultures, wherein people who OBVIOUSLY have lower I.Q.s are far, far more prone to crime – such as theft – and sexual promiscuity, as well as drug use, because they lack the powers of impulse control and consideration for other human beings that is an undeniable characteristic that goes along with an IQ that is several standard deviations “left” on the bell curve. When all you are capable of pondering is yourself and your own physical pleasure, or the maintenance of your own life, when a person or people is so collectively impaired that thinking through the consequences of actions three or four steps ahead, or of thinking of how one’s actions will affect other people, is almost impossible, then Thomas Eric Duncans happen.

Nathan Bickel #fundie moralmatters.org

Some of you (who are older) may remember the past popular movie, “The Omen” Its subject focus was an adopted boy born under mysterious circumstances. Eventually, (over a series of maddening events) the adoptive father is finally persuaded that “Damien” is demonic and evil. He attempts to rid the world of this demonic personage scourge, but is shot and killed in the process. The boy ends up being adopted (again) by the US Ambassador to Great Britain. The final shot of the movie concludes with “Damien slowly turning to give the camera a diabolical smile.”

Although no analogy is perfect, America’s (aka) “Obama” can be somewhat compared to “The Omen’s,” Damien. Obama’s birth background is shrouded in secrecy. [3] [4] Everything about Obama smacks of a negative (devilish) nature. [5 ] He, like Damien, is an evil scourge of deceit and death to American lives who surround him. [6 ] The most recent evidence of that scourge, is the Obamacare debacle, which involves multiple millions of American lives.

[...]


Aka, Obama, is an American (socialist / communist) Muslim / Marxist patsy. No one person since the 1900's has achieved as much success altering this country’s political landscape as aka, Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, Supreme Court decisions such as Roe V. Wade and forced busing did its political correctness damage. Also, uprooting First Amendment religious expression from the public school system and neutering local school boards, have been part and parcel of dismantling traditional, patriotic and Constitutional America, in favor of introducing the false gods of political correctness, secularism and multiculturalism.

The aka Obama “pieces” are being assembled. The demonic Obama “dots” are being connected. As reality would have it; aka Obama, is America’s Omen child. Aka Obama was convinced that he would be (someday) America’s future president. [7 ] Harry Lennix has now come forward to relate how he trained aka Obama to become “presidential.” [8 ]

Obama and his loyal Marxist cabal: A major reason why Obama proliferates his demonic deception and lies:

Those of you reading the aforementioned, may think that this author proposes, a far stretch. That, position has been the propagandist online “conspiracy theorist” assertion of the online ridiculing, Obamabots. Their deceptive argument, is that aka Obama appeared on the American scene, because he was a fresh face in the political arena. Up until the present, they had been successful in touting aka, Obama, as a well-spoken, family man and “Christian,” who was privileged to be America’s first black president. Of course, those informed, well know that this Obama public packaging, is riddled with propaganda lies, as well as Obama’s ID fraud documents. Reality has it, that aka, Obama was the best shot fired by the socialist mindset to destroy America. What could not be achieved by individuals such as Elizabeth Duke, and her Weather Underground comrades, had to be accomplished by their noxious radical political offspring.

There is no way that aka, Obama could have been elected the first time around as US president, had he and his cabal (support) marketed him for what he is now truly revealed to the American people. It was imperative that aka, Obama, lie through his teeth with his deceptive “hope and change” promises. He was the “perfect” candidate for the communist cabal. Anyone who opposed him was (then) labelled a racist. His lifestyle lies duped Americans, who, only desired for themselves and their posterity the best material success possible. Their craving for material success blinded them to the spiritual reality of aka Obama’s depraved human nature. Hence, Obama was first (reportedly) elected by a majority of the “Christian” vote who conveniently overlooked Obama’s Illinois senator support for Infanticide. Such fools they were; and, some still are.

UpsideDown #sexist incels.co

[Discussion] [Blackpill] I think that the beta uprising is already happening

Yep, that's right, i think that the beta uprising is already happening, just not in the way we thought it would, and i'll explain why.

With things like Redpill, MGTOW and Blackpill flooding the mainstream media, combined with most of the average and below-average males growing up in single mother's/divorced parent's homes, in a decadent economy, and getting basically nothing but disdain from women, a perfect storm is forming in the horizon. Although the uprising is silent for the most part, as we're basically invisible, the consequences of so many men dropping out of the dating market will bring consequences that will ripple trough generations, making our vengeance a long-lasting one.

Do you want to see an example? Look no further than Japan, with it's abyssal birth rate, miserable women and herbivore men, their silent "uprising" is making the country go into mayhem. Japan's economy haven't seen any substantial growth since the 90s, their population is aging and the government will have to accept migrants to replace the population and keep the country going.

Do you know what that means? Japan, a millenar country that sustained a shitload of wars and even nuclear bombs during it's lifespan, is being destroyed by a bunch of betas that simply do not comply with the rules, in the span of a few decades. With time, we will also turn the west for the worst, leaving lingering consequences, just by playing vidya, eating tendies and not contributing to shit.

TL;DR: The beta uprising is already going on just by men not marrying and contributing, and it will fuck up society for a long time

cocopea9052 #fundie rr-bb.com

Folks

I realize this might just be a perception I have, but with Prop 8 back in the news, and the many homosexuals garnering media attention again (with June being Gay pride month also ) I was wondering.....

Why does it seem first off, that homosexual couples "appear" to be so happy? I mean they want this law overturned and to be able to marry so badly its kinda frightening....

And also, why does it seem like their sin does not produce the same consequences as others? I mean murder often lands you in jail, drugs & alcohol....very obvious the consequences of abusing those.
And let's not even mention the consequences of other sexual sins... I know that many feel the Aids disease was a consequence of their behavior, but today it does not discriminate. And sure every once in a while, you'll hear in the news of a gay couple wanting to divorce or separate and there is a child born or adopted that becomes a custody fight, but that is not the average like with heterosexual couples. You rarely hear a lot of crime or tragic stories...even crimes of passions...there are more women murdered by jealous boyfriends and husbands than same sex couples, you really don't hear that about gay couples....which to me being gay is sad and tragic enough...but is this just my perception. Why do they seem so darn happy?

Why does it seem in essence that even though they will be judged "one day", aside from things that are damaging to normal relationships, they are basically getting away with living and behaving in this manner?

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

Do you know what the definition of “occult” is?

OCCULT: Become concealed or hidden from view or have its light extinguished.

I hate to say it, but it needs to be said: Most churches operate more like occult organizations than they do local New Testament churches. Church members all across America think they only go to church to “worship” God. Show me that in the Bible! We are supposed to worship God at all times. Americas churches have fallen into the lie of the Devil that we shouldn't FORCE our beliefs upon other people. This is simply not rational. Folks, people are going to Hell to burn forever. Did you know that on average every day 313,000 people die! Do the math. Divide 8 billion (earth's population) people by 365 (days in a year) times 70 (average lifespan). The answer is 313,111 people will die per day on average. What if you were breathing your last breath on earth? Would you want someone to feel like they ought not force their beliefs on you? I'll bet David Bowie wishes someone would have forced their Christian beliefs on him, making him listen. Mr. Bowie is in Hell.

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

Amos Moses:
The philosophical contradictions of the trans worldview - Lifesite
An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: people are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim.
Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” Notice the politicized language: a person’s sex is “assigned at birth.” Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.”
The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Dr. Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015). Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”
This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Enniscorthy:
From the "Media Bias/Fact Check" website: "Life Site News"
EXTREME RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: LifeSiteNews “is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family.” The website was founded by the Campaign Life Coalition which has a far right bias. Both sources are anti-abortion and opposed to gay marriage. (11/25/2016)

Amos Moses:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ............ oh .... i am sorry ... did you have something to say of any interest ..... FYI ...... unbiased ...... IS A MYTH ....... a .... oh how did you put it ..... a ...... CONSPIRACY THEORY ................. and you are still a liar and a JOKE .......... and an ACCIDENTAL THEORIST ............oh ... i forgot ..... SO WHAT ..............
Southern Poverty Law Center Adds Itself To List Of Hate Groups
February 7, 2018

Enniscorthy:
All your name calling aside, it's prudent to check your sources before posting to make sure they're reputable and not far-right jokes.

Amos Moses:
all of your opinions are dubious .............. and repeated lies ........ so dubious coming from you is ..... well ...... ahhhhh ..... DUBIOUS .........

Enniscorthy:
No, I cite reputable sources. You just happen to oppose those sources.

Amos Moses:
nope .... you cited a source that endorsed PEDOPHILIA [edit: The American Psychological Association] ........... and then took it back ..... and that is NOT REPUTABLE ....... "You just happen to oppose those sources." .... as you do SCRIPTURE ..... again ...... SO WHAT ................

Enniscorthy:
It didn't endorse pedophilia. It said that pedophilia might be an orientation. Once again, you fail to understand.

Amos Moses:
YUP ... it surely did ............ and you fail to acknowledge the truth ...........

Enniscorthy:
No, it didn't, but you're welcome to find the text that gave them free license to abuse children, either before or AFTER their retraction. I'll wait. Let's see how honest you really are.

Amos Moses:
yeah .... that is why we have homo-marriage .... because they said it was okey-dokey to play pokey wherever you want to ...... and they were about to do the same thing ........... and you are wrong .... and you are hurting people ............. and what you are saying is a lie ..... and so you are still a liar ..............

Paul Cameron #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Universities have a preponderance of heterosexuals. But, the perhaps 8% or so of employees who practice homosexuality are responsible for the great bulk of the child molestations! Everyone knows that homosexuals go ‘where the boys are.’ Thus the Boy Scouts and Catholic Priest scandals. But the University and Hollywood scandals exhibit another rule — ‘where gays cluster, boys suffer.’

Everyone knows ‘the pill’ freed heterosexuals from social control — but it also (indirectly) freed those who practice homosexuality. Before the 1960’s, ‘everyone’ had to conform to a norm that guaranteed a future — each citizen was responsible to get married and produce children. This social milieu was self-reinforcing: ‘If I must be disciplined in my sex life, then everybody else should be as well!’ Thus the citizenry generally worked to suppress those with deviant sexual habits.

But that changed radically with the invention of ‘the pill.’ Shielded by the anonymity of modern life, the pill assured that those with heterosexual tastes could live their sex lives almost free from social discipline. Pregnancies would no longer reveal your liaisons, and no one knew whether you were childless by fate or choice. Good news for homosexuals, because if heterosexuals could ‘do whatever they wanted’ sexually, the notion of fairness inevitably pushed heterosexuals to agree with ‘why punish those with other harmless sexual tastes?’

Of course, ‘harmless’ is the operative word. Is homosexuality indeed harmless?

Evangelizing for homosexuality, the entertainment industry (joining the psychiatric professions) began to flood the media with the message that ‘homosexuality is different, yet harmless.’ Hollywood asserted that homosexual practitioners were just as stable, just as worthy of marriage, just as worthy of parenthood, etc. The combination of these two new realities — the pill and Hollywood promotion of homosexuality — is the key to understanding where we are today.

Russell James #transphobia stormfront.org

The Queering of the West: The "Transgender" Agenda

Say it loud and say it proud: "transgender" is a scam.

There's no such thing as a transgender person because gender doesn't apply to people, it applies to language. Words have gender -- masculine, feminine, or neutral -- humans have sex -- male or female. And sex is a very simple issue, either you have a Y chromosome or you don't. Science has settled the matter.

OK. It's not quite that simple, sex is determined by the gene, SRY, which is a testis-determining factor. This gene is almost always carried by the Y chromosome (more on that below).

The promoters of the "transgender" agenda will sometimes refer to exceedingly rare birth defects like Klinefelter or XX male syndrome to buttress their case. But this argument is based on the wrong assumption that sex is determined by genitalia. As noted above, it is not, it's determined by genes.

Those who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome are born with two X chromosomes and one Y (XXY). This makes them technically male (sterile) but with some feminine manifestations.

XX male syndrome is a little different. Because of unequal crossing over between X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father, the X chromosome, passed on by the father, contains the SRY gene. As with Klinefelter sufferers they are technically male (and sterile), with feminine manifestations.

Both of the cases above represent exceedingly rare birth defects. In the case of Klinefelter syndrome about 0.03 percent of people will have the condition. XX male syndrome is even rarer -- less than 0.005 percent of population are afflicted.

As you can see, being male or female isn't about how you "feel", it's determined by genetic reality. If you "feel" like you're a woman inside a man's body (or the reverse) that doesn't mean that you are some heretofore undiscovered "gender", it means you suffer from a mental disorder.

Lord Thomas Drake #fundie forums.cybernations.net

[In a thread labeled "What you need to know about creation"]
1. Population statistics—If man appeared over one million years ago, the present world population would be thousands of times greater than it actually is. In fact, our entire galaxy could not provide the needed space for so many. The present world population is around 6 billion. Assuming the average life span to be 70 years and the average generation length to be 35 years, then starting with one family, the present world population would result in about 30 doublings. These doublings would carry us back in history from today to around 3500 B.C. This date is suggested by several creationist scientists to mark the time of the flood. Thus, the creation model dovetails beautifully with known world population statistics. But what of the evolutionary model? Dr. Henry Morris writes, “Now, if the first man appeared one million years ago, and these very conservative growth rates applied during that period, the world population would be at present 10 (27,000 zeros following) people. However, no more than 10 (with 100 zeros) people could be crammed into the known universe.”

(Scientific Creationism, Master Books, 1974, p. 154)

The TAO #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Recent events have forced my hand to put this on GLP.

The different timelines for this physical reality are rapidly merging into two time streams manifesting in the Western world. The international cabal dominated by Western elites are working the US and Middle East political and socio-economic systems to bring about their idea of an End Time Scenario.

Certain forces are maneuvering for Hillary Clinton to get elected as the president of the US in November 2016 to achieve Scenario One. To the outside world and off world civilizations, the US ( by its military, economic power and human diversity ) represents our present human reality . With Hillary elected to to " toothless tiger position as POTUS ", she will be deemed to be the " head of this human civilization " ( of course she will not in real terms )...she will be the WOMAN figurehead chief of this world. To hardcore Islamists, Conservative Christians and Jews, THIS IS A NO NO....IT WILL HERALD THE END OF THE WORLD. WHEN A FEMALE HEADS HUMAN CIVILIZATION, ARMAGEDDON ensues and the end of the world is nigh. Jesus will return to start a new kingdom, ahhh....the Second Coming.

Conservative forces in the US , the Jewish and Islamic world are working to this scenario. It is counter-intuitive, but the Conservatives/Haredis/Islamists all work to achieve this to herald the Second Coming of Christ, the Moshiach, Imam Mahdi. They are working the socio-political-economic and all other fronts to accomplish this goal...A GLOBAL RESET post " biblical type " Armageddon.

The second Time Stream Scenario involves other forces of the " powers that be " working towards Jeb Bush as the next POTUS. The possible election of Jeb Bush will set forth a scrambling for power, wealth and influence where unbridled greed and base human desire rules, leading to chaos and anarchy. The POTUS may be sacrificed to precipate rules and measures to ensure total control and domination. Martial law and draconian
Enforcement rules will be applied to achieve a continuance of control and domination at ALL COSTS. All attempts are made to prevent a GLOBAL RESET.

The Second Scenario will involve such blatant,, unconcionable and overt display of human depravity that many people will awaken to spiritual yearnings for evolvement which will frighten the powers to be to institute draconian methods to maintain control and domination. Awaken humans will attempt to maintain Mother Earth and Human Integrity. Revolution and mass disobedience lead to total anarchy and chaos which may cause the powers to be to unleash their secret weapons of annihilation. The attempted use of their secret super weapons may see the intervention of our off world Guardians who can only act as a last resort. They will iniate GLOBAL RESET with our concurrence.

