Similar posts

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

In the wake of brutal police murders of young Black men, a popular resistance began to form. This movement was known as “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) Officially according to the organization it began in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In June of this year I said that the movement was nearing its end; and that it had only a few months left to it. This appears to be the case now. The movement is on its last legs, the steam it came on with has blown itself out.

Don’t mistake my words here for some kind of celebration. Most leftist groups in the U.S. are still in denial over the movement’s fate. What was once a loud and proud resistance has become little more than a part of the “cuck” jokes about Bernie Sanders. What was once a declaration of war against oppressors has become little more than the obnoxious behaviour of a few self-involved individuals.

So what happened? Essentially what I predicted would happen: liberals took over the movement. It was born out of a radical need to fight killings by police. A real physical defense against police oppression was being organized. Truly radical ideas like self-defense forces were being organized. Unfortunately the mass of the movement are liberals, not radicals. The majority of Black people in America aren’t leftist radicals, they’re liberals who vote Democrat. BLM is made up of liberals with a few radical elements around the fringes. These fringe radical elements are the exception, not the rule.

I said that liberals were going to overtake the movement and co-opt it. Once that took place the movement was sabotaged. Liberals are not interested in radical change, they’re interested in getting concessions. Radical elements were deliberately purged from the movement. This is what the Austin chapter of BLM did:

That’s a consideration that’s come into question since news broke that the city would host three discordant rallies at the same time this Saturday morning. Members of the 1312 Project did not respond to calls from the Chronicle, but Margaret Haule, who spoke on behalf of Black Lives Matter, quickly made it known that her organization is “not to be confused” with the 1312 Project. “We don’t do things that are considered illegal,” she explained. “We’re not trying to get a bad rap. We’re more transparent and open. It’s important that people see there are people playing an active role in the community.”

Essentially the 1312 Project opposed (and rightfully so) the Police Lives Matter (PLM) movement. However, the BLM wanted to support the PLM. This collaboration is with Police Chief Art Acevedo:

Acevedo said he spoke with members of Black Lives Matter about national and local policy changes they want implemented to ensure equality, and added he agrees with the majority of them. He also said what the group would like to see in regards to police relations is only a small part of the entire movement.

“All they want is to have police officers that are respectful, that treat people as part of the community and don’ treat them like they’re an occupying army and we get that,” Acevedo said.

This act is an outright collaboration with the enemy. The 1312 Project was purged from BLM because it had a radical agenda that challenged the police. There were not without comment on the matter:

On Monday morning, Sept. 14, an anonymous member of the anti-police-brutality activist group the 1312 Project – shorthand for “All Cops Are Bastards” – posted a message on Facebook announcing a change of plans. This Saturday, Sept. 19, the group will send its membership to rally at the Capitol rather than APD headquarters. “It appears as though some organizers’ desire to control this movement has resulted in, at best, police collaboration and, at worst, the active selling out of other organizers,” read the note. “We see this as a breach in camaraderie that puts those of us who were planning on meeting at APD headquarters in far more danger.” The seven-paragraph message concluded with an edict: “Fuck the cops, fuck politicians, and stay savvy,” it read.

The fact is in the first world the more successful you are, the more you’ll be co-opted. At this point BLM is an empty shadow of what it was intended to be. The mainstream media and political establishment aren’t even opposed to it. News networks are now using terms like ‘white privilege’ and going over the recent history of police violence. Politicians are voluntarily meeting with the group, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If the establishment doesn’t see it as a threat, you’re not challenging the system.

Why did this happen? Long story short: there is no social base for revolution in the first world. Radicals begin resistance groups to challenge the power of an unjust system. The problem is that the masses of the American people don’t want to do revolution. Often they face very oppressive conditions, such as the police killings of young Black people. However, they have no desire to overthrow the system which causes that oppression. They only wish to have that oppression stop. There is no social base for these radical groups to lead. There are only liberal Democrat Party supporting reformers. The liberals co-opt these radical movements because there isn’t any significant number of radicals to follow them.

The truth radical groups are not accepting, is that Black people in America don’t want a civil war to bring about a whole new society. All they really want is the same wealth and privileges that White people have. Radical groups however, continue to pull quotes from the 1960s Black Panthers and act as though we still exist in those times. Just because radicals want to take radical action, does not mean that the mass of Blacks in America want to take radical action themselves.

There definitely needs to be a coordinated radical action against the racist U.S. police state. Unfortunately there isn’t the social base, nor the organization for such a thing to happen.

GOP Tea Pub #fundie gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com

Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th
Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to
all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides
Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell
and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a
Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by
Republican Congress

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell
of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to
vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups
which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against
Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S.
troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists
seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated
administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875,
guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race,
signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican
support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat
President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act,
which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new
state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing
African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes
constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans
in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans
would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by
U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate
Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by
Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native
Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time
Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the
Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife
of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the
White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition
to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black,
appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden
until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls
for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in
office, FDR refuses to order it.