These 2 major timelines predominate current events. The wild cards are the Oriental civilizations. If the Oriental civilizations can shake off the shackles of control and domination on the psyche, they can precipitate a third Time Stream for a harmonious soft landing. The shaking of the shackles involve the Chinese abandoning their pursuit of unbridled greed brought by Western influence and return to the Tao.

The Indians must abandon the clingings to " Glorious Aryan " roots and return to their Gondwanaland qualities. It may seem humiliating but they have move from their Aryan centric culture to the more Tamilian-Gondwana
Traditions. The Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians and South East Asians must embrace their Central Asian-Lemurian past they shared with the Chinese, Indians and Polynesians. The Chinese - Lemurian connection stems from Central Asian wing of the Lemurian civilization.

The wild card Time Stream of the Orientals will entail a soft landing of return to harmony with Naure, Mother Earth and the Cosmos. There will still be a GLOBAL RESET, but one will human freewill and knowledge. A knowing that we need to evolve out of base values and clinging to the physicality of 3D possessions.

Looking at China and the neighboring countries plunging deep into western type industrialization, greedy economics and social developments, the Wild Card Time Stream seem unlikely. The Western cabal's foray into Tibet and Xinjiang causes further closing of Chinese minds and attempts to drive the Chinese into greater Draconic measures, all which will satisfy the powers that be's attempts to prevent harmonious human evolution stemming from the Orient.

However I do know of latent Oriental growth of spirituality amongst the educated. However this is undermined by the underground Catholic churches, Falun Gong groups and lunatic spiritual mainstream Buddhist/Taoist religious groups all founded by the powers that be to sidetrack and derail this fledgling spiritual bloom. What we can hope that this " latent spirituality " remains latent to erupt into the " satori " moment of GLOBAL RESET.

As it is, the whole Western dominated world is racing along the first 2 Time Streams. By September 27, 2014 during the Lunar eclipse of the Chinese/Oriental Harvest Moon we will know whether the first 2 Time Stream Scenarios are inevitable. If the Cosmic Guardian Forces are able to awaken " satori-cally " the latent cosmo-human values when Mother Earth SHIELDS THE MOON's PSYCHO - MAGNETIC ray influence on humankind, and the Sun-Christ influence takes hold for the short period of SATORI AWAKENING, then will be heading for the Wild Card Scenario whereby a kind of " Ascension " occurs...Humankind achieves the CRITICAL MASS for harmonious RESET, Mother Earth safely increase Her frequency to match a 5 D REALITY FOR HUMANKIND. The powers that be and their patron, the abrahamic god, the demiurge, will be sent for Cosmic Recycling .

The Wild Card Scenario will also stream into 2016 and early 2017 when the Cosmic Guardians will complete their initial assistance of humankind to the new reality.

The first 2 scenarios will also end in a harsh Global Reset by early 2017. Mother Earth's consciousness will leave this physical 3D shell of Hers. Her Sentience will move to the 5D reality where her 5D physicality will nurture deserving beings who are ready for 5D experience.

Once Mother Earth Sentience leaves the 3D physical shell it cannot support life as it is now, humans not ready for ascension will perish to he spiritually reloated to other 3 D planets able to sustain 3 D reality. For present earth humankind it will be a very harsh RESET, but a whole new paradigm of learning.

Timelines. Time Streams. Our choice. Our freewill!

Jonathan Van Maren #fundie lifesitenews.com

(=AKA; How out of touch Jonathan Van Maren is=)

Here’s why even Christians can’t stand Matt Walsh

If Ben Shapiro is the gentleman boxer of conservative commentary, his Daily Wire colleague Matt Walsh is definitely a doomsday prophet in sackcloth and ashes. Each new essay-length column fairly drips with depressing details of why, exactly, our culture is broken, our Christianity is shallow, and our countries are tearing themselves apart. Despite this, Walsh has hundreds of thousands of readers, and for the same reason Shapiro is so popular: He’s generally right.

Reading Matt Walsh’s essays often is, as my friend once said about Peter Hitchens’ weekly column, like a thunder-shower on a day when you had plans outdoors. His writing, his social media comments, and even his videos seem to show someone who is deeply burdened about the state of the culture, and his demeanour often appears melancholic. I bumped into Walsh only once, when I was doing an interview for EWTN right after him, and his somber look as he strode out of the studio-area seemed to confirm his online persona.

What I really appreciate about Matt Walsh is that he decides to target topics that he knows will enrage his own readership. He could stick to columns condemning abortion, or prosperity preachers, or even sexual immorality, and his base would largely love it. But Walsh goes after the sacred cow of many churches: Their entertainment. And as he has often said himself, nothing enrages modern Christians more than questioning what they’ve decided to watch or do in their spare time.

Walsh has written columns on why horror movies are repulsive and the morbid fascination with films where human beings are horribly tortured, dismembered, and sliced up in scenes that are often perversely sexually charged. Predictably, there was backlash—because when you read a description of horror movies in black and white on the page, suddenly it seems rather hard to justify. Suddenly the idea of watching people scream and writhe in horrible pain for the purpose of entertainment seems—well, pretty screwed up.

Walsh also went after violent video games, again asking why Christians find it acceptable to spend time simulating the killing of other people, sometimes even through stabbing, hacking, and strangulation. Again, the backlash online was immediate—and far louder and more vicious than if Walsh had penned a column condemning the hypocrisy of the Left. The same happened when Walsh asked why the pagan origins of yoga didn’t bother anyone, and when he demanded to know how Christians could justify the savage sexual violence and openly pornographic nature of the HBO show Game of Thrones, which—believe it or not—many Christians insist is a perfectly acceptable thing to watch.

I thought of Walsh’s work when I read a short blog post recently by the popular Christian blogger Tim Challies, who has also written frequently on the inability of modern church-goers to handle any criticism of their entertainment choices without instant anger and defensiveness. It was titled “Are You Godly Enough to Watch Smut?” and addressed the simple fact that Christians today are willing to defend entertainment that Christians a mere century—or even fifty years ago—would without question find appalling and wicked in the extreme. Challies also noted that the TV show Stranger Thingswas very popular in his circles—but that when he tried to watch it, he was confronted with scenes his conscience would not allow: "To create Stranger Things a group of people filmed an actual eighteen-year-old girl actually taking off her shirt and actually simulating losing her virginity to an actual teenaged boy. They did that for our pleasure, for our entertainment, so we could see it. What on this side of hell could justify me, a nearly forty-year-old man, watching a production that involves an eighteen-year-old girl—someone’s daughter, someone’s future wife—disrobing and writhing her way through simulated sex with a manipulative, hormone-driven boyfriend?"

One of the reasons Walsh and often Challies are so controversial is that they puncture the hypocrisy of a modern Christianity that condemns porn, unless it is in the movies and TV shows that they like. Violence is wrong, but pretending to gruesomely kill people is okay, and kicking back with a bowl of popcorn to watch people get dismembered and horribly tormented is okay, too. And the backlash that these writers receive to columns making these very obvious points is hugely indicative: Modern Christians get angrier about the prospect of giving up their TV shows and their movies than they do about giving up their religious liberty.

Diane S #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

"The Three Myths
About Homosexuality


Myth #1

Homosexuality is normal and biologically determined.

The truth...

There is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions. Research suggests that social and psychological factors are strongly influential. Examples include problems in early family relationships, sexual seduction, and sense of inadequacy with same-sex peers, with resulting disturbance in gender identity. Society can also influence a sexually questioning youth when it encourages gay self-labeling.


Myth #2

Homosexuals cannot change, and if they try, they will suffer great emotional distress and become suicidal. Therefore, treatment to change homosexuality must be stopped.

The truth...
Psychotherapists around the world who treat homosexuals report that significant numbers of their clients have experienced substantial healing. Change has come through psychological therapy, spirituality, and ex-gay support groups. Whether leading married or committed celibate lives, many report that their homosexual feelings have diminished greatly, and do not trouble them as much as they had in the past.

The keys to change are desire, persistence, and a willingness to investigate the conscious and unconscious conflicts from which the condition originated. Change comes slowly, usually over several years. Clients learn how to meet their needs for same-sex nurturance and affirmation without eroticizing the relationship. As they grow into their heterosexual potential, men and women typically experience a deeper and fuller sense of themselves as male or female.

If some homosexuals do not wish to change, that is their choice, yet it is profoundly sad that gay-rights activists struggle against the right-to-treatment for other homosexuals who yearn for freedom from their attractions.


Myth #3
We must teach our children that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality. Teenagers should be encouraged to celebrate their same-sex attractions.
The truth...
Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality. Research shows that gay teens are especially vulnerable to substance abuse and early, high-risk sexual behavior. It does far more harm than good to tell a teenager that his or her attractions toward members of the same sex are normal and desirable. Teens in this position need understanding and counseling, not a push in the direction of a potentially deadly lifestyle.
A 1992 study in Pediatrics found that 25.9% of 12-year-olds are uncertain if they are gay or straight. The teen years are critical to the question of self-labeling, so the facts must be presented in our schools in a fair and balanced manner."

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

Dear reader, I myself in this essay helped to foster this false impression that the Leftist cult belief and their delirious vision is a theory by calling it ‘a theory.’

I lied. It is not a theory.

It is crack cocaine.

The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

Each one is a Judas, who has betrayed all he holds dear. The only reason why he does not hang himself from the nearest redbud tree is because he adopts the numbing hypocrisy of the Pharisee.

There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority. You may look down your nose at all fashion of men greater than you in every other way, but if they are evil and you are righteous, the savory odor of your righteousness in your own nostrils is finer than myrrh. It is more than wine which mortals drink; it is nectar of the gods.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Single moms produce soyboys and pussyhat sluts.

Single fathers produce warriors and tradwombs for the West.

Don’t you love when science affirms your gut instinct? It’s like, why bother with painstaking methodology and securing grant money when you can just open your door and step outside for a front row view of the world?

THAT MEN HAVE HIGHER AVERAGE LEVELS of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism than women is one of the most thoroughly and consistently validated research findings in contemporary social and political psychology…

…the relative influence of male and female parental figures should influence the general group-based anti-egalitarianism of their children. Specifically, because of the relatively higher level of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism found among men, the greater the overall relative influences of male versus female parental figures, the higher the average level of group-based anti-egalitarianism children would have.

“Social dominance orientation” = a great trait for players and pappies alike.

But how exactly was social dominance orientation measured in this study? This way (fyi left unmentioned but safe to assume: most of the test subjects were White):

This [anti-egalitarian/social dominance orietnation] scale assesses the degree to which one supports or rejects social equality. Because two of these four items specifically refer to race and were also embedded in a series of other questions referring to race and social class (see Sidanius, 1976), this scale has a distinctly group-based flavor. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following four stimuli: (a) White superiority, (b) racial equality, (c) increased social equality, and (d) social equality. Each response was given on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). All responses were then coded into the direction of anti-egalitarianism.

That first stimuli goes right for the id, eh? I’ll guess that, paraphrasing, the responses broke down to “men invade, women invite“.

...

Will it be single fatherhood that saves European Christendom? Or will it be single mommyhood that destroys it? The race, so far, is a losing one for Team Patriarchy, but that last lap is where the warriors show their mettle.

Naturally, this paper being the product of social scientists, genetic influence is given no quarter. It could simply be that the issue of single moms inherit their pathological pussyhattery, while the issue of single fathers inherit their tribal protective instincts, and these inheritances get confused for attitudes resulting from the “gendered nature of the family in which one is raised”. Nevertheless, it confirms for everyone who doesn’t have their senses numbed by SJW screeching that there is something intuitively dangerous about ordering one’s society around matriarchy at the expense of patriarchy. You simply can’t entrust your nation and its posterity to the political preferences of women or feminized men.

...

How about we play it safe and orient our society around discouraging single mommery and encouraging Father Knows Best?

IDW #fundie godlikeproductions.com

THIS IS THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT "GAYS", the politically incorrect truth

For several decades now we have all been inundated with social engineering concerning tolerance of homosexuals. Most of us were willing to go that far, to look the other way as long as they were discrete and did not influence our children. I don't know how many times I've heard (and said) "I don't care what two consenting people do in the privacy of their own home", and I don't.

Before that, gays were beaten and ostracized, and if you were a homosexual in a public school you were seen as a pariah, and rightly so I believe. Kids knew it was wrong, and were allowed to have that opinion. And this is how it all got started. People felt sorry for kids that were picked on. Most people myself included don't like to see a weaker person bullied by a stronger one, even if he is a fag. Two wrongs doesn't add up to a right.

The first step to getting where we are now is TOLERANCE. We were forced by extreme pressures and threats of prosecutions, expulsion of our children from public schools, and lawsuits to TOLERATE AND ACCEPT something that we see morally unconscionable. It isn't limited to just leaving hem alone, it is now having to tolerate their intentional systematic grooming of children, and the messages are barraging them from all fronts, from the television programs they watch, to the lessons that they are learning in school to the music they listen to. Nowhere is anyone telling them the other side, because we are constrianed by our own disgust and decency not to tell our children what it means to be a "fag".

WELL, IT"S TIME TO TAKE THE GLOVES OFF< POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BE DAMN, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH OUR KIDS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM THE TRUTH!

here are a few of those truths you won't see being taught about homosexuals

1)The average lifespan of a homosexual male is more than 20 years less than a heterosexual male. The average lifespan of a male in the united states is 78 years. The average lifespan of a homosexual male is somewhere between 49-53 years, depending on whose statistics you use.

Statistically, homosexuality is much worst health-wise than smoking or even heroin addiction.

2)The incidence of deadly diseases like hepatitis and aids are much much higher in the homosexual population. Sexually transmitted diseases are common

3)Even when in a "monogamous" relationship, almost all gays have multiple sex partners. Homosexuals are promiscuous and tend to have multiple partners that they have no emotional attachment to.

4)Almost all "gay" men claimed to have engaged in sexual relations with adult men while still children. The logical conclusion is that the grooming and seduction of males at a specific age right around puberty probably results in a boy becoming a homosexual, it is not a genetic trait, it is a learned behavior!

5) If one believes the statistics, around 2% of males in the United States are homosexual or 3% are homosexual+bisexual. 4 out of 10 reports of sexual assaults and molestation of children in the United states are male on male, and 99% or more of pedophiles show an exclusive preference for one sex or another. Most psychologists studying the problem agree that most boys do not report their molestation or assault, which means that 4 out of 10 is probablymore like 7 out of 10. I don't know about you, but I absolutely refuse to label a man who prefers sex with male children as anything other than a homosexual. If he has had sex with women, he is still a homosexual > heterosexual is not an aberration of nature, but homosexual is, so you can call him a "bisexual" if you want, he is a homosexual pervert engaging in homosexual acts. By the nature of their preference, these homosexuals do not admit they are homosexuals, but they are by definition.
So what could logically conclude from this is that homosexuals are many more times likely to be a molester of children. It could be 25 times a likely, but it is no less.

5) Children who are groomed and seduced by homosexuals typically do not report the abuse. Placing children by adoption in a homosexual environments greatly endangers their health ,both mental and physical. there is no way to know for sure if a homosexual "couple" are really pedophiles molesting their charges. The possibilities are endless, but the consensus among the sensible with common sense seems to be that homosexuals who want children will influence them to become homosexuals.