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry
Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and
criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a
friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing
of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s
three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential
nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in
Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights
leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican
Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from
Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President
Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR
to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs
Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour,
around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff
of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American
schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV)

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights
Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority
of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern
Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of
them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois,
to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally
rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order
authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan
establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal
education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan
Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of
Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably
with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The
most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to
lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common
sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition
their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies
in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil
rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website,
to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights
movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the
same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is
not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is
accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post
1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft,
Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists
retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly
galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is
that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted
the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of
what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at
the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan
documentary) for input.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64
act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the
integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the
“private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater
believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only
to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was
because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt
many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed
Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian
who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights;
it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate
Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy”
based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George
Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace
was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.
The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of
Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched
to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc
etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because
they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to
segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small
government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted
less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states
to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan,
sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were
*integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution
and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited
government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.
An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian
who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.
As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is
only the second person to serve as president of the three major
professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians,
American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/


Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!

FeralCat #fundie americanthinker.com

A radical Christian would be one who deviated radically from the teachings of Christ. Examples would be Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. A radical Muslim would be one who deviated radically from the teachings of Mohammad. Examples would NOT BE Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the Taliban, Major Hansen and the Boston Bombers as they all did just what Mohammad taught.

Frank J #fundie imao.us

Since terrorists are already covered, by popular demand I sent my crack research team to find out what they can about liberals.

FUN FACTS ABOUT LIBERALS

* Liberals hate people who are not open minded. Open minded is defined as thinking just like they think (otherwise you're evil).

* The major diet of the liberal is tofu and granola. This makes them weak and easy to pick up and throw.

* Liberals love to spend other people's money. If you see a liberal, it's okay to take his money because it probably wasn't his anyway.

* Liberals have an irrational fear of firearms. If you want to scare a liberal, point a gun at him.

* The whine of the North American liberal can often be mistaken for the sound of a screech owl. The main difference is that the liberal's whine will also have a nauseating effect.

* Liberals love socialism and want to socialize all businesses. If you see a liberal coming towards your business, throw a stick at him before he can socialize it.

* Liberals tend to congregate on college campuses as it is a safe haven for their idiotic ideas, protecting them from scrutiny. Thus, avoid college at all costs.

* Liberals are invulnerable to reason and logic. They are vulnerable to firearms, knives, and the bitch slap.

* Liberals hate America and love more oppressed people... like evil dictators.

* Much like the duck, it's illegal to shoot a liberal who is floating in a lake.

* Liberals will try to entice you with their twisted logic. If that doesn't work, they'll bite you.

* Hanging a picture of Ronald Reagan over your door will keep liberals from entering.

* Liberals come in two main varieties: intellectual and mental patient. You can only distinguish between the two by noting whether their jacket has sleeves.

* If you see a fuel-efficient car, it's probably being driven by a liberal. Run it off the road with your SUV.

* Liberals are always trying to save the environment because they are apparently dependent on it. If you want to kill all liberals, destroy the environment.

* Even if you satisfy liberals? demands, they'll come up with new thing to complain about that you could never even imagine; they?re just that creative. That creativity is put towards much better use as forced labor in a coal mine.

* Liberals are always whining about tolerance, but, when I punch them for that, they get moody. Hey, be tolerant!

* You can tell if someone is a liberal by extracting some blood and seeing if it reacts violently to fire.

* Sorry, that previous item is how you find out if someone is the Thing. It's a good thing to check for that too, though.

* Some liberals still think Communism is good. I guess we should threaten them with nuclear missiles just like we did the Soviets.

* In a fight between Aquaman and liberals, liberals would have Aquaman fined for disturbing the habitat of endangered fish. He would then sulk about it to the great annoyance of the Aquawife.

* Liberals like to sympathize with terrorists. Keep them away from Gitmo, or there will be nothing but sympathizing.

* I've heard vicious rumors that liberals also like the French, but that might just be slander against liberals.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

...

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

...

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on an tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

...

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirely of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

...

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

Rampojo #sexist reddit.com

I am pretty sure my mother would get wet if my bully killed me.

Every incel loves his mother, sure.

But your mother IS a female.

We KNOW that women love violent, criminal, HANDSOME men.

Bullying exists to show that a man is superior to another man, so he can impress females in the area.

Bullying an inferior male makes women hot and wet. You're showing her that you are ending the life of an ugly male. By killing him, you make sure that the female will NEVER have to be close to an ugly male and risk being impregnated by him.

Also, the bully is showing her that he is physically superior to another male. In the animal world, the strongest win the females. The bully is the strongest. He dominates you, so he can have all females in his territory.

The female wants to be impregnated by him and have his strong, dominant children. She wants his genes deep inside of her.

I think that my tall, chad bully would make my female family members wet. Imagine the genes you carried inside of you being dominated by another female's creation. You would be jealous of the bully's mother AND you would hate your son for being this weak, inferior male.

My mother would probably, without actively doing it, feel attracted to my bully.

I know my mother loves me but she IS a female.

Females are biologically made to fel attracted to the highest possible genetic male.

Your genes being humiliated, dominated and killed makes your mother wet.

She sleeps with the bully chad who kills you.

Think about it. I know everyone likes copin when it is about their loved ones and their mothers. It's a natural cope. No one on earth wants to know that his mother doesn't love him and hates him.

Your mother is a ROASTBEEF FOID. NEVER forget that.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad #racist racebaitr.com

We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.

Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.

Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.

But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.

There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”

The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.

There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.

Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.

Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.

The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”1)

Indeed, when we’ve seen white people try to do whiteness well, try to operate their spheres of power and influence well, we’ve also seen the martyrdom of Black women murdered by police to bring white people to reckon with their sins. We’ve seen white men starting campaigns professing the beauty of Black women, only to soon after realize it came hand in hand with the violent claiming of and sense of entitlement to Blackness and Black bodies.

This is all to say, importantly, that whiteness cannot be done well, cannot be done without violence or without being in opposition to Blackness and Black freedom. But the extent of this lies far beyond ashy campaigns and disturbing open letters begging other white people to atone for their sins using the blood of Black women. We must critically engage the possibility that whiteness is only violent to Blackness, is only and can only ever be antithetical to Black liberation.

That we conceptualize whiteness as having a positive operation in the fight for Black liberation is perhaps the single greatest success of the normative functions of a colonialist State. That is to say, we have been successfully hoodwinked to believe that which harms us most vitally might also be able to save us.

“Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, ‘race,’ is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values,” writes Teresa J. Guess in The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, “thus… the concept ‘race’ is based on socially constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions.” What this means is that race is designed as a hierarchal structure, and whiteness is constructed for no other purpose than to occupy the space of racial superiority. Therefore, to exist and act as white is to reinforce the dominance of whiteness.

Indeed, there would be no white race, no “race” as we know it, if whiteness weren’t positioned in violent dominion. That is the only thing it can do. Whiteness cannot operate in any way that does not first perpetuate white supremacy.

This, of course, is not to say that white people have not been the conduits for necessary Black liberation work. White people surely played integral roles in the freedom rides, abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement. But those roles were meticulously crafted by the toils, lives, death and suffering of Black people. The energy forced through those conduits was painstakingly produced by Black folks. To credit it as anything else is to fall prey to the same tempting veil of racism that motivates us to seek the impossible from our white allies. White people playing a role in liberation work are always merely actors, and the work done with them always done entirely in spite of their whiteness, not because of it.

All ways of addressing Black liberation for which white people are praised is always work Black people—Black poor and working class women, trans, non-binary, disabled and queer people especially—have already done and been doing and have made possible for white people to know.

Even John Brown, the white abolitionist who was executed in 1859 after leading an insurrection against pro-slavery forces, furthered the legacy of the likes of Nat Turner and other Black folks who fought and died for their own freedom before him. We must be sure in recognizing that dying for freedom did not begin with Brown, was not his legacy to create. Though perhaps in death, in a significant sacrifice of self, he and those like him have shed light on what it could mean to give up whiteness for good. When whiteness is so seeped into your being, might giving it up necessitate a threat to one’s safety and existence?

And where do white people exist in safety? In settler colonial societies, positions of power are designated and protected for whiteness. Perhaps the only action white folks can take—barring physical disappearance—in the struggle for Black liberation, for them to successfully put an end to their own whiteness, is the absolute absolving of their places and power. Their literal disappearance from the State and its institutions. It is worth exploring what this would mean for the the persistence of capitalism and the State. Is demanding the destruction of whiteness from the State to demand the destruction of the State, which was created by and has only ever known itself in service to (and in tandem with) whiteness? Which, each together, have only ever worked to maintain capitalism, anti-Blackness, and the disappearance of Indigenous people?

As John Stanfield writes in Theoretical and Ideological Barriers to the Study of Race-Making, “Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed” (Stanfield 1985:161-162). This is how capitalism, anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism are intrinsically tied. None can exist in any way that is good for Black people. The presence of each is specifically predicated on Black subjugation.