6)Children learn by example, and they adopt the mores and morals of their parents. The influence of homosexual parents on children has been proved in advanced studies to result in poor performance in all social aspects , from education to their ability to care for themselves. Children raised in homosexual environments do worst in school, are more likely to end up on drugs, and are much more likely to be jailed. They are also not surprisingly many times more likely to be sexual deviants themselves.

7)The main agenda behind the normalization of homosexual marriage is to allow homosexuals to adopt and raise children without the possibility of any legal resistance. I cannot understand how the people behind it could not possibly see that pedophile homosexuals are going to adopt children and molest them in great numbers because of this decision. It has doomed tens of thousands of children to be sexually abused and demoralized.
one studies carefully the statistics involved with state mandated adoptions and fostering of children, it becomes obvious the children in this country would be far and away safer and better off if the state did not intervene in family affairs by removing children form their parents care. While some cases do warrant it, the vast majority result in the children being much worst off that they were with their natural parents, and the people behind this are aware of these statistics. What this seems to indicate logically is that the intent is to harm children and destoy families.

8) If a person is truly concerned about the health and happiness of a child, he would teach that child that homosexuality is one of the most dangerous and filthy perversions there is.He would tell them No one is telling children about bleeding anuses, fecal matter leaking from their anuses, and prolapsed rectums. No one is telling them about the disease and the longevity studies, no one is telling them the truth because most of us are too modest to discuss things like this with kids. I feel we have no choice, because the fags are teaching them it's all about rainbows and ponies and having a gay ole time. They are counting on us to be too disgusted to teach our children the truth!

If you have anything to add to what I have said, question what I have said , or disagree with any part of it, feel free to voice your opinion, but be aware I intend to expose either your stupidity or your dishonesty. There is not a single word I have written here that cannot be proved empirically, scientifically.

The Fundie of the Year Awards

Fundie of the Year Awards Voting #announcement fstdt.com

Fundie Of the Year

The big one, selected from the top ranked fundies of the year we have three options that I figure almost everyone has to know.

Options:

1: Anna Diehl
The sinner in the hand of a vengeful god, and apparently quite content with that. Easily our most honest and disturbingly coherent fundie in years. A sample of her work:

Of course all of these theories are based on a refusal to accept that God could find true delight in torturing people. Well, tough. HE DOES. Are we really so arrogant that we think we can define who God must be, or that we can change truths about Him simply because we don’t like them? If our Creator gets high off of torturing His enemies for eternity—which He clearly does—then we need to face this fact square on and ask the Holy Spirit to help us deal with it. ...

Full Text Found Here

2: CAAMIB
And more other accounts than I even care to name, this guy... I actually feel kinda sorry for if his world really looks like that to him. But I sure as hell wouldn't let him inflict that on others.
I have and I still believe I'd have sex with a woman against her consent. The difference now is that when I wrote that I thought that rape is forceful sex against a woman's consent. I was wrong, since I didn't know enough history and was brainwashed my feminist propaganda.
Full Text Found Here

3: David J. Stewart
One of our more prolific fundies, both in what gets posted here and what he writes in general. Quoted in all three categories this year and frankly could have been nominated in either of the ones I'm doing awards for, but thankfully not quite all three categories on the site. I checked.
Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world; Countless Billions of souls have been doomed to Hellfire by false religion. Learn what the Bible has to say on the matter. I expose many false religions... not to be unkind... but because the truth has been hidden from the world's masses. Just remember, religion didn't die on the cross for you—Jesus Christ did!
Full Text Found Here


Conspiracy Theorist of the Year

It was a good year for insanity, and certain efforts should be recognized.

Options:

1: Anonymous Cowards, of GodLike Productions
I'm cheating here, but they're also the group with the highest fundie index on CSTDT for last year. The anon comments over on GLP are amazing, not always in a good way, but amazing.
I have recently had an epiphany about dinosaurs that makes perfect sense! You would have to be spiritual minded to see it so I suspect many scientific minded people will tell me I've lost it...that's okay.

Here was my idea, just as the fallen angels have manipulated with genetics to claim their own creations (and to piss God off), I suspect they took God's creation of birds and genetically altered them to make their own creation. That is why scientists claim dinosaurs evolved into birds because so much of the genetic code of birds is in them.
...

Full Text Found Here

2: Patrick Scrivener
Someone who tends to run the lines between fundie and conspiracy theory, but I think conspiracy wins out on his top quotes. Special thanks to Yossarian Lives for bringing us so many of these.
Before the advent of MI6 sponsored communism in Russia, the Orthodox Church completely rejected the heliocentricity of Galileo and the evolutionary myth of Druid Charles Darwin. They also rejected the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX which completely condemned all scientific progress—except advances in spying and cryptology.
...

Full Text Found Here

3: Wiley Brooks
Odd one out, as he's only had one approved quote, but it was pretty amazing. Still not sure what if anything it means, so let's all stare in mild confusion.

In order to understand why I have chosen these foods you must first know how the human bodies descended into the 3rd dimensional world in first place. This is not our natural home. Being here as long as we have been was not intentional. We didn’t plan to stay here permanently. You could say it was purely by accident that we ended up getting stuck in this 3d world. The Earth, without a doubt, is the most beautiful planet in the Milky Way galaxy and that is why it was "the" vacation spot of the galaxy for millions of years. There was always a constant stream of visitors coming here from Worlds and Galaxies far and wide.
...

Full Text Found Here


Quote of the Year

A new hit from an old favorite, a disturbing conspiracy and the funniest damn thing I saw this year. These are the top quotes from each category, which is the best?

Options:

1: AV1611VET, from Christian Forums
I hadn't seen much from him in quite some time, but he came back strong with this one.

First of all, up until the Tower of Babel, they had to speak some language.

What language was that?

What's the best candidate?
...
Thus we have all peoples, nations, languages and tongues, standing before the Judgement Seat, being read to from the KJB.

Thus if they speak Jacobean English in Heaven, I assume they spoke it on earth at first.
Full Text Found Here

2: Diana Napolis
I honestly have no idea what to say here, but entirely believe every WTF?! was warranted.
The Enemy has been busy forcing others to have sex with them. They have a method of copying sex responses and placing these responses within penises and artificial vaginal canals. They copied my vaginal canal and orgasmic response, and placed that response into other artificial canals so that the enemy could insert it into themselves.
...

Full Text Found Here

3: white male, from Beyond Highbrow
It won an award within 30 seconds of me starting to read it and has given an entire demographic a bad name. I don't really even need ot quote that much of it to show why it's here. Poe or not, funny shit.
um nope. I am a proud white male with an 18 inch cock, thicker than a gallon milk can. I have a pedigree going back 10 thousand years to the Aryan-Teutonics of Asgard and Atlantis, and the government is so frightened of my innate caucasoid potential that they made me file a non disclosure agreement of my superior white male dna supreme genetics.

You see white men are actually from the distant island of atlantis which was floating in the tuberclizician Stratosphere of Earth, which Gulliver christened as Laputa.
...

Full Text Found Here


Best Cult from an 80s TV show

This is a special request I could not help but follow up on. And as a single nomination vote you can enter 1 to vote for it, or 0 to vote against it and tell us if the following is the Best Cult from an 80s TV Show.

Option:

1: Wulf Ingessunu
Woden's Folk is invariably criticised and attacked by those whose aim is to discredit anyone who opposes the Global Order.
...
One of the main targets has been The Hooded Man Prophecy since this is an easy one to get at since it has no 'historical' authenticity - so we are led to believe.
...
Firstly, yes this does come from the TV series Robin of Sherwood and was no doubt made up for the series. But that does not invalidate this as a prophecy, but we can only recognise it as such through the knowledge of what its hidden meaning is.
...
In order to understand that The Hooded Man Prophecy is valid you need to understand the above ideas clearly, because without a knowledge of what an avatar is this will never be understood. Only through recognising that a god can actually incarnate in the flesh will we be able to understand what I am trying to say
....

Full Text Found Here


Pseudo-Intellectual of the Year

We had a few nominations for this request, but remember if they are not worth the honor you can always vote 0 to deny it to anyone.

Options:

1: John C. Wright
Despair is the key. It explains nearly everything that is so puzzling about the madness of modern life, the pack of self-contradictory dogmas that make up the default assumptions of the Dark Ages in which we live.

They have nothing else. No wonder they are bitter. No wonder they are irrational. No wonder they lie like dogs. No wonder they boast. No wonder they are full of envy and malice. No wonder they kill babies in the womb and fete socialist dictators and mass murderers. No wonder they love death. No wonder they admire, protect and love Islamic terrorists. No wonder they admire, protect, and love sexual perversion.

It is because they have nothing else. They live in a world of darkness, without hope, with nothing but their seven great friends to sustain them: pride, which they call self esteem; envy, which they call social justice; wrath, which they call activism and protest; sloth, which they call enlightenment; gluttony, which they call health food and legalization of recreational drugs; greed, which they call fairness in taxation; lust, which they call sexual liberation.
Full Text Found Here

2: W. F. Price
As for young women, higher education is an enormous waste in most cases. They spend their time learning from lesbian pornographers, drinking, whoring and learning to look down on their male peers even as they debase themselves. The old idea that it will help them find a suitable mate is so outdated as to be laughable, but it’s what keeps parents paying for college tuition for their daughters: they hope that daddy’s little girl will get hitched to some conscientious beta male instead of knocked up by a hoodlum. This is the single biggest reason parents send their daughters to college, and it’s a gamble that will only pay off about half the time these days as the female to male ratio approaches three to two at universities (not all college-educated men marry college-educated women, or marry at all). Not a good bet for roughly $100k, but it supports legions of hard-left ideologues, which explains the enthusiasm for the failing system in mainstream media outlets.
Full Text Found Here

I feel compelled to note, lesbian pornography was involved in my college experience, but not in the way Mr. Price is concerned about it. Funny story actually. Anyway, This year's voting form:

FOTY [X]
COTY [X]
QOTY [X]
BCF80TV [X]
POTY [X]

Submit the above as your comment, replacing the X with the number you vote for in that category. If you want to vote against the existing options enter the number 0, if you don't want to vote at all either leave the X or erase the line. Counts will be done at the end of the month.

Chateau Heartiste #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Dating Market Value Test For Women

UPDATE:

I’ve adjusted the scoring and categories a bit because the test was skewed somewhat toward lower scores. For those who have arguments with my scoring system, understand that it is based on averages. I’m sure everyone knows a 34 year old woman who is just as hot as the average 22 year old girl, but the exceptions don’t make the rules.

And a note on BMI:
I used the 1959 Met Life height-weight insurance charts as guides as they are the most accurate (before American “grade inflation” made obese the new normal). A 5’10” 140lb woman would have a BMI of 20.1, which puts her well within the most desirable BMI category.

*****

If you are a woman, this test will measure your dating market value. The higher the number, the better quality man you can catch. The lower the number, the more likely you will find yourself surrounded by cats. Unlike the male version of this test, here I have added a sliding scale to some of the questions because this better reflects the outsized importance that certain factors have on a woman’s total sexual value.

Guys, you may take this quiz for your girlfriends or wives to see if you have settled for tepid sex once a week or if you always get hard looking at her and never forget her birthday.

1. How old are you?

15 to 16 years old: +5 points
17 to 20 years old: +10 points
21 to 25 years old: +8 points
26 to 29 years old: +3 point
30 to 33 years old: 0 points
33 to 36 years old: -1 point
37 to 40 years old: -5 points
41 to 45 years old: -8 points
46 to 49 years old: -10 points
over 49: you’ve hit the wall. waysa?

2. How important is makeup to your appearance?

It slightly enhances my looks: 0 points
I look like a different woman with makeup: -1 point
I’m a natural beauty. My morning face looks the same as my evening face: +1 point

3. What is your IQ? (This relates tangentially to your ability to connect emotionally with a man.)

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 100: 0 points
101 to 120: +1 point
121 to 145: 0 points
Over 145: -1 point

*****

The following ten questions deal with the physical attractiveness of your body.

4. Your breast size is:

Bee stings up to A cup: -1 point
B cup: 0 points
C cup: +1 point
D cup, naturally firm: +2 points
DD cup, firm: +1 point
E cup and up: 0 points

5. Your breasts look firm and pert when you wear:

A bra: 0 points
An underwire push-up bra: -1 point
Nothing: +1 point

6. How long are your legs in relation to your height?

Long: +1 point
Average: 0 points
Short: -1 point

7. What is the shape of your ass?

Flat: -1 point
Round and fleshy: +1 point
Round, fleshy, and firm: +2 points
Flat and saggy: -2 points
Just average: 0 points

8. How flat is your stomach?

Cutting board flat: +1 point
Slight pouch: 0 points
Muffin top: -1 point
Flabby beer gut and fupa: -10 points

9. How toned are your upper arms?

Very toned, I can see my triceps: +1 point
Average, not flabby: 0 points
If I hold my arm out, I can wobble the fat underneath my upper arm: -1 point

10. How big are your hands?

Delicate piano fingers, proportionally small: +1 point
Average size: 0 points
Manhands: -1 point

11. Where is there hair on your body?

My head and pubic area only: +1 point
I have to shave my legs daily and wax my bushy eyebrows: 0 points
I have dark forearm hair and a mustache: -1 point
Nipples, asscrack, and that giant mole on my back: -2 points

12. Get a tape ruler and measure around your waist and your hips. Divide your waist number by your hip number. This ratio is:

0.65 to 0.75: +1 point
0.55 to 0.64: 0 points
under 0.55: -1 point
0.76 to 0.85: 0 points
0.85 to 0.95: -1 point
over 0.95: -2 points

13. What is your BMI?

(Go here to calculate your BMI. The scoring of female BMI varies somewhat from that of male BMI because aesthetics, not just general health, have to be taken into consideration.)

under 14.1: -10 points
14.1 to 15.0: -5 points
15.1 to 16.5: 0 points
16.6 to 17.4: +3 points
17.5 to 21.0: +10 points
21.1 to 23.0: +3 points
23.1 to 24.5: 0 points
24.6 to 28.0: -5 points
28.1 to 33.0: -10 points
over 33.0: stop taking this quiz. you get nothing! you lose! good day madam!

*****

The next ten questions are the section of the test that measures your facial beauty. Since so much of a woman’s dating market value resides in the appeal of her face, I have chosen to examine some traits in finer detail. To illustrate how very subtle changes in facial characteristics can mean the difference between beautiful and ugly, look at these two photos:

imageimage

I do not even have to label these photos because almost all my readers viewing them, men and women, will instinctively know which is the hot girl and which is not. Remember this the next time someone tells you beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

14. On a scale of 1 to 10, how pretty are you?

Note: Do not bother soliciting the opinions of the following people, because they will not give you a truthful answer.

Your family.
Your heterosexual female friends.
Your homosexual male friends.
Your heterosexual male friends who would sleep with you given the chance.

Instead, put your pic up on hotornot and check back in a week. Otherwise, go with what you’ve overheard through the grapevine by people who weren’t your close friends, or suck it up and try to be as honest with yourself as possible. Lesbians will also give you an accurate appraisal as long as it is through a third party and not directly to your face. Use the photos above as guidelines. Adjust your rating based on how close your facial morphology matches one or the other.