After whiteness is obliterated, at that point, what the people who now identify as white should do is a giant theoretical exercise: what comes after whiteness? How does someone become not white? That is the legitimate and critical work of many. But our focus is always on Black folks figuring out new and better ways to get free—independent of white people and capitalism and the entirety of western empires. We are confident that our dreamings of freedom can crumble whiteness, capitalism and empire without giving deep consideration to the question of “what do we do with it”. We’re only interested in the work of building past it.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad are Black, queer, non-binary dreamers who, in some reality not yet here, are married, gendered or ungendered without colonial restriction, and free.

Socrates #wingnut vanguardnewsnetwork.com

(Mod here: removed what seemed to be unneeded bolding bits)

Did you know that president Donald Trump can legally use military force against left-wing extremists, such as “antifa” groups? He can. All he has to do is declare violent leftist groups to be “domestic terrorists” — which they already are, as shown by their own violent actions (they usually assault police, for example). By the way, Trump has mentioned labeling them as just that. Using such military force against leftists would accomplish several good things, e.g., the leftist terrorists would be held in military jails and subjected to military law and military judges, which would make it unlikely that they would be quickly released by some liberal, Jewish judge, as often happens in the civilian courts. In other words, Trump could easily copy South America’s Operation Condor program right here in America (granted, Trump’s program would have to be less violent than that).

Tomi Lahren #conspiracy rawstory.com

The Blaze host Tomi Lahren accused the Democratic Party of being secretly “racist” by using a strategy of getting “black Americans dependant on government to get votes.”

On her Wednesday show, Lahren pointed to a video created by discredited conservative activist James O’Keefe, who alleges that a Democratic donor said that black Donald Trump supporters are “seriously f*cked in the head.”

“It’s not like it’s the mentality of the party, right?” Lahren quipped sarcastically. “Well it was Southern Democrats that fought for slavery. Oh, and the KKK, it was originally an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. The mission, to terrorize freed slaves and those who sympathize with them, which would be the radical Republicans.”

Ignoring the “Southern Strategy” that Republicans have used to attract white voters over the last 40 years, Lahren reminded her viewers that only 23 percent of Democratic lawmakers had voted to abolish slavery in 1865.

“But the Democratic Party has changed now, right?” she snarked. “They’ve switched on racism! Or did they just stop being overtly racist and move to a bigger strategy: get black Americans dependant on government to get votes while simultaneously deeming any Republican of any color racist.”

“Or their new favorite term: the alt-right,” Lahren continued. “Because somehow, border enforcement and ‘all lives matter’ and the right to bear arms and limited government have become alt-right positions for us redneck deplorables.”

Ellis Washington #fundie wnd.com

The Liberal-Muslim Axis owns all

The Liberal-Muslim Axis is much more complex than the name would denote. The axis powers consist not only of liberal Democrats, but include RINO Republicans, feminists, socialists, unionists, anarchists, academics and many others seeking to fulfill the Machiavellian motto, The end justifies the means. Remember, in both liberalism and Islam, morality and truth are relative terms, meaning truth is subjective. These religious-political ideologies define what is truth, and their "truth" is always on a shifting scale to rationalize and justify whatever means necessary to fit their ultimate ends – absolute political, economic and religious hegemony over the world.

Mike Adams #conspiracy naturalnews.com

The first realization I hope you grasp is that once Trump wins, radical leftists will go "full terrorist" across the USA, setting off bombs, riots and mass mayhem on a scale we've never witnessed before.

Leftists are brain damaged, of course, which is why they all voted for Clinton. That's also why they burn down their own communities, not realizing the very shops they're torching belong to their own uncles and grandmothers.

During these riots, Clinton-supporting leftists always seem to find the nearest white person and start beating them to death. Although such acts are, of course, felony assault, the leftist political establishment excuses the acts as a form of "social justice," meaning no one will come to help you.

Thus, my first piece of advice is to stay away from the riots. But if you have to drive through any cities for any reason, you might accidentally wind up being dragged out of your car and bludgeoned to death by angry leftist radicals who can't wait to commit mass violence (and even genocide), profiling people based on their skin color to carry out leftist hate crimes against whites.

For this reason -- and I'm not joking here -- you need to own and carry a loaded firearm if it's legal for you to do so. I recommend the Glock 19 as a good starting point, but some people prefer revolvers for the simple reason that they don't leave behind any shell casings at the scene. Whatever you decide to get, you need to be locked and loaded and ready to defend your life and property if violent, radical leftists attempt to commit felony assault against you.

I'm not joking, and I qualify this by urging you to abide by local laws. If you happen to live in an area where carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense is illegal, then you are living in the wrong state and should get out while you still can. Always abide by local laws and carry a firearm responsibly.

Most people have no idea just how bad things might get after the election, and the belief that dialing 911 will magically bring police who can save you is ludicrous. (They will be too busy dealing with all the other crimes happening at the same time.)