0: don’t bothering finishing this test.
1 to 2: -10 points
3 to 4: -5 points
5: -1 point
6: +2 points
7: +5 points
8 to 9: +8 points
10: +12 points

15. How clear is your skin?

No acne, blemishes, or poorly located moles: 0 points
Some combination of the above: -1 point
People are always telling you how silky smooth your skin looks: +1 point

16. Do you have any noticeable deformities?

Yes, minor: -1 point
Yes, major: -10 points
No: 0 points

17. How full are your lips?

Pencil thin: -1 point
Average: 0 points
Juicily plump: +1 point
Weirdly oversized: 0 points

18. How high is your forehead?

Low: -1 point
Average: 0 points
High: +1 point

19. How long is your jawline from ear to chin?

Long: -1 point
Average: 0 points
Short: +1 point

20. How big is your chin?

Small: +1 point
Average: 0 points
Large: -1 point

21. How big is your nose?

Small: +1 point
Average: 0 points
Large: -1 point

22. In proportion to the size of your face, are your eyes:

Large and saucer-like: +1 point
Normal-sized: 0 points
Small and beady: -1 point

23. Is the distance between your eyes:

Wide: +1 point
Average: 0 points
Narrow: -1 point

The bottom line on female facial beauty is that as the lower half of her face becomes smaller and more delicate, making her eyes and cheekbones appear more prominent, the better looking she will be.

*****

The final eleven questions measure your femininity, sexiness, and pleasing personality traits. This is the closest to “game” that women have at their disposal. It isn’t much, which is why the scoring is lowest in this section.

24. You frequently wear sexy lingerie, even when not prepping for a hot date.

Yes: +1 point
Special occasions only: 0 points
Never. Ripped and stained comfy granny panties only: -1 point

25. When someone gets hurt you are the first to ask if they are OK and to deliver aid if needed.

Almost always: +1 point
Occasionally: 0 points
Almost never: -1 point

26. You are highly competitive and often play co-ed team sports.

Yes, and I will throw an elbow if necessary. My shelf is filled with trophies: -1 point
I like to exercise on nice days with one on one sports like tennis: +1 point
I’m competitive with other girls, but not guys: 0 points

27. When a guy approaches you in a bar, regardless of your attraction for him, you:

Smile and look at him: +1 point
Pretend like you don’t notice him coming: 0 points
Frown and tell him you’re talking to your friends before he even gets a chance to say Hi: -1 point

28. On a first date the check arrives for dinner and drinks. You:

Offer to split the check or even pay in full: +1 point
Smile and thank the guy when he pays for the check: 0 points
Forget to thank him after he pays for your ungrateful ass: -1 point

29. You are about to have sex with a guy for the first time. He undresses and his penis is small. Do you:

Tell him how great his cock looks and feels?: +1 point
Say nothing: 0 points
Look surprised and stifle a laugh: -1 point

30. You think blowjobs are:

Great! You give them spontaneously and there’s never any doubt how much you enjoy it: +1 point
An obligation: 0 points
Gross. You gave one after your BF proposed and spit it on his shoes: -1 point

31. Do you do anal?

Yes, and it makes me come to know how much it pleases my man: +1 point
Only when I get really drunk: 0 points
Never. It’s an exit only: -1 point

32. The number of sex positions you have tried is:

3 to 10: 0 points
Missionary and doggy style only: -1 point
I’m a contortionist: +1 point

33. How often do you curse?

I think I said damn once: +1 point
I blurt out fuck and shit a few times a week: 0 points
My mouth is a gutter: -1 point

34. You’d best describe your sense of fashion as:

I’m a label whore: -1 point
I hide my body under baggy tees and ill-fitting jeans: -1 point
I wear casual clothing that flatters my figure: 0 points
I wear stylish clothing on weeknights and I can handle heels over 3 inches: +1 point
My flip flops have my foot imprint in them: -2 points

*****

SCORING

There is a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points to earn based on the questions asked. The reason the minimum score goes lower than the maximum score goes high is because there are a few things, such as gross obesity, old age, or a major facial deformity, that seriously negatively impact a woman’s overall rating to the point of market extinction.

The scoring breaks down as follows:

-83: You are proof that god does not exist, but that satan does.
-82 to -56: You’re an omega. If it makes you feel better you will have your choice of male omegas to bang.
-55 to -40: The majority of men are disgusted by the sight of you. Your kind will suffer most when our sexbot overlords arrive. Losers hit on you constantly figuring they have a chance.
-39 to -20: You were born to cockblock. But you’ll manage to marry a table scrap.
-19 to -5: Lesser beta. The men you want make fun of you out of earshot. You spend many years learning how to settle for mediocre betas.
-4 to 14: Classic beta. Your hot friends always gets hit on first, but if you really tramp it up you can snag a slightly better than average guy to take you home for a single night of commitment.
15 to 29: Greater beta. More than a few attractive guys will approach you. But if your personality is flawed you risk becoming a pump and dump victim.
30 to 43: You are officially a nascent alpha female. A lot of quality guys will hit on you and you will be able to pick and choose at your leisure. But don’t push it. You’re not quite hot enough to string guys along forever.
44 to 55: You’re a bona fide hottie. Nearly every guy who meets you agrees you are a hottie. So does every girl. This puts you in the top 1% of worldwide womanhood. With great power comes great responsibility, so try to limit the number of men you torture with blueballs and LJFB rejections to fewer than 100 in your social circle. As long as you are not a complete bitch, marriage with a top quality man will come easily to you.
56 to 63: Guys want you, girls want to be you. You are just short of perfection, which paradoxically means you will get hit on more than the super alpha females. You are a player’s greatest challenge, and his greatest reward, because unlike the perfect woman there is still something human about you. Sex, love, security, commitment, easy living… you have it all. Only your demons can defeat you.
64: Super Alpha. The world is yours. Life is an endless parade of joy and excitement. Your power is illimitable… for now.

I hope everyone noticed what was missing from this test:

Your job.
The amount of money you make.
Your accomplishments.
Your social status and number of friends.
Your deep and profound worldview.

Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect *any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating Market Value test. The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a brutal self-assessment. Therefore, I will be mentally subtracting 10 points from every woman who posts her score here in the comments.

(Submitter's note: Compare and contrast Dating Market Value Test For Men)

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

REMEMBER, REMEMBER, THE 22ND OF NOVEMBER!!

COLUMNIST, TV SHOW HOST, RADIO BROADCASTER, DOROTHY KILGALLEN WAS THE PERFECT PERSON
TO EXPOSE ALL THE CONSPIRATORS BEHIND THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY!!
In 1963, New Yorker Dorothy Kilgallen was the best known female in America. Since 1950, she hosted a weekly TV show called What's My Line?, and she wrote a daily column for the "Voice of Broadway." Additionally, she co-hosted a radio show with her husband called Breakfast with Dorothy and Dick.

Dorothy only met President Kennedy once when she visited the White House, but she remembered that he took the time to receive letters from her son's classmates:

During this time, Kilgallen also arranged, through friendship with Presidential Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, a visit to the White House with son Kerry. When the eight-year-old redhead and his mother arrived, Salinger conducted the tour himself. While in the Cabinet Room, President Kennedy suddenly appeared. He invited Dorothy and Kerry into the Oval Office. While they sat and chatted, JFK looked at a bundle of letters Kerry had brought to the president by Kerry third-grade classmates. (Shaw, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much, p. 43).

Dorothy managed to obtain an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby during his trial!!

Dorothy knew practically everybody of importance in the nation, so through a mutual friend of Rubenstein, she obtained an exclusive interview with the killer.

Only 2 days after the arrest of "Lee Harvey Oswald," Jack Rubenstein shot and killed him as he was transferred to a more "secure" location.

"Oswald the Russian" was supposed to be killed in the Texas Theater, so that was a major blunder by the conspirators.

Judge Joseph B. Brown Sr. presided over the Rubenstein trial.

Through her high level contacts, Dorothy was able to obtain a short interview with Rubenstein.

Rubenstein told her that Jackie Kennedy, the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, etc., etc., etc., were all involved in the conspiracy.

The trial finally ended on March 14, 1964, with Rubenstein convicted of murder with malice, for which he received a death sentence. The verdict was captured on film, including Belli's statement to the court that the trial had effectively been a sham.

Before his timely demise by "cancer," Rubenstein arrogantly boasted on camera that the truth about the Kennedy assassination would never be known.

For Dorothy, the interview with Rubenstein was the greatest scoop of the century . . . but it also led to her death at the young age orf 52.

Dorothy promised to reveal the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination!!

After the Rubenstein interview, Dorothy continued to pursue the truth with relentless determination. J. Edgar Hoover was furious with her and his agents put her under constant surveillance. They even employed a Dorothy look-alike.

Dorothy last appeared on What's My Line? on Nov. 7, 1965.

Then she returned home to her apartment on 45 E. 68 St.

According to the official report, her body was first discovered by her hairdresser, Marc Sinclaire, at 12:30 p.m. the following day.

An autopsy was performed and her death was determined to have been caused by a fatal combination of alcohol and barbiturates.

As expected, all the files on the Kennedy assassination were missing....Dorothy was the most famous of all the people associated with the Kennedy assassination who died mysteriously. Even though she was a Catholic, that did not prevent her timely demise.

Jackie Kennedy coordinated the assassination with Gianni Agnelli!!

Jackie visited Italy in the summer of 1962 to coordinate the assassination with the Mafia and top Vatican officials. Gianni Agnelli was one of the richest men in the world and owner of FIAT. FIAT was the Italian equivalent of the German I.G. Farben. FIAT supplied hundreds of thousands of trucks for the NAZI invasion of Russia in 1941.

The Jesuit general in Roma had to give the green light for the assassination so Jackie visited Italy in August 1962.

Her host was FIAT owner Gianni Agnelli—the richest man in Italy—and one of the richest in the world.

FIAT (Fix It Again Tony) was fascist to the core, and the main manufacturer of weapons for Mussolini and his Blackshirts.

For Jackie, the summer of '62 in Italy was not all pleasure. She had to go over the intricate and complex plans for the upcoming assassination of her husband.

General Jean Baptiste Janssens was head of the Militia of Satan at that time.

Without his approval, the assassination would not have received the green light.

Cardinal Montini became Godfather in June 1963, and he gave the Papal "blessing" to all the conspirators.

Organized crime, or the Mafia in Italy, had to coordinate the assassination with their fellow mobsters in the United States. It is beyond belief but Godfather Montini was canonized by Pope Francis in 2014....When will he canonize fellow countryman Don Benito Mussolini?

Unknown author #fundie en.minghui.org

Looking back at my 20-year path of cultivation, I realized that as long as I aligned myself with the principles of Dafa and treated myself as a practitioner, the wonders of Dafa manifested all around me.

I was a sickly child and had a severe blood disease. As an adult, I had a skin disease and hemorrhoids for over 10 years. My husband only cared about his work and never expressed concern for my health. He didn't come home on holidays and ignored our child's education. Gradually, grudges against him accumulated in my heart, and my health began to decline.

In 1995, my husband was unjustly accused of wrongdoing and lost his job. He only received 300 yuan per month, which caused a crisis in our family of seven people covering four generations.

I couldn't accept what happened and vowed to sue the corrupt officials who framed my husband.

During this period, my husband and I started to practice Falun Dafa. After I watched the video of Master's first lecture in Guangzhou, I didn't need reading glasses and all my illnesses disappeared—including an incurable one. My husband's liver disease was also gone. For both of us, resentments subsided, and we no longer wanted to sue others.

The persecution of Falun Gong officially began on July 20, 1999.

At 2 p.m. on July 21, 1999, a group of officers came to my home and took me to the police station. I was calm and brought two documents with me: one was a national survey on Falun Gong, and one was related to legal aspects concerning freedom of belief. I gave the two documents to the police.

One officer asked me to sign a subpoena. I asked, “What crime have I committed?” I was released around 10 p.m.

The next day at 8 a.m., I was again asked to go to the police station. One officer asked me how I practiced Falun Gong. I told him that I did the exercises and read the teachings every day. They then set six restrictions on me and let me go by 10 a.m.

In the afternoon, I went to a provincial government building to appeal for the right to practice Falun Gong without being arrested.

On July 23, I was detained again. I didn't reply when interrogated and was held for a week. Every night, four officials from my workplace were forced to stay with me. However, I continued to do the exercises every day.

On the fifth day, I was asked for an interview by a TV station. I refused.

One official from my workplace told me that the interview would only last for a minute. I said: “I won't speak for even half a minute. I don't want to appear on TV no matter who asks me.”

That day, I saw Master's Fashen, many of them. At night, I saw Master sitting on the moon. I knew that he was encouraging me, and hinting for me to do well by getting through this trial.

I safely returned home from the police station and knew, in my heart, that Master was looking after me all the time.

A leg cramp caused me to fall and hurt my lower back back in July 2002. The pain was severe, making it impossible for me to sleep at night. For over two weeks, I had dysuria and constipation. But I didn't think about the symptoms and just kept doing what a practitioner should do: studying the Fa, doing the exercises and sending righteous thoughts.

I still went to rural areas with other practitioners to talk to people about Falun Dafa. After less than three weeks, everything was back to normal and I was healthy again.

At times, I was obsessed with ordinary matters and not diligent in cultivation. This created a loophole in my cultivation, and I believe led to a fall. In October 2002, I fell and injured my lower spine. I studied the Fa, sent righteous thoughts, and recited:

“When it is difficult to endure, try to endure it. When it looks impossible and is said to be impossible, give it a try and see if it is possible. ” (Lecture Nine in Zhuan Falun)

A month later, I was as good as before the fall.

This time I didn't ask other practitioners to help by sending righteous thoughts for me. I realized that I should deal with the injury myself because Master is looking after us. It is up to us to choose between human thoughts and divine thoughts. As long as we follow the Fa and behave as practitioners, the wonders of Dafa will manifest all around us

There is no trivial thing in cultivation. We should pay attention to cultivating solidly and be strict with ourselves.

czakal #fundie diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com

The French leftist site Mediapart has published an article calling for heterosexuality to be banned.

Given that heterosexuality is not a sexual orientation, but a system of domination generating and nourishing sexism, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia and other oppressions such as racism, ableism or classism;

Given that heterosexuality meant the abandonment of gays, bis and trans to AIDS, indifference to their death, the refusal to undertaken targeted prevention campaigns, the censorship of campaigns and the legitimation of the censors, waiting to grant rights;
…
Given that heterosexuality is a denialism [“négationnisme”, a word that signifies Holocaust Denial in French], rewriting the history of struggles to show kindly, brave heterosexuals fighting for the rights of minorities when they didn’t give a damn about them until we rubbed their noses in the horrors they created or caused to be created;

Given that heterosexuality, in France, is a woman dying every three days at the hands of her female companion, the refusal to speak of “feminicides”: it is also the resultant higher rate of suicide among young LGBT, a culture of rape and its impunity;
…
it is urgent that heterosexuality be banned.

There’s a lot more in a similar vein, too, but I won’t bother translating it all.

It’s a classic example of the pathologisation of normality within our civilisation.

The bio of the author, Mérôme Jardin, says he was a member of Act Up-Paris (1998-2013) [a gay campaigning group] and is a member of the CCIF [Collective Against Islamophobia], which is hilarious since I don’t think this
guy will last long after the Muslim takeover of France.

Anonymous #racist archive.4plebs.org

Do you honestly believe that YOU can defeat Islam ? We muslims will conquer the west and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. We won't defeat you by war or terrorist attacks, but through outbreeding you whites. We muslim have 7 to 8 children( Inshallah) per wife and once you add 3 wives you will end up with 21-24 children per muslim, where you whites barely have 1 child and maybe 1 dog. And this happens because you looted our lands in order to drive your $40k mercedes and buy more houses. Your wife and daughters will breed with us and wear headscarfs while we outbreed you from existence.

Um, no, the Nationalists are winning and your shit tribes will disappear, poop people.

Go sweat in the desert and wait like morons.

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

[From "If Vitamin N was a thing they'd be fine"]

Why is it that niggers are so much more likely to die of the Wuhan Flu?†

Left-wing media asks "could it be racism"? Of course. No, not of course that's the reason but of course they asked. They have a little cottage industry entirely devoted to asking that question constantly whether it makes sense to or not. Zoe Carpenter at The Nation writes "What We Know About the Covid-19 Race Gap" with the hilariously ironic sub-title "The CDC is finally releasing more data that show just how unequal the toll of the pandemic is. But we can’t stop there". One of the things we don't know about the "race gap" is whether or not it's even unequal. To know that, you have to surmise that the death toll is related to the medical care and not the virus itself. Zoe/Zoë Carpenter doesn't have a clue about that: she pretends to but she's lying.

Covid-19 is retracing patterns of disease and death long documented by public health experts, who have found that black Americans are more likely than whites to suffer from a variety of illnesses and chronic conditions—such as diabetes and hypertension, common comorbidities in Covid-19 hospitalizations—and to die prematurely. While some treat these disparities as a mystery (“Why is it that the African American community is so much, you know, numerous times more [likely to die] than everybody else?… It doesn’t make sense,” President Trump said recently), there’s a robust body of research indicating that systemic racism and its related stress exact a physical toll that compounds over a lifetime.

Robust body of evidence, eh? The dumb little witch can't even point to a robust body of evidence that "systemic racism" even exists outside the fervent delusions of biased social scientists, let alone that it has some sort of physical aspect.

† Maybe that sentence already answers itself: the Red Chinese manufactured the virus and they don't like niggers, a problem which has flared up in Wuhan before...

If you think The Nation and their ilk are ridiculous on this topic consider that MedPage Today went one further:

Comorbidities like hypertension and diabetes, which are tied to COVID-19 complications, disproportionately affect the black community. But the alarming rates at which COVID-19 is killing black Americans extends beyond these comorbidities and can be attributed to decades of spatial segregation, inequitable access to testing and treatment, and withholding racial/ethnicity data from reports on virus outcomes.

"There is nothing different biologically about race. It is the conditions of our lives," said Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, PhD, former president of the American Public Health Association. "We have to acknowledge that now and always."

Predominantly black U.S. counties are experiencing a three-fold higher infection rate and a six-fold higher death rate than predominantly white counties.

Many of these communities are located in poor areas with high housing density, limited access to education, and high unemployment rates. Low socioeconomic status is independently a risk factor for poorer health outcomes and is forcing some individuals residing in these communities out of their homes and into the workforce.


"There is nothing different biological about race". That's literally what a medical doctor wrote. Does Jones think that white doctors are just randomly painting nigger babies black so they match the parents (who were previously painted by a white doctor a generation earlier)? No biological differences whatsoever eh? Is that why Summer Olympic land-based events look like a President Monkey family reunion while aquatic events look like a Bernie Sanders volunteer bank? A massive selection effect not motivated at all by different biological factors? It's even more circumspect when you compare the previous paragraph acknowledging that COVID comorbidities are more common among American blacks than American whites. It's said (though not backed up by any data or indeed the quoted ravings of any so-called experts) that comorbidities (or maybe just these two?) have already been factored in. [is it fair to ask if the same people acknowledge it makes sense to factor in likelihood of committing a crime when looking at incarceration rates? -ed]. All comorbidities? How can that be when, as we noted when The Nation was making stuff up for their article, we don't yet have a full understanding of all the comorbidities. Maybe there will be an obvious genetic flag or six when 23andMe finishes stealing your most personal of personal information, maybe it'll take more time than that. Maybe we'll only be able to answer this question in 2025. It might turn out that particular diets (*cough* *cough*friedchicken*cough* *cough*) exasperate the disease, or some environmental factors that aren't yet well understood. It might be that the supposed link between "low socioeconomic status"‡ and Coronavirus is weak and inverse and only because other factors swamp it that we were lead down the wrong track.

‡ Speaking of low socioeconomic status, do you want to know what likely will not make American negroes less poor? Refusing to go to work when other (white) people do and gain more income and experience and gratitude of their bosses. CBC won't tell you that...

One little tidbit that's worth noting is there seems to be a link between Vitamin D and the Wuhan Flu. While it may be simply correlation without causality (author Divya Ramaswamy seems to have simply assumed so without the literature motivating it), there's a "there" there. In other words either because of Vitamin D levels or for the same reasons as Vitamin D levels, there's an impact on your ability to survive the Wuhan Flu. Separate research is also looking into (in general, not for Vitamin D) a link between suspectibility to the virus and the likelihood of transmission: to wit, if you're more likely to die from it you're more likely to get and/or give it. This means that the death rate and the incidence rate aren't as linearly independent as you might expect. So what does this mean to niggers? Well it means that the "Vitamin D paradox" might not be a paradox, and that the claim that doctors are "overdiagnosing" Vitamin D deficiency in negroes may in fact be false, and they actually [B]do[/B] have lower levels. It might not align with their bone density (like the swimming joke I made earlier) but still exist, and show itself in the increased likelihood of getting and/or dying from COVID-19.

Seeing as how the only "discrimination" they find for niggers and Vitamin D is a claim that white doctors are "exaggerating" their low levels, maybe idiots from The Nation can shut up trying to blame the Wuhan Flu's tear through black communities as "racism".

Strangely enough, the link between Vitamin D and sodomy is much less documented...

JohnEngelman #racist #sexist #wingnut amren.com

RE: Do Americans Really Want Diversity?

For many whites, it’s a game of ‘let’s pretend.’

I agree with Jared Taylor that most people prefer others of their race. I believe this preference is genetic. However, genes vary, so innate inclinations vary too.

I learned that Oriental girls existed when I was six or seven. I remember thinking, "Some white girls are pretty. Some are not. All Oriental girls are pretty." No one taught me to feel that that way. I felt that way because it was natural for me to feel that way, My two best friends in high school were Chinese Americans.

On the other hand, there is nothing I admire in the culture of the black urban underclass.

Blacks appeal to me to the extent that they have internalized white values and behavior. They do not have to be as intelligent as whites. They have to be as decent. I like blacks who are Oreos - black on the outside, but white on the inside. When they were growing up they were ostracized and beaten up for "acting white."

Joe Sobran https://vdare.com/articles/jared-taylor-remembers-joe-sobran "In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan."

Race is the liberal's weakest issue. It is the issue where liberal reforms have obviously failed, and where liberal hypocrisy is equally obvious. Liberals praise school integration, but they send their children to schools with few or nor no blacks in them. White blue collar workers, who cannot afford to to that, pay the price for liberal ideals. It is a price liberals avoid paying.

Well, not all Asians are attractive, not all of white girls are attractive, but none of pure blacks are attractive. BTW, you know Orientals is the old, archaic way of referring to Asians, right? Not a big deal to me personally, but some may think it's not respectful. Just my $0.02.

What I mean by "Oriental" are China, and nations that learned civilization from the Chinese. These are Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

Calling them Asians ignores the fact that many people who live in Asia are Caucasians. Calling them "East Asians" feels like a concession to political correctness.

When I told my Vietnamese girl friend, "I prefer Oriental women." she did not get angry at me. She smiled and said, "You think we are much more wonderful."

A possible reason for my attraction to Oriental women is that they have less testosterone than white women. Therefore they are more feminine.

Once I asked on Quora, "If you are East Asian, do you think the use of the word "Oriental" is derogatory? None of the Orientals who answered said it was derogatory. Several were surprised by the question.

I have been told that we are not supposed to use the word "Negro" any more. Now the politically correct term is "African American." I have never in my life heard a Negro use the term "African American." If I used that term with the Negroes I know, they would probably think I was being hoity toity.

Here's a definitive Q for Americans:

Your only daughter is bringing home her fiance' for an introduction meeting.

Would you prefer that he is:
A. Your Race
B. A Different Race {Alt. Black, Hispanic, Asian, White}
C. Does not matter.
D. Just glad she's straight.

An Oriental of the other sex would be fine with me.

Jeremy #fundie conquerseries.com

New brain research reveals your habits are passed onto your children and grandchildren.

Have you ever wondered why some patterns in your family history seem to be recurring in your own life? Strongholds such as anxiety, poverty, illnesses and addictions to name a few. The Bible refers to these as generational curses, which the church has long believed was purely spiritual. But according to new brain research, this biblical principle is far more scientific than we realize.

The concept of generational curses is presented in Exodus 20:5. In the King James Version it says that God will ‘visit’ the sins of the fathers down to the third and fourth generation. The term ‘visit’ makes more sense in light of this new study which shows that generational curses can, indeed, be scientifically traced back from one generation to another.

Pioneering studies in epigenetics reveals that our life experiences and choices do change us, including our brains, down to the DNA level. And these changes can be passed onto our children and further down the hereditary line. Epigenetics gives insight to how our diets, work environment – even one-off traumatic events – can change the genetic legacy we pass onto our children and grandchildren.

WHAT IS EPIGENETICS?

Epigenetics is information that sits above the genome, which controls the programming of DNA, instructing different cells how to express themselves. In an interview from the Conquer Series, a new men’s DVD-based teaching series, neuropsychologist, Dr. Jes Montgomery explains, “Sensations we put into the brain will use the DNA to change how the cell responds. And those genes are turned ‘off’ or ‘on’ based on what that response is. While the DNA doesn’t change, the expression does.” What’s fascinating about this new study is that it reveals that our DNA is not immutable, which was the former notion, but that environment markedly affects our gene expressions and the ways we function and behave.

A BLOW TO EVOLUTION

This quiet scientific revolution could be a paradigm shift for evolutionary biology, as it pretty much refutes Darwin’s central premise. Neuropsychologist, Dr. Tim Jennings said, “Which is more scientifically accurate – the Bible or Charles Darwin? Well guess what? It’s the Bible. Darwin hypothesized that it was mutation over millions of years that caused finches to have different beaks. Science has actually now proved, it’s epigenetic modification. This is big, because science is now confirming Scripture.”

INHERITED INFORMATION

Epigenetics reveals that not only do we pass along the DNA sequence to our children, but we also pass along the epigenetic instructions to them. In other words, information can be inherited and transmitted through generations. In an experiment on ‘transgenerational epigenetic inheritance’, researchers at Emory University, trained mice to fear a fruity odor by pairing it with a mild electric shock to the foot. Ten days later, the mice were allowed to mate. Incredibly, their pups feared the odor even without having encountered the smell before. But even more fascinating is that the offspring of those pups – the grandchildren – were born with the same specific memory. We see the mice study apply to humans. One example were the attacks of 9/11. Among the thousands of people directly exposed to the attack were 1,700 pregnant women. Some of these women developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their children reacted with high levels of fear and stress around loud noises, unfamiliar people, or new foods. It seems the infants inherited the nightmare that their mothers experienced on that day.

SINS OF THE FATHER

It’s cathartic when you can literally put the concept of generational curses under the microscope. Suddenly your habits and experiences have far greater social implications, because you no longer live life just for yourself but for your descendants too. As Jennings points out, “The choices we make – the foods that we eat, the things that we watch – can affect how the DNA is expressed. When we have kids, we pass on the sequence to them. So if we become addicted to stuff, we can pass along to our children gene instructions that make them more vulnerable to addictions.” So take pornography addiction, for instance, since it’s the fastest growing epidemic in today’s church. According to a recent study, 68 percent of Christian men are addicted to porn. Most likely, they are unaware of the hereditary ramifications of viewing porn. “It doesn’t happen generally with one exposure to pornography. It’s the repetitive volitional exposure to pornography that will cause this type of gene expression change to happen”, explains Jennings.

These staggering statistics make you wonder what implications porn addiction will have on the church’s future. Pastor James Reeves of City On A Hill DFW, who has successfully tackled porn addiction in his church, warns, “We are raising a generation of sex addicts in the church. Young Christian men who are so exposed to pornography. What’s going to happen is as this generation gets married and has children, the spiral of their addiction will get tighter and tighter. It’s going to really sweep through the church like a tsunami wave of destruction of the family. And the church is absolutely not prepared for it.”

Dr. Ted Roberts, a sex addiction therapist and the host of the Conquer Series, said, “Probably the most devastating consequence is that God guarantees you – His Word is very clear: the curse will be visited to the third and fourth generation. If you are in sexual bondage or you are struggling with that and don’t get an effective dealing with it, it will be passed on to your kids.”

BREAKING THE CURSE

The good news is that even if epigenetic modifications are passed onto your offspring, they are reversible. In other words, it is possible to break the curse. “You can go either way. we can pass along both positive things in our life and or negative, depending on the choices we make in life”, said Jennings.

In another experiment with mice, the notion of breaking generational curses is clearly demonstrated. Scientists bred mice to have a memory impairment. In short, they were bred to be stupid. Then they took the mice and for two weeks, during their adolescence, the mice were placed in an enriched environment with lots of toys. Not surprisingly, the mice developed better memory despite their bad genes. The enriched environment caused an epigenetic modification, switching off the bad gene. But here’s where it gets interesting: the pups of the mice from the enriched environment were also born with the gene defect, but had the epigenetic modification such that the bad gene was shut off. Instead, they were born with good memory despite their bad genes.

But here’s the million Dollar question: If a Christian is set free from his past after being born-again, why are there so many believers who still see the effects of generational curses in their lives? Could it be because so many of us still live under the law? The law tells us that God’s blessings are conditional, depending on how good we are, which is based on our works, whereas grace tells us that Christ took the curse upon himself on the Cross: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”, Galatians 3:13). The law condemns us, but grace gives us the gift of non-condemnation. Once we are gripped by grace, we can truly have the mind of Christ which transforms our behavior and that infuses all our relationships. Suddenly, we are empowered to break the curses, knowing that the blood of Christ covers us. This transformation is physically revealed in the genetic changes in our bodies, but also on the legacy we will be leaving behind.

Having an understanding of epigenetics, we no longer have to be victims of predetermined genetic codes. Spiritually speaking – we don’t have to live under the curse and subject our children to it. Because of the Cross, the generational curses in our family can be broken. Science is merely discovering these powerful biblical truths. Being under grace, we can choose to turn the tide of generational curses to blessings. As Dr. Doug Weiss, a marriage counselor, said, “Don’t think of it as a battle you’re just fighting for yourself. You’re fighting for the very lineage that God gave you. And if you will break this curse, then your sons and your daughters have a better shot and your grandchildren have a better shot. My son’s name is Jubilee, because his dad took the courage to break the curses off of him. I want to invite you to do the very same thing for those you love.”

adolf512, Restart80 & G-Flake #sexist #transphobia yourenotalone.co

(adolf512)

You are more likely to reproduce if you go trans

Some gay and bisexual women like dick and by going for a transbian they will be able to start a family with their partner.

You just need to bank your sperm before starting HrT.

If you dont transition the probability of you reproducing is almost zero.

This applies to the bottom 10% of males.

(Restart80)

Probably meant sex with guys.

I think being trans does raise your SMV with regard to bisexual females, marginally. And it likely raises it more than that with regard to bisexual males.

On average, non-trans heterosexual males are considered garbage tier. The lowest SMV of any group (on average) in 2019.