So that's item No. 1: A firearm (where legal). As a technical note, I don't like guns with thumb safeties. It's too much effort to screw around with a thumb safety in a moment of panic. Glocks have passive trigger safeties, not thumb safeties, which is one reason why I'm a Glock fan. Also, get some good handgun safety training so you can carry your Glock safely and responsibly. Learn how to disassemble and clean your Glock, and keep it lubricated so it doesn't jam when you need it.

Item No. 2 is, predictably, ammo for the firearm.

If you don't own 1000 rounds of ammo for your firearm, you're not serious about prepping. Do you really think the radical leftist rioters trying to assault you or burn down your house are going to walk away after you've expended that sole 50-round box of ammo you've procured?

Nope, angry leftist zombies will at you come in waves, and there are millions of them. If they're assaulting you, attempting to burn down your house, trying to carjack you or dropping fire bombs on your retail establishment, you're probably going to need more than 50 rounds of ammo. Don't forget the spare magazines, either, which you'll want to have pre-loaded with hollow point ammo rounds for maximum self-defense effectiveness.

Also, I'll share this from experience: Get yourself a good set of ear protectors, or you'll emerge totally deaf after a firefight. Amazon sells this decent set of ear muffs for just $17, with 34dB of noise protection. Trust me, you'll need it when the zombies attack.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Eisenhower’s presidency had coincided with a long period of peace and prosperity. Indeed, the title of the popular 1970’s TV show, Happy Days, refers to its setting in the 1950’s. The Eisenhower years mark the peak years of “the baby boom” and upward mobility of all classes and ethnic / racial groups. Apart from a minor and short-lived recession in 1958, the 50’s truly were “the good old days.”

One would therefore think that the Republican Party (aka GOP for Grand Old Party), with its popular and superficially likable “war hero” presiding over these “happy days,” would have greatly expanded, or at least maintained the Congressional majorities which Ike inherited upon winning the 1952 election in a massive landslide. This was not the case. To the contrary, in spite of two massive Eisenhower landslides, the 1950’s turned out to be a history-altering bloodbath for House and Senate Republicans, and it was not by accident.

1952 & 1956: Eisenhower won two historic landslides and remained popular for the full eight years of his presidency. Meanwhile, conservative Republicans in Congress were picked off by the dozens. Why?

There were two elements driving this extremely odd paradox of such a popular president not having any election “coat tails” for his fellow Republicans to grab onto. First, the Globalist media, while constantly exalting Eisenhower on one hand, trashed what was then a mostly conservative, anti-communist, constitutionalist Republican Congress with the other. But the real death blow of the one-two punch knockout of the GOP Congress came from Eisenhower himself.

During the 1954, 1956, 1958 and 1960 election seasons, Eisenhower -- with the exception of a few liberal “modern Republicans” -- refused to lift a finger in defense of his beleaguered colleagues. He was the one man in America who could have protected the patriotic anti-communist Republican Congress from the daily whipping it was taking from the Globalist press, but he refused. Robert Welch describes Ike’s silent treachery of 1954, which only grew worse in subsequent Congressional elections, and peaked during the 1958 mid-term elections in which the GOP lost an additional 49 seats in the House, and 14 in the Senate. Welch:

“Nor can there be any slightest question about the disruption of, and damage to, the party being intentional. Eisenhower not only refused to do any campaigning for, or to give any White House moral support to, the Republican Senatorial and Congressional candidates – he left their campaigns permanently disorganized through his deliberate delaying tactics with regard to his expected support, which was never forthcoming. Then, at the very last minute, he went through face-saving motions, of which a high-school politician would have been ashamed, with his fantastically childish scheme of chain telephone calls.” (6)

“Delaying tactics,” eh? Just like the World War II delays which got so many Americans killed while preserving Eastern Europe for Stalin! The final paradoxical results of Eisenhower's sabotage were truly astonishing -- all the more so when we consider how popular Ike had remained from start to finish of his 8 year reign of ruin. Here are the final "before and after" numbers:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1952: 221 Republicans and 213 Democrats = R +8

1958: 153 Republicans and 283 Democrats = D +130

SENATE

1952: 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats = R +2

1958: 35 Republicans and 65 Democrats = D +30

As shocking as those statistics are, there is more to the numbers than meets the eye. You see, many of the Senate and House Republicans who did manage to survive the Eisenhower purge were "modern Republicans" -- today known as "RINO's" (Republican in Name Only). And most of the incoming Democrats who replaced them were of the extremist Marxist variety. Their dominance would shape the course of America's political, economic and cultural decline for decades to come.