(G-Flake)

My account wasn’t able to log in through Facebook, but anyway, let’s pretend for a second that @pong_lenis is totally serious and worth arguing with. Yes trans people who want to be women should transition. This is why:
“For me, I have absolutely no regrets about transitioning and it has made me a million times happier.”

https://youtu.be/NdueL-0LS3Q?t=37

While I wouldn’t necessarily discourage anyone from transitioning, I dislike how much many people in the trans community encourage people to transition. Your quality of life is going to vary GREATLY depending on these factors:

How well you pass (ie whether it’s obvious you’re trans or not)
Where you live (San Francisco vs. Saudi Arabia…or Alabama - especially if you don’t pass)
Your financial situation (MtF is particularly expensive and you might also have problems finding a job - especially if you don’t pass)
Whether you have supportive friends or family (A disproportionate number of homeless teens are LGBT because their parents kicked them out of the house)
Your current relationship status (divorce is common enough without throwing trans into the mix…and finding a new partner will be harder if you don’t pass)
Did I mention the thing about passing being important?

Personally I kind of agree with you. MtF is really expensive and the ones who don’t pass look weird as fuck. Like imagine an NFL linebacker with a wig and lipstick (and no FFS). I mean I consider myself LGBT friendly but I wouldn’t want to date or have sex with someone who looks like that. And yeah, if they looked like that at a job interview I could totally imagine them being discriminated against. It must suck to be a non-passing trans person. But yeah, I agree that those are definitely things to consider.

Yeah. “Uncanny Valley” is what it’s sometimes called. The term was originally applied to androids who look sort of human, but not convincing enough. It’s sort of off-putting.

It’s not a justification for hate, but I think that’s a big part of what’s driving it. People then rationalize their feelings by saying it goes against the “natural order”, but I think it makes them feel uncomfortable.

Even I feel that way to a certain extent and I’ve heard other trans women say the same thing. There ARE plenty of guys into trans women enough that they don’t care, but trans women don’t wan to date those guys lol. While I understand, I don’t really feel sorry for them. I’m actually planning on doing a video about “chasers” on my channel.

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

Are Buffy and Sabrina Angels or Demons?

According to The Sunday Herald, August 6th, 2000...

Witchcraft has come out of the shadows and is entering British society as a viable alternative lifestyle. The Pagan Federation, an umbrella group which represents druids, shamans, witches and high priestesses, is now receiving up to 1000 calls a week. And with more than 120,000 members, being Pagan hardly consigns practitioners to the wacky /sinister fringes of society.

SOURCE: The Sunday Herald, August 6th, 2000, by Neil Mackay

Satan has a bid for each teenage, and he is successfully luring many youth today into witchcraft through demonic TV, video games and books.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American cult television series that initially aired from March 10, 1997 until May 20, 2003. The entire concept of vampirism is rooted in Satanism. Sadly, many teenagers have adapted to a vampire type of subculture known as GOTH.

Sabrina, the Teenage Witch is an American sitcom based on the Archie comic book series Sabrina, the Teenage Witch. Its first four seasons aired on ABC from September 27, 1996 to May 5, 2000; the final three seasons ran on The WB Television Network from September 22, 2000 to April 24, 2003. Only God knows how many teenagers, especially girls, have become involved with witchcraft because of Buffy and Sabrina. God hates witchcraft (Galatians 5:19,20).

Teenage magazines such as Mizz promote spells, crystals and tarot cards in their "Spooky" section. Walt Disney's New FLY Pentop Computer for Kids Features the Satanic W.I.T.C.H. Journal. Each letter in W.I.T.C.H. represents the name of an actual witch in the TV series! This is demonic!

To no surprise, Toys-R-Us also sells glow-in-the-dark Ouija Boards for your kids to invoke the Devil with. Or how about Glinda the Good Witch Doll for ages 6 and up. Also for sale, the Teen Witch DVD movie for ages 13 and up.

Then there's books to lure your child into Wicca witchcraft, such as: The Young Witches Handbook by Kate West (Harper Collins) and Spells for Teenage Witches by Marina Baker (Kyle Cathie). Wicca is a big lie! Wicca is a false religion, which worships hundreds of pagan deities; but vehemently rejects Jesus Christ! According to 1st John 2:22 in the Word of God, Wiccans are LIARS!

A growing number of TV programs and movies have been directed at our children, such as The Golden Compass, which mentions the word "demon" over 50 times! Witches are portrayed as being "good" throughout the movie, and demon possession as something to be eagerly desired. The movies' author, Philip Pullman, is a militant atheist who in a 2001 interview with the Washington Post said: “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, Witches, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Harry Potter, and Witch Academy & Angel are among popular TV programs which Satan has used to attract teens, particularly teenage girls, into Wicca witchcraft.

feesu-san #fundie deviantart.com

Alrighty then, we're reaching the end of October and Halloween is just coming around the corner. But, I'm not looking forward to that, cos I hate Halloween so flipping much.

And some of you reading this will be like "But what's wrong with Halloween?!" or "Its just Trick or Treating, collecting candy and dressing up and nothing more!", or like "Its just a holiday, get a grip!"; hold the brakes. Here is the reason why Halloween is bad, and why I detest the occasion:

The reason that makes Halloween such a bad occasion is because of its demonic origins, that promote all manner of demonic elements, such as witches, sorcery, occultism, and some many more. And even the Bible clearly gave a solid warning against witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27). It may surprise you that witches (even during that day) gather to hurl all manner of demonic cants (Yes, witches are existing in our time, no kid). You even see these satanic themes promoted in cartoons, animes, TV series as well as films; among those in particular, is the popular book series (that later became a booming film franchise containing about 7-8 films) Harry Potter. The worst part about it is like the whole world (even some of todays Christians) are actually buying into that without even minding the spiritual consequences behind it, its like, taking an item so bad without looking at the price tag.

Please have a look at David J. Meyer's testimony for more information on this (its an eye-opener): www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract7.html
https://branded666.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/witchs-testimony-re-halloween/

And of course, I'm not forcing you, but I'm telling you the Truth: Halloween is bad.

People, the devil is out to kill, steal, and destroy, and we need to keep our eyes open, and be watchful at all times. Do not be deceived. Cling on to Jesus Christ. And also, as Christians we should tell others about the Lord Jesus Christ.

billinjackson #fundie ourchristianplace.com

(Concerning homosexual adoption)

The sad thing right out of the gate is that it is so difficult for the average couple to adopt a child in the first place let alone gay or straight.

On this one, I am going to part ways with you buddy. I look at child formation as a critical facet to spiritual development. A loving gay couple could confuse the child to thinking that the homosexual lifestyle is ok, but it is not. Think of it this way, would you want a couple with psychological problems to adapt? Much research has been done (buried by the intelligencia) to indicates that homosexuality is a sickness developed very early on through a lack of critical factors typically found in the parental/ child relationship. When these factors are absent in early, early childhood development, the Childs unmet need deviently turns inward and manifests to be met in the homosexual urge. Therefore, homosexuality is a psychological disorder that would preclude them from becoming parents.

Their spiritual welfare is most paramount and two wrongs don’t make a right.

See the work of Joseph Nicolosi in his practice treating homosexuals.

The answer is to open up the restrictions on child adoption in this Country and help fund faith based programs that help educate high risk youth from having babies on the one hand and the formation of faith based orphanages on the other.

Uribe #fundie theresistancemanifesto.com

Satan had to envision another way to ensnare and mislead God's creation, and what better way than with dinosaurs. He couldn't delude and trick those who lived during the pre-flood era.

After the flood, most of the dinosaurs were either killed by man or died off on their own, so for the next 4,000 years, dinosaurs were rare.
Many species went totally extinct too. Then in 1809, dinosaur bones were found and put together. This was the devil's chance to deceive people and he succeeded in doing so.

If people believe that dinosaurs lived billions of years ago, it will make people question the Bible. Now children are sitting in their classrooms learning about how dinosaurs lived millions or billions of years ago when in fact that's a lie.
Think about it. Since satan is the ruler of the nations, he's going to do whatever it takes to steer people away from trusting God's Word.

Today teachers are teaching children and young students that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Did you know in 1770 textbooks taught that the earth was 70,000 years old? If you grab a 1905 textbook, you'll read in there that the earth is 2 billion years old.

64 years later in 1969, a textbook says that the earth is 3.5 billion years old. The Minneapolis Tribune stated on August 25, 1969 that the official age of the earth and moon was 3.5 billion years old.
Today it says 4.6 billion years old.
Did you know the earth is getting older by the rate of 21 million years per year for the last 220 years?
That's 40 years per minute!

Bethany Blankley #fundie charismanews.com

By destroying the institution of marriage, the "gay rights" LBGQTI movement made possible the extension of similar "legal rights" for other "lifestyle choices," including zoophilia, consanguinamorous relationships, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy, and every other "fluid" sexual preference or identification—including sologamy and trans-polyamorous relationships.

Efforts to normalize sex with animals as an accepted lifestyle choice resulted in one documentary winning an award this year that idolizes a sexual relationship between a man and his bottlenose dolphin lover.

The 40-year movement to legalize sexual interaction with children is working. People are publicly advocating without shame: "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster;" and, "pedophilia is natural and normal for males."

Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

Because of a case in New Mexico that's making national headlines, incest activists argue exactly what homosexuals argued to normalize incest.

"I was born this way."

"I can't choose who I love."

"I have a right to be happy just like everyone else."

"We aren't hurting anyone."

"Who is the government to legislate love?"

Incest activists maintain that all sexual preferences and acts should be legal if they are consensual and don't harm anyone. More importantly, the government should not be legislating love.

Christina Shy, an incest activist who runs an advocacy and support website for consanguinamorous people, and is in a relationship with her half-brother, argues that incest "needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together, but we are related. That shouldn't be a deciding factor."

She's right—if sex is consensual among adults in the privacy of their own home—how is it wrong or even illegal?

How is consensual sex between two adult men different than consensual sex between adult brothers and sisters or adult mothers and sons? If two adult men can legally marry each other, why can't consensual adult incestuous couples?

Why should one consensual relationship be denied and another legal?

Incestuous adults aren't coercing anyone. They are knowingly making choices about their own bodies, so why does anyone have a problem with it? It's really none of anyone else's business.

If transgender people in America, who represent less than half of one percent of the population, can have the government dictate bathroom policies for non-transgender people in public schools and stores, why won't the government legalize consanguinamorous relationships?

Homosexuals, who represent less than 3 percent of the population in America, can legally marry and adopt children, why can't incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles?

If morality and laws are determined by personal preferences (that are fluid and always changing) to justify societal norms, why is a different standard being used to legislate incest, necrophilia or pedophilia than that of same-sex relationships?

Incestuous relationships are mutually consensual, therefore they should be legal. (The same reasoning can be applied to murder. Surely, if two people agree to murder someone, in fact a group of people consent to murder another group of people, their consent justifies their action, which should therefore legalize murder.)

The same goes for polygamy. And necrophilia.

Why is having sex with dead people wrong? The corpse doesn't care. It's dead. It doesn't hurt the corpse; it doesn't even know what's happening. Granted, it can't consent to the sexual act, but that doesn't matter because there are enough necrophiliacs to argue that their sexual preference is normal.

When it comes to not hurting anyone, incest activists argue that abortion is legal, so again, what standard is being used to legislate harm to another person?

They are right. If a baby has no constitutional rights, and adults do, why can't the adults, who aren't harming anyone else, be together?

Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal. Now gays can marry. Times have changed, so who has the audacity to suggest that incest is not the new normal of the 21st century family? Or bestiality?

"Non-human animals have incestuous relationships and multiple partners," some activists argue. Likewise, it's well-known that kings and queens had incestuous relationships for centuries to 'keep their bloodline pure.'

So, who is the government to legislate love? Everyone has the right to love whomever they choose. All love is equal. How is heterosexual love better than incestuous love or being in love with multiple partners?

As the defendant in the New Mexico case argues, as to why he should be allowed to love, have sex with and even marry his mother, he says: "This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure (expletive) have the right to love Monica. You can't tell people who to love or who not to love."

His mother's name, Monica, could easily be "Matthew," the name of a brother, father, uncle or homosexual boyfriend.

No love is wrong.

Gay rights activists and corrupt politicians who chose to legalize same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom policies, have no justification to prevent the legalization other sexual behavior.

EtherealMeekle #fundie captaincynic.com

Even if they are born as gays (I have yet to see any concrete evidence of this) research shows that a homosexual can change orientation as many as eight times during their life and it is true that some heterosexuals have orientation changes as well.
So then homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice and it is one that will cause severe social problems in the near future.
Toleration is a joke. If you think everyone should be tolerated equally then you go to the prisons and free everyone because people in jail are being discriminated against and that is a hate crime.

Homosexuality defies institution of marriage. This creates the perfect environment to raise a suicidal, abused, or neglected child. This results in a higher rate of crime amongst minors and will create vicious adult criminals. Marriage is the underlying fabric of society and without it we will end up in perpetual civil war.
It is true that the family system is failing but is that a reason to add to its demise?

My point is that we all have to make judgements or else our society will die. You admit to judging when children are involved, does that make you homophobic if an adult gay has a sexual relation with a minor? The problem we face is that homosexuality is a gateway to other more disturbing sexual relations. You judge one because you think it is worse. I judge both because one leads to the other. I am not homophobic I work with a few gay people (really nice guys) one of my best friends in high school was gay. The issue does not lie with the individual but the lifestyle.

What people don't consider is that the acceptance of same sex marriage actually stops heterosexuals from marrying; this causes children to grow up in a more unstable environment. Marriage has already been a crumbling idea but now it is just been made a complete joke http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/purcell/2005/purcell081105.htm
Two straight men are going to get married so that they can get some tax breaks and other benefits tied into marriage. And get this "News of the pending engagement didn't sit well with same-sex marriage activist Bruce Walker, a Toronto lawyer. He complained that marriage should be for love." Is Bruce upset that straight men benefit from his fight?

all that a group need to do is convince people that they are being discriminated against. If suddenly there is a threat of committing a hate crime people will openly accept that which they disagree with otherwise they risk being intolerant. If pedophiles can 'prove' they are born that way then they have as much legal standing as gays do.

[i bet ethereal is homophobic too.... ]

ou just lost yourself a bet. See this is the kind of logic that perpetuates hate. Some gays choose to make themselves martyrs in an attempt to justify their acts. It's just a blame game. I am entitled to all the opinions I want and if you don't like it then maybe you are intolerant

[they had the courage to stand up to their most likely homophobic parents and say "i'm gay". that's more than the people who discriminate against them can say.]

Not true the people who discriminate against them stand up to the majority and get labelled intolerant. And being intolerant is a much worse label to live with.

I struggled with sexual identity for a few years. I was often considered gay by those who didn't know me and I believed that I was really a woman in a man's body. This was likely a result of gender roles that have been arbitrarily exaggerated and thus causing this confusion. I consciously choose to be straight because it made the most sense to me and I have been perfectly happy with that decision.

Being genetic does not make sense, being a chemical imbalance in the brain does make sense but then that would make being gay a medical condition.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

After WWII, Britannia wanted to misrule the skies as she misruled the waves before the war.

Pioneer aviator Juan Trippe was the only man who stood in her way.

MI6 saw a moon landing as a good distraction while their spies worked feverishly to ground Pan Am.

Juan Trippe was not Spanish like Walt Disney because he was a good patriotic U.S. citizen. His only goal in life was to make air travel safe and inexpensive for every person in the world.

On May 7, 1968, Juan Trippe retired as chairman of Pan Am, and Pan Am filed for bankruptcy in 1991. It was the most successful case of industrial espionage in the entire history of the world.

To prepare for the moon landing, Walt Disney made 2 TV movies with Werner von Braun as technical director: Man in Space, and Man and the Moon.

To prepare for the moon landing, Walt Disney produced 2 TV movies in 1955 entitled Man in Space, and Man and the Moon,

Walt's technical advisor was MI6 spy Werner von Braun.

The shows looked so realistic that many people believed that they were actually real. In the Magic Kingdom, anything is possible.

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped on the Disney Studios moon.

This was:

ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN...ONE GIANT LEAP FOR NSA and GCQH spying!!

Astronot Neil Armstrong was assisted in the Disney Studios by astronots Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. The vast savings realized by the Disney Studios landing went for the purchase of spy satellites to make NSA and GCQH spying truly catholic and universal.

Buzz Aldrin accompanied Neil Armstrong to the Walt Disney Studios moon.

Fenian Michael Collins circled the studio in Disney's Command Module.

In the Magic Kingdom . . . everything is possible.

After their heroic odyssey, the 3 astronots spoke with President Nixon while they were in "quarantine" aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Hornet.

President Nixon spoke with the astronots from Apollo 11 on July 24, 1969.

After the moon landing, the astronots were quickly moved to the U.S.S. Hornet in the Pacific where they spoke with the President from an isolation chamber.

On August 13, New York City was striken with lunacy as the returning heroes were given a ticker tape parade on Broadway.

Millions greeted the moonwalkers in New York City.

Mickey Mouse was not featured in the parade and he got no credit for the moon landing!!

The only unsolved mystery is: did Walt Disney Studios use the geocentric or heliocentric model to target the moon? The difference in the trajectories is HUGE:

When targeting the moon there is a HUGE difference between the speed of the heliocentric and the geocentric moon orbits.

The only unsolved mystery is: which calculations did the Disney Studios use to target the moon?

According to the geocentric model, the moon is moving CLOCKWISE from EAST to WEST at an average speed of 27,000 km per second or 98,424 km per hour. It takes 24 hours and 50 minutes to orbit the earth.

This seems to be what an observer from earth sees every night when the moon is visible.

Mickey Mouse would certainly have to be moving very, very fast if the Disney Studios used the geocentric model.

Phyllis Chesler #fundie meforum.org

<table>

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

Margaret Atwood, whose work I have long admired, is now being hailed as a prophet. It is quite the phenomenon. According to the pundits, Atwood's 1985 work, The Handmaid's Tale, which Mary McCarthy once savaged, and the recently-published 2019 sequel, The Testaments, are dystopias which aptly describe the contemporary climate change crisis, toxic environments, the rise in infertility, and the enslavement of women in Trump's America.

Is this all Atwood is writing about? Do the increasing restrictions on abortion in America parallel the extreme misogyny of Gilead, the theocratic state in Atwood's saga? Is the unjust separation of mothers and children, a la Trump on the southern border, what Atwood has foretold? Every review and interview with Atwood that I could find strongly insists that this is the case.

Michelle Goldberg, in the New York Times, attributes the current popularity of The Handmaid's Tale to Trump's ascendancy. She writes: "It's hardly surprising that in 2016 the book resonated—particularly women—stunned that a brazen misogynist, given to fascist rhetoric and backed by religious fundamentalists was taking power."

<table>

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

... At the anti-Trump pro-women's rights marches around the country, some feminist protesters dressed like Handmaids in billowing, shapeless red dresses, their facial identities obscured by large, white Victorian-era bonnets, carrying signs that read: "Make Margaret Atwood fiction again" and "The Handmaid's Tale is not an instruction manual."

They have a point. Abortion rights are being steadily challenged and nearly eviscerated in the formerly slave-owning American states. Right-to-life lawyers insist that the protection of unborn children without any gestational markers is the law of the land. We now have free states and slave states in terms of access to high quality, insurance-funded abortions. Pregnant, drug-addicted women are being jailed for child abuse.

<table>

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

However ... [t]here's another contemporary parallel that also gets scant attention. Gilead's system of pseudo-theocratic totalitarian control in both her novels and in the MGM/Hulu versions does not accurately reflect what is happening in America today; it mirrors what is happening in most Islamic countries, a fact that Atwood and her admirers are too politically correct to notice.

Obscuring one's individual identity, masking one's face, sequestering women at home, may have been true of many previous cultures and regimes. However, in this day forced niqabs (face veils) and burqas (head, face, and body bags) are mainly realities for women in Muslim countries and communities in the West. In Iran in July, three women were sentenced to a total of 55 years between them for protesting against the veil.

<table>

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In The Handmaid's Tale Atwood does mention Islam twice (to exonerate Muslims as the suspected mass murderers of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office in Gilead (p.174) and again in a reference to the "obsession with harems" on the part of allegedly Orientalist Western painters who did not understand that they were painting "boredom" (p.69). Atwood's quintessential Bad Guys are Caucasian, Bible-thumping, right wing, conservative, American Christians.

Where else but in the Islamic world do we see forced face veiling, forced child marriage, women confined to the home, polygamy (a "wife" and a "handmaid" under the same roof), male guardians and minders, cattle prod shocking, whipping, hand amputations, stoning, crazed vigilante mobs stomping and tearing people apart, and tortured corpses publicly displayed on city walls or hanging from cranes in order to terrify the populace? Or the torture murder of homosexuals? This is how Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan, the tyrants of Somalia and Saudi Arabia, interpret, correctly or incorrectly, Sharia law.

How could all the reviewers not see what I so clearly see? Perhaps here's how.

I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan—a harem simply means the "women's quarters." It is forbidden territory to all men who are not relatives. If you can't leave without permission or without a male escort, you are in a harem and living in purdah.

<table>

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

After a 30-month courtship, I married the glamorous, wealthy, very Westernized, foreign student whom I first met at college when I was 18. We never once discussed religion. Not a word about Islam. He had not prepared me for what life would be like in his country, even temporarily. For example, he had never even mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children, that most Afghan women still wore burqas or heavy hijab, that I would be pressured to convert to Islam, and would have to live with my mother-in-law.

When we landed in Kabul, officials smoothly removed my American passport—which I never saw again. Suddenly, I was the citizen of no country and had no rights. I had become the property of a polygamous Afghan family. I was not allowed out without a male escort, a male driver, and a female relative as my chaperones.

This marriage had transported me back to the 10th Century and trapped me there without a passport back to the future.

I experienced what it was like to live with people who were permanently afraid of what other people might think—even more so than in Small Mind Town, USA.

<table>

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

I was terrified when I first saw women wearing ghostly burqas—ambulatory body bags, sensory deprivation isolation chambers—huddled together literally at the back of the bus. My Afghan family laughed at my over-reaction, which was considered abnormal, not their practice of burying women alive.

My dreamer-of-a husband kept assuring me that the dreadful burqa and my captivity would both soon pass. He lived to see this dream come true for about 15 years for the middle classes until it was shattered again, perhaps forever.

Many Afghan women have mothers-in-law who beat them and treat them as despised servants. Mine never hit me or ordered me to cook or clean, but she tried to convert me to Islam every single day and tried to kill me by telling the servants to stop boiling my water and washing my fruits and vegetables. I got deathly ill.

Poor woman, she was a deserted and much maligned first wife. She feared me, envied me, hated me—as a woman, an infidel, a Jew, an American, and mainly, as a "love match," something considered too dangerously Western. Afghan mothers-in-law do collaborate in or even perpetrate the honor/horror killings of their daughters and daughters-in-law. So do rural India-based Hindu mothers and mothers-in-law, Muslim mothers and mothers-in-law world-wide, and Sikhs, to a lesser extent.

I got out of the wild, wild East and I moved on. But I never forgot the way it was. I always understood that as imperfect as America and the West might be, it was still a much better place for women than the Islamic world. Forever after, I understood that barbaric customs are indigenous, not caused by foreign intervention; and that, like the West, Islam was also an imperial and colonial power, owned slaves, and engaged in gender and religious apartheid.

I owe Afghanistan a great deal for teaching me this. Perhaps my radical Western feminism was forged long ago in pampered purdah in Kabul.

Islamic or Islamist totalitarianism today and as I knew it nearly 60 years ago in Kabul is the more obvious face of Gilead than the one imagined by Atwood more than 30 years ago.

Like the handmaids and domestics in Gilead, the captive population in Orwell's 1984 is monitored around the clock through "telescreens" that can view every room, each person. The telescreens broadcast Big Brother's orders and conduct daily "hate" sessions. People are always anxious and paranoid; everyone has permanent enemies.

Today, Orwell's Thought Police sound a lot like the Afghan Taliban or like Iran's or Saudi Arabia's Virtue­ and-Vice squads, who arrest men and women for the smallest sign of "individuality" or difference, and who harass and arrest women for showing a single strand of hair, or a glimpse of ankle. Here's Khaled Hosseini's fictional description of life in Afghanistan under the Soviets in The Kite Runner:

You couldn't trust anyone in Kabul anymore—for a fee or under threat, people told on each other, neighbor on neighbor, child on parent, brother on brother, servant on master, friend on friend...the rafiqs, the [Afghan] comrades, were everywhere and they'd split Kabul into two groups: those who eavesdropped and those who didn't...A casual remark to the tailor while getting fitted for a suit might land you in the dungeons of Poleh-charkhi...Even at the dinner table, in the privacy of their own home, people had to speak in a calculated manner—the rafiqs were in the classrooms too; they'd taught children to spy on their parents, what to listen for, whom to tell.

And here he is describing Afghanistan in the Taliban era:

In Kabul, fear is everywhere, in the streets, in the stadiums, in the markets, it is a part of our lives here...the savages who rule our watan [country] don't care about human decency. The other day, I accompanied Farzanajan to the bazaar to buy some potatoes and naan. She asked the vendor how much the potatoes cost, but he did not hear her, I think he had a deaf ear. So she asked louder and suddenly a young Talib ran over and hit her on the thighs with his wooden stick. He struck her so hard she fell down. He was screaming at her and cursing and saying the Ministry of Vice and Virtue does not allow women to speak loudly. She had a large purple bruise on her leg for days...If I fought, that dog would have surely put a bullet in me, and gladly!

Hosseini's descriptions are right out of 1984 or The Handmaid's Tale.

Two memoirs set in Iran, Azar Nafisi's best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran and Roya Hakakian's Journey from the Land of No, describe the savage curtailment of private life and thought—and of life itself—by radical Islamists.

<table>

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

According to Nafisi, Khomeini's goon squads closed news­papers and universities and arrested, tortured, and executed beloved teachers, prominent artists, intellectuals, and activists, including feminists, and thousands of other innocent and productive Muslims. The squads constantly harassed women on the street and at work. If a woman failed the dress-code standards even slightly, or by accident, she risked being arrested, probably raped, probably executed.

In Journey from the Land of No, Roya Hakakian describes the in­describable "Mrs. Moghadam," the newly-installed head of the Jewish girls' high school. Mrs. Moghadam tyrannizes, terrifies, and shames the Jewish girls. She tries to convert them to Islam. However, her true passion is more Talibanesque. She informs the innocent girls that, although they do not know it, they are "diabolical," "abominable," "loathsome," "lethal," capable of "drowning everything in eternal dark­ness," capable of bringing the "apocalypse" by showing a single strand of hair. To Hakakian's credit, she presents a rather dangerous turn of events as a dark comedy.

Mrs. Moghadam is definitely an Aunt Lydia, the lead female tormentor of the Handmaids, right out of Gilead, circa 1985.

<table>

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

As Muslim women are being tortured, honor-murdered by their families, or stoned to death, sometimes for refusing to wear the veil, many Western multiculturally and politically correct post-colonial feminists are deconstructing and wearing the face veil and the head scarf as symbols of anti-racism and as a form of respect when they visit Muslim countries. Such feminists are also silencing and demonizing all other views in academic journals, in the media, and on feminist internet groups.

I've written about this many times. Therefore, while I know that violence against women still remains a burning issue in the West, I agree with Allison Pearson's recent article in The Spectator: "The appalling vanity of Western Feminists who think Margaret Atwood writes about them."

Atwood depicts an all-female power structure in which the handmaids are kept in line by cruel female "Aunts," led by Aunt Lydia, who casually apply cattle prods and tasers, who blame them as evil sluts, punish them with group condemnation, bouts of solitary confinement, exile them to the "Colonies" to die cleaning up toxic waste, etc. Such behavior seems to contradict feminist views of women as morally superior to men and as more compassionate and intuitive.

<table>

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Like men, women are human beings and as such are as close to the apes as to the angels. Women are also aggressive, cruel, competitive, envious, sometimes lethally so, but mainly toward other women. I would not want to be at the mercy of a female prison guard—or a female concentration camp guard—in the West. But let's not forget the Wives of ISIS—the all-femaleal-Khansaa Brigade who whipped, beat, and mutilated the breasts of girls and women when their heavy black burqas slipped. Displaced ISIS women continue their anti-woman reign of terror.

Misogynist thinking and actions exist in America today but not only among right-wing conservatives. It is also flourishing among our media and academic elites. Such thinking is flying high under the banner of "free speech," "multi-cultural relativism," "anti-racism," and "political correctness." Dare to question this elite's right to silence and shame those who challenge their views—i.e., that the West is always to blame, that jihadists are freedom-fighters, that the Islamic face veil is a free choice or a religious commandment, that polygamy encourages sisterhood, that Islam is a race, not a religious and political ideology—and, as I've noted many times, one is attacked as a racist, an Islamophobe, and a conservative, and swiftly demonized and de-platformed.

While MGM/Hulu's TV series is dramatically compelling, part soap opera, part horror movie, part Warrior Queen fantasy, the series is radically different from Atwood's 1985 novel. For example, Atwood's narrator, Ofglen, is not an increasingly daring, crazed, female assassin, as Elizabeth Moss brilliantly plays her. She is hardly heroic at all; under totalitarianism, heroism, collective or individual, is quickly ferreted out and destroyed. It exists but is rare.

Contemporary viewers are hungry for multi-racial characters, interracial and same-sex couples, "badass" women. Hulu gives them to us. Hulu's Canada is a multi-racial, politically correct refuge for Gilead's escapees; same-sex couples and feminists are government leaders. This is not true in the novel. On the contrary, in her 1985 Epilogue, Atwood has Canada rounding up and returning all Gilead escapees.

<table>

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Atwood the divine novelist is absolutely entitled to depict whatever she wishes. But the current crop of reviewers as well as the filmmakers are playing partisan politics with her original vision and are refusing to see other and larger global dangers contained in her work.

Women's freedom and women's lives worldwide are under the most profound siege. To focus solely on the United States or on the Caucasian, Judeo-Christian West is diversionary. It scapegoats one country, one culture, for the far greater crimes of other countries and cultures.

Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of eighteen books, including Women and Madness, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, An American Bride in Kabul, and A Politically Incorrect Feminist.

Notes:

[1]Commercial surrogacy has been outlawed in India, Thailand, parts of Mexico, Malaysia, and South Africa, as well as in many European countries including Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK. Hence, the campaign to legalize commercial surrogacy in America has gathered momentum.

[2] Contemporary surrogacy has now become a way of slicing and dicing biological motherhood into three parts: an egg donor, who undergoes painful and dangerous IVF procedures; a "gestational" mother who faces all the risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and potentially negative and lifelong medical and psychiatric consequences; and an adoptive mother or father. This vivisection of motherhood makes it impossible for a birthmother to win custody for any reason.