There can be no doubt. Eight years of Ike killed the Republican Party, just as it had the conservative majority of the Supreme Court... by design. No bloody wonder Democrat Sulzberger's New York Slimes and Democrat Meyer's Washington Compost endorsed him, twice.

The Democrat Party, which had been on the brink of destruction just six years earlier, knocked out the Republican Party in an epic rout. Yet “Republican” Eisenhower always remained popular. The result pleased Eisenhower and Democrat Senate Leader Lyndon B. Johnson very much.

James Simpson #fundie rightsidenews.com

Sixty-eight years ago today, Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. In that historic conflict we defeated Japan and its German Nazi ally four years later at a cost of over 400,000 American lives.

Since before World War II however, we have faced a much more subtle foe - one that in many ways has been more deadly. The foe is an amorphous mass, variably called: "Liberal," "Progressive," "Leftist," "the Left," "the Radical Left," the "New Left," "Communist," "Neo-communist," "Socialist," "Marxist," "Neo-Marxist," even "Marxofascist."

Lest "liberals" take offense at being associated with communists, Marxists and socialists, it can only be said that Lenin referred to them as "useful idiots," i.e. those who knowingly or unknowingly assist communists in achieving communist objectives. For this reason communists share the same contempt for liberals that the rest of us do. We both know they are fools.

So forget liberals. Call the foe the "radical left". It has been the instigator of most of our foreign policy failures, including Vietnam and Korea; failures measured in millions of lives. Practically every public policy failure of the past century, from the healthcare crisis to our addled legal system, from crime-ridden ghettos to failing public schools, can be laid at the feet of the Left.

Silentscream #fundie neoseeker.com

Rape victims are an entirely different case. Rape is a very horrible thing and no female should ever experience that kind of tragedy, but if a girl ends up getting raped, and she gets pregnant, why abort the baby? In doing so, it only makes the mother selfish because she would only be thinking of herself. Think about it this way: rape victims don't truly recover. Ask any woman who has had it happen to them; they tend to forget about it as the years go by, and they learn to live with the past, but in the back of their minds they are still grieving over what happened to them. Even if the mother aborts the child, she is still at risk of being traumatized for life. Having the child there would play no significant role in the mothers depression because she is still going to cry, and scream, and rant every chance they get. It's not the baby's fault so it should not suffer.


[Many reasons. Maybe she doesn't want to constantly be reminded of the rape every time she looks at the child. Maybe she doesn't want a child to someone who has violated her. Maybe she doesn't want to go through nine months of pain, only to give birth to a child that wasn't made through love.

If a woman is raped, then I think they have every right to be 'selfish' just for once and get rid of the baby, if they choose to. What's wrong with being selfish every once in a while?

You say that she will still go through all the pain, suffering and depression... But she will eventually get on with life. Having a baby as a constant reminder of it isn't exactly going to help with the moving on.]


You bring up some good points, but we don't live in disney. We're not all made through love. I wasn't expected, many of my friends have told me they weren't expected either. The fact of the matter is, no child should suffer because of the crimes committed by any of these sick freaks. It's like killing another human being because someone related to them broke the law. Everyone deserves to be selfish every once in a while, but not when they are deciding whether a baby should live or not. At least out it up for adoption.

[So a mother should have a child ... because life isn't like Disney? Well those rape-victim mothers can sure as hell try to make their lives a little bit happier, at least!

A child is hardly suffering if it's being aborted a few weeks into the pregnancy. Maybe if you kill the child when it's five years old for having a sick father THEN it would be cruel.
A mother IS suffering by keeping a baby she does not want.

And put it up for adoption? So she still goes through nine months of pain, only to give birth to a child that wasn't made through love, then she gives it away?
Why should a rape victim have to go through so much more worry (pregnancy, adoption, etc) when there's a much easier option?]

Again, not everyone is made through love. I don't care if the baby is 5 years old or 5 minutes old, it's still a living, breathing, developing human being. It feels pain. Inside the mother it feeds off of everything she puts in her body in order to live. Killing the baby is not going to help the mother in her depression, if anything, it would just add to it when she realizes she killed her first child.


Giving birth is a natural occurrence. Actually, a normal child birth is not considered an emergency UNLESS there presents complications. Moreover, life-threatening complications for the mother could be detected at an early stage and if they are then by all means abort the baby. We don't want the mother to die. But in the natural process of giving birth. the mother goes through pain, but it's does not affect her life-span. Your whole argument is based on solely the fact that the mother was forced into the birth, which itself is wrong and I do see your point but we're getting into something much greater when we talk about whether the baby should be aborted because you are snatching them of life. My point is simple, I've said it once and I'll say it again, the mother WILL STILL go through pain and suffering even if the child is killed. If she doesn't want to see her kid, then put it up for adoption. Don't take its life because of a crime it did not commit.

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

IMDB boards were the glasses, and that's why they are being taken away!

For the most part, IMDB boards allowed freedom of speech...with the caveat that trolls could make false reports to have legitimate posts deleted for an illegitimate reason.

But the liberal agenda/ideology hates freedom of speech. It wants people only to be allowed to say things that support it and help it to perpetuate itself.

The liberal agenda/ideology never wants people to be able to say anything that criticizes itself.

When boards like this were made, their liberal creators assumed that everyone who used them would push the liberal agenda like the board creators wanted. But, they did not anticipate that normal/moral people still existed in today's day and age, and that those normal/moral people would resist their liberal tyranny.

Years later, liberals have finally come to realize that normal/moral people do still exist, and if allowed to speak, they will resist the evil liberal agenda.

The liberal overseers' solution to that problem is to take away normal/moral people's voices. That's why IMDB's message boards are closing. That's also why many/most media outlets have shutdown their comments section within the last year or two. That's also why many countries have made/continue to make laws that forbid free speech, and only allow speech that aligns with the evil liberal agenda.

If any good/normal/moral/non-liberals read this message, then I urge you always to continue to resist evil liberal tyranny, no matter how much they try to silence you. Keep fighting the good fight, my brothers and sisters!

MrAcceleration #fundie reddit.com

World health organization considers being single a disability.

So where the fuck is our free shit?

The way I look at it is if I must be die alone, I deserve to die with things handed to me. It doesn't have to be a lot... Just enough for a cheap apartment and Nintendo DS without having to work and endure normies all fucking day. I'm sure my mother who is basically all the worst elements of a republican but also a degenerate liberal would be ashamed but my give a fucks went out the window as soon as women stopped giving me eye contact.

Their tax dollars belong to me since their hearts never will. Nomnomnom give me the welfare state communism.

Overkill Award

BestCarolina #racist #psycho identitydixie.com

[From "5 Reasons Atlanta Needs the Death Star Treatment"]

It is tempting to say that Atlanta, Georgia – the crime and corruption-ridden sprawling urban hellscape which symbolizes the dystopian nightmare of the New South – should be nuked from orbit by powerful spaceships. However, we do not wish to saddle the good people of Georgia with a large nuclear wasteland. Therefore, it would be much better to simply blast the awful metropolis with the Death Star (single reactor ignition should work).

Then, allow Georgians to reclaim the area as farmland. Maybe they could make a nice state park there. Something wholesome and traditional should surely replace that which is ugly, degenerate and post-modern, should it not? With that in mind, here are five of the top reasons that Atlanta should be blasted with lasers from space.

ONE Extensive Federal investigations have revealed rampant corruption that extends throughout the highest levels of the Black Democrat-governed city. Under the recent Kasim Reed administration, Atlanta was mis-governed like a banana republic. Former Chief Procurement Officer Adam Smith pleaded guilty to taking bribes and was sentenced to 27 months in prison. Mitzi Bickers, a political consultant who led Reed’s campaign efforts and was later appointed head of his Human Services Department, has been charged with taking $2 million in bribes to give city business to certain contractors. These examples just scratch the surface when exploring corruption in the city.

TWO Atlanta is crime-ridden and many areas of the city are dangerous. In 2016 it was named a top 20 murder capital in the American Empire. That year, the violent crime rate in Atlanta was 173% higher than the US national average. Gang violence is a growing problem in the city with Hispanic gangs from Mexico and Central America among the leading culprits.

THREE Around 17% of the 6 million people of the metropolitan Atlanta area care so little about assimilating into our culture that they do not bother to speak our national language. Over half of these foreigners speak Spanish, while a rapidly-growing immigrant population speaks various Asian languages. Taken together this is a huge population. If these foreigners in the Atlanta area were a city unto themselves it would be bigger than the entire metropolitan area of Columbia – the capital of South Carolina!

FOUR The soundtrack for the dystopian concrete jungle of Atlanta is undoubtedly produced by the rap or hip-hop music industry centered in the city. Atlanta has for many years served as a major capital of the US rap scene. Georgia leaders have linked that scene with gang violence and criminality. Rappers have even been shot and killed by fellow gang-bangers while in studio recording albums. The city has long been regarded as the “Black Mecca of the South.”

FIVE Atlanta has an out-sized impact upon the politics of the traditionally conservative Southern state of Georgia, pulling it sharply to the Left. As the city continues to grow, drawing in huge numbers of non-Southern transplants and Third World immigrants, the political future of the Peach State is threatened. Former conservative, mostly-Southern White suburbs are being rapidly transformed by the influx. Cobb County is one of the most populous counties in Georgia and is a prime example of this sad transformation. In 1960, it had about 114,000 people. Today, it has nearly 757,000 people. It voted overwhelmingly for moderate Republican candidate for US president Mitt Romney as late as 2012. That same county voted for the radical Black Leftist candidate for Georgia governor Stacey Abrams by 9 points last year. Demographic revolution, centered in Atlanta, make it a near certainty that Georgia’s traditional conservative majority will lose power at some point in the near future and be replaced by hostile leftists.