Incel Wiki #fundie incels.wiki

Macropenis dilemma

The macropenis dilemma refers to the mismatch between the average penis size and the most common ideal penis size in women. Surveys show that a woman's ideal erect penis size is 6.4 inches. This is despite the fact that the average erect penis size is 13.12 cm (1.66 SD); (5.16 inches). An erect penile length measuring 2.5 SD+ more than average is considered a macropenis. Hence, macropenis can be defined as a penis whose erect length is at least 17.27 cm.

This means that a woman's ideal penis size is actually only 1 centimeter away from the medical condition of macrophallism. In other words, women's ideal penis size is for men who are medically defined as being in the abnormal range, hence giving further credence to the Pareto principle.

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

Sexual selection makes no damn evolutionary sense.

image
Intro

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

Art Kohl #fundie fbbc.com

Over the last few decades, the semantics of this issue have changed. It has gone from Sodomy to homosexuality to gay or lesbian to sexual orientation. Today’s reference to it as sexual orientation has certainly taken the sting out of the sin.

The focus of the debate has turned from a behavior to an issue, like abortion where the debate has turned from the procedures of abortion to an issue.

If one would focus on the behavior that homosexuals admit to, they would agree with the Scriptures which says they are “abusers of themselves with mankind.” Should any government official condone abuse even between consenting adults?

“Stay out of our bedrooms, stay out of our private lives,” is a defensive posture we hear from pro-homosexuals. There are many different laws that affect each of our private lives. Laws against adultery, fornication, pedophilia, beastiality, incest, torture, rape, even seat belt laws. Most laws in some way legislate morality. Do not kill, do not steal, etc.

Homosexuality is fatal. The average homosexual, whether male or female lives about 45 years. This is 30 years less than the average heterosexual male or female. This is alarming! Only 3% of homosexuals reach their 65th birthday. Each statesman should work to warn the populace of this danger. Some in government have gone to great lengths to discourage cigarette smoking. They have sued the cigarette companies. They have had enough of the deaths that this behavior causes and the dollars spent on treating tobacco related maladies, yet cigarettes takes an average of 6 years off of an adult’s life. Homosexuality takes 30 years off. We should stand against homosexuality even if only for health reasons.

Justification for homosexual behavior is often given from the “look at the great contributions they make to our society” angle. Do our contributions justify our life style? Would this exonerate a child abuser, pedophile, prostitute, incest, beastiality or any crime or criminal? Of course not! There are certain laws I must obey in private and in public that legislate morality that are good safeguards for myself, my wife and family. I can not beat my wife and children with a baseball bat in the privacy of my home. It would endanger them and rightfully so I would be arrested. As we have seen, homosexuality endangers those who are involved with it in private.

It is best for society to believe the Scriptures in its opposition to this abominable lifestyle.

Lifesaver #fundie christianforums.com

It's not a conscious movement. First they play the game, feel interested about magic and all thos symbols, search the internet for related stuff, find occultic sites by people who say magic is good, tolerant and open-minded, try some little things for themselves, are not really sure if they worked or not but keep on doing it until they are complete believers. Truly, RPGs are not the only possible source (there are computer games, TV series, films, comics). None of those is evil in itself, and watching or playing them will not cause any harm per se. But it is undeniable that pre-teenagers and teenagers nowadays find witchcraft and neo-paganism highly appealing, and many are all too willing to let go of reason to dwell in the fantastic and cool world of 'magick'.

David Yorkshire #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

[Announcing the establishment of a white nationalist arts magazine called Mjolnir]

It must be self-evident to all those who consider themselves in some way politically right-wing that the left has achieved cultural hegemony throughout the Occidental world. Virtually every film, every television series, every soap opera, every song, every theatre or radio play, every novel, short story, poem, comic, graphic novel and cartoon is used to carry and push Marxist and neo-Marxist ideology to ever further extremes. How many songs have you heard that urge our youth to reject their parents? How many films have you seen where miscegenation is normalised and those against it demonised? How many soap operas promote ‘alternative sexualities’ and promiscuity?

Think of all the films and TV series that urge us to dissolve national borders and build to a one-world government. In the series Star Trek and its series of films and spin-offs, we have not only a world government, but an intergalactic federation too. Gene Roddenberry himself said that he was creating ‘morality plays’. Think of the recent trend in disaster films such as 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and Armageddon, where disaster is on a global scale. Global disasters call for global solutions and such trifling things as national borders are seen as ridiculous in view of such cataclysmic events.

[...]

Mjolnir is a major step in the cultural fightback against this tidal wave of propaganda. Our enemies have vast financial resources at their disposal and can therefore invest in all the arts – especially that latterly invented form of Gesamtkunstwerk so conducive to indoctrinating the masses: film. We have no such means at our disposal, yet classical art forms are not beyond our means: graphic art, plastic art and literature. Mjolnir is a print magazine set up to collate and showcase the illiberal Eurocentric arts.

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

(commenting on story "Wyoming Man Who Identifies as Woman Convicted of Raping Girl in Residential Restroom")

Amos Moses:
SIN is SIN ..... no one is immune .......... confusion about what is evil affects everyone ..... embracing of a FALSE sexuality not of the Creator God ..... is evil ....... and the embrace of evil ........... and is SIN ............

The Pantomime Princess Margaret:
Doing what this guy did (i.e. rape) is the sin. Being transgendered, if in fact he is, isn't a "sin".

Amos Moses:
wrong .... it is a sin .... it is a forgivable sin .... ACTUALLY both are forgivable sins ..... but they are both still SIN .............

The Pantomime Princess Margaret:
No, because being transgendered only means you believe you are not the same gender on the inside as you are on the outside. It's a huge stretch to call that a sin because it's not.

Amos Moses:
"you believe you are not the same "
and it is a false belief and a sin ...............

The Pantomime Princess Margaret:
They're talking about themselves...their OWN situations. How can it be false when you're talking about yourself? Are you trying to tell me that ALL transgendered people are in on a great big conspiracy together where they are ALL lying to the world?

Amos Moses:
"They're talking about themselves...their OWN situations."
so what ........ it is a denial of science ..... it is a denial of DNA ....... it is a denial of reality ..... people have no ability to change or determine reality ........ theirs or anyone elses ...... it is sinful desire .... it is sin .... our "feels" are not a determining factor of truth .........

The Pantomime Princess Margaret:
No, the only one denying science here is yourself. Your arbitrary definition of SIN is what's causing the problem here. You can only talk about your own reality, not someone else's. I don't know what it's like to be transgender either, but that doesn't mean I tell the people who are experiencing it that they are touchy-feely liars. I leave it to the experts in the scientific field. So should you.

Amos Moses:
nope .... i deny FALSE science ..... and saying we have any input into out gender is pure false science and fantasy and sin .........

Robert A. J. Gagnon #fundie patheos.com

Scot, as I’ve noted in my published work, an appeal to an alleged slavery analogy is simply a bad case of analogical reasoning. Such an appeal even contradicts the use of an exploitation and orientation argument that you adopt. If the Bible does not intend to indict committed homosexual unions entered into by homosexually oriented persons (as you erroneously believe), why make an argument from analogy that is grounded on the need to depart from Scripture’s stance?

As it is, the alleged slavery analogy actually has little in the way of substantive correspondence with the Bible’s view of homosexual practice. The Bible shows no vested interest in preserving slavery. In a society without a social welfare net slavery is sometimes the only alternative to starvation; otherwise it serves as a penal institution in place of standing prisons or as a means of processing prisoners of war. At a number of points Scripture exhibits a critical edge toward that institution: mandatory release dates, right of kinship redemption at any time, injunctions not to treat Israelites as slaves, protection of runaway slaves, the exodus from Egyptian as a symbol of Israel’s release from slavery, Paul’s letter to Philemon promoting the release of Onesimus, and so on. Relative to the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East and of Greece and Rome, the biblical witness on slavery moves in the direction of curtailing that institution. Finally, there is no creation mandate for slavery. Slavery is not imaged as part of the pre-Fall structures of the world.

Scot, compare this certainly non-enthusiastic and often critical attitude toward the institution of slavery in Scripture with the Bible’s strong witness in favor of a male-female prerequisite: There is a strong creation mandate for such a prerequisite; the pages of Scripture show strong revulsion for homosexual practice and absolutely no accommodation; and ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity had the most rigorous opposition to homosexual practice of any known culture in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin. Jesus in Mark 10 (parallel in Matt 19) treated a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus all sexual relations) as foundational for sexual ethics, including the limitation of sexual unions to two persons.

The only connection that homosexualist interpreters can make between the Bible’s critical tolerance of slavery and its deliberate abhorrence of all homosexual practice is that we have changed on the institution of slavery; therefore, they argue, we should change our position on homosexual practice. Yet that argument can be used arbitrarily for any and every belief and practice promoted in Scripture, for it takes no account of whether substantive points of correspondence exist apart from the desire of the interpreter to deviate from Scripture.

The better analogy is between slavery and support for homosexual practice, for those who argue for the latter on the basis of a “born that way” philosophy are promoting slavery to the desires of the flesh. And still better analogies are the Bible’s stance on incest and the New Testament opposition to polygamy since the reasons why these behaviors are proscribed are related to, or derived from, a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations. As you must know, when one uses remote analogues (here, slavery) and ignores more proximate analogues (incest and polyamory) one shows poor analogical reasoning.

Spirit Science and Metaphysics #fundie humansarefree.com

Scientific Evidence: Human Bodies and Consciousness are Evolving at an Accelerated Rate -- Are We Becoming Gods?

What if I told you that in 1000 years, we will look like petty cavemen in our current physical and mental state compared to future humans? There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that proves that not only are our physical bodies evolving at an accelerated rate, our consciousness is as well.

We are indeed in the evolutionary fast lane, and perhaps we are witnessing the prophecies of apotheosis in action. Our consciousness and bodies are evolving at a rate never seen before in the history of the earth.

We can look around the world and see the signs of dramatic spiritual evolution as we continue to actualize our fullest potential. There is an awakening happening right now, and December 21st 2012 really did mark the dawn of a new age of enlightenment. But as this global awakening is happening, our physical vehicles and intelligence levels are also evolving as we step into the light of this new age.

image
In 2007, Dr. John Hawks, professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published an article in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled “Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution”.

This article showed that positive selection within human beings has occurred at a rate 100 times higher than any other time in human history, and that this massive acceleration within evolution has happened particularly within the last 5000 years(3).

The study specifically looked for DNA sequence variation known as SNPs which are mutations at a single point on a chromosome. As indicated in Health and Medicine Week, “The researchers identify recent genetic change by finding long blocks of DNA base pairs that are connected.

“Because human DNA is constantly being reshuffled through recombination, a long, uninterrupted segment of LD is usually evidence of positive selection. Linkage disequilibrium decays quickly as recombination occurs across many generations, so finding these uninterrupted segments is strong evidence of recent adaptation, Hawks says” (4).

The researchers concluded that as the population of human beings continues to increase, the acceleration effect of evolution has also increased because of the amount of room there is for new mutations to occur and be passed throughout the population. According to the original journal article publication, approximately 1800 genes, or 7% of our entire genetic system, have experience recent positive selection.

They add that “To the extent that new adaptive alleles continued to reflect demographic growth, the Neolithic and later periods would have experienced a rate of adaptive evolution >100 times higher than characterized most of human evolution”(5).

With the cultivation of agriculture, the constant changes and experimentation in diet (such as the adaptive tolerances to lactose in milk), the exposure to diseases (such as the introduction of the CCR5 gene to make people resistant to AIDS), and the massive spike in human population within the last 10,000 years, nature has been presented with the optimal breeding grounds for positive selection and new adaptive mutations in the introduction of a massive gene pool and constantly changing environments.(6)

For example, in only the past few millennia, Europeans have experienced rapid changes in the gene for a protein that transfers potassium ions in and out of taste buds and nerve cells, as well as changes in genes associated with Alzheimer's disease and even cancer.(7)

John Hawks' boldest of claims was recorded on the University of Wisconsin-Madison website, where Hawks says: “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.”(8)

In other words, if you take a human being from 3000 BC such as an ancient Egyptian, you will find that they are more similar to Neanderthals in terms of their genetics than they are to us.

Anthropologist and geneticist Dr. Henry Harpending from the University of Utah also participated in conducting this study, and told National Geographic that “If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is.”(9)

There is a vast body of empirical evidence that suggests that human beings have recently been the subjects of accelerated natural selection within genetic information.

There is also evidence that this recent acceleration in evolution is not only biologically physical, but is also mental in terms of intelligence. J.R. Flynn, professor of political science at the University of Otago in New Zealand, discovered that IQ scores across the globe have went up 3 points on average per decade for each decade for as long as IQ test scores have been recorded (which has been since 1910 in the United States).

This means that someone that scored in the top 10% on the IQ test 100 years ago would now been in the weakest 5%. These increases have been occurring at a steady rate amongst both male and female genders and have been empirically verified in over 20 countries(10) (see Figure 1).

The average IQ score has always been set to 100, so if a person passes the IQ test with a score of 130, they are among the higher end of performers, and a score of 80 would deviate far from the average raw score. What is striking is that IQ scores have had to be continuously made more difficult over the last century to keep the mean score at 100.

Flynn discovered that the greatest differences were found in culturally reduced tests and fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence is the ability to think rationality, abstractly, and find solutions to novel problems independent of acquired knowledge.

He makes adamant the fact that these are not learned-content gains through more information being accessible to people, as this would only reflect crystallized intelligence regarding the application of learned knowledge (11).

And furthermore, other environmental factors such as more education and better economic situations are impoverished when trying to adequately explain the gaps in some of the cases, such as the increase in IQ scores by a total of 20 points in 30 years by the Dutch.

image

As Flynn states in one of his original papers “The international data fall into the same pattern as the American data. Gains are about 18 IQ points per generation (30 years) on Ravens, somewhere between 9 and 18 points on Wechsler and Stanford–Binet tests, about 9 points on purely verbal tests, small or nil on Wechsler subtests such as arithmetic, information, and vocabulary”(12).

The Ravens test measures reasoning abilities using abstract objects independent of language, writing, and reading. This means that these test increases are not a result of people having more access to knowledge and information, but shows that on the contrary, the most significant results were indicated in testings that involve pure problem-solving intelligence, such as identifying non-verbal patterns and relationships.(13)

Environmental impacts that can explain these increases in IQ scores have yet to be identified, and are still being speculated upon.

These are some of the most important discoveries in psychology, which Flynn calls “a cultural renaissance too great to be overlooked”(14).

Contrary to some of the scientific consensus, human evolution is undergoing dramatic increase in terms of genetics and intelligence. We now have scientific proof that evolution is not merely a matter of cultural ingenuity and social conditionings.

Nor is it exclusively reserved for physiological adaptation, but is in fact a concrete measurable phenomenon in human psychology that happening within our species right now.

Evolution can now be spoken of in something that is currently in a state of progression towards complexity, as we have seen from the evidence of geneticists and psychologists alike.

Is this accelerated state just one random hiccup that will plateau in the near future? Will we continue to evolve at this exponential rate from this point forward? Are we witnessing the physical manifestation of the ancient prophecies of human apotheosis in action?

This area remains ripe for investigation, and insofar as the conditions in which this evolution is occurring remain present (population increases, environmental changes, technological and intellectual refining) we should see this effect sufficiently sustained as we enter this new age of evolution and continue to explore this exciting frontier.

In 1000 years, we will be literal gods in comparison to our current state. We will have technologies and abilities that we could only dream of right now, and our bodies will be so much more evolved that we will look back a millennium and wonder how ancient man lived such primitive lives with such archaic bodies.

Maybe we really are entering the Golden Age of spiritual and physical evolution that so many ancient cultures spoke of.