CONCLUSION There are many compelling reasons why the awful city of Atlanta should be blasted with lasers from space. The above list could easily be greatly expanded. We do not need Atlanta’s corruption, crime, un-assimilated foreigners, rap culture or radical leftist politics. Dixie – and, indeed, the entire world – would be better off if a hulking battle-station (“that’s no moon, DeAndre!”) reduced the offending city to rubble.

Fear will keep the other Third World cities of Dixie in line. Fear of this battle station.

John Hawkins #fundie townhall.com

20 Reasons You Wouldn't Want To Live In An America Controlled By Liberals Like Obama

The only thing more disturbing than the arrogance, incompetence, and lawlessness of Barack Obama's administration is that most liberals are perfectly fine with everything he's doing. It's shocking that there are so many Americans who don't care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or even what happens to the country just as long as someone they agree with ideologically is in charge. In fact, the only time liberals seem to get really upset these days is if someone criticizes Barack Obama or tries to put ANY KIND of restraint on his power. Want to know how America would look if liberals like Barack Obama had complete control of the country?

1) Abortion would be the only "choice." Almost everything else including light bulbs, TVs, health care plans, cars, and the schools your child goes to would be chosen for you by people in D.C.

2) You could be sued for failing to warn people that you are about to say something that could conceivably be offensive to women, gays, transsexuals, or minorities.

3) Every sports fan of teams like the Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, and Seminoles would be branded as a bigot and all of those teams would be forced to change their names.

4) We would have open borders and anyone who walks across would be welcome to sign up as a citizen and collect welfare, food stamps, and Social Security.

5) It would be illegal to say the Pledge of Allegiance or fly an American flag because it might "offend people."

6) All criticism of black and Hispanic politicians would be shrugged off and treated as racism.

7) Government investigations of liberal wrongdoing would be handled by friends, associates, or campaign contributors of the liberal being charged.

8) So many nuclear and coal plants would be shut down that we'd end up with regularly scheduled blackouts in many parts of the country.

9) Anyone could choose not to work and get a monthly stipend from the state -- well, until the money runs out.

10) Cities, states, and even well-connected big businesses that spend irresponsibly and go broke could always be bailed out by the federal government.

11) Women would have to get mandatory abortion counseling from Planned Parenthood before giving birth just to make sure they are ready to have a child.

12) Conservative talk radio, blogs, websites and especially Fox News would be regulated out of existence and only government-approved media sources would be allowed.

13) Christians and conservatives would have to hide their beliefs to get government jobs.

14) The IRS would be allowed to audit people solely for contributing to conservative candidates or being a member of conservative groups.

15) Men who have sex with women who are drinking would be treated as rapists by default.

16) Merit and even basic competence would be secondary in importance to hiring people who are the right race or sex for a job.

17) Any child who plays with a toy gun would be considered a potential psychopath and expelled from school.

18) Americans would only be allowed to buy tiny, overpriced electric cars that don't work very well.

19) It would be illegal to oppose gay marriage.

20) Guns would be confiscated from everyone except the criminals, the cops, the military, and the bodyguards for rich liberals.

Darrel #fundie kasuto.net

You know, when we started this war, I was so angry I couldn't see straight. I wanted to see them suffer for killing our countrymen. For coming onto our territory and starting something up. Saddam is an evil man and needed to be taken out..even if he doesn't have to do with 9/11. Think about it - he was gassing his own people! It's cruelty to just turn and look the other way, knowing that people are dying. It's like Germany and the holocaust (atleast then we didn't know exactly). We may not be the "world police," but I think someone has to look out for those who can't look out for themselves. I wish America had come into Germany long before it did; I'd have the majority of my family. But all I have is my grandma, her brother, and her sister. Everyone else died on my mother's side. (Until people realize that Saddam = bad, I'm going to keep repeating this story.)

Most of America makes me sick. It has no memory. "Der, what's a flag?! What's Nationalism?! EL OH EL! I HATE AMERICA EVEN THOUGH I'M AMERICAN!" I wish I could just ship all of these people back to their "native" country so that America will have a little more elbow room and a little more common sense. If you hate America and are living in it, then GET THE FUCK OUT!!!! We don't want you here, bashing your own country, and bashing those in it. I don't like to be called an 'idiot' just because a big majority of America is stupid. Hell, a lot of America is the smartest, too (Bill Gates, anyone?), and we have some of the highest technology. But I see that that is overlooked.

If I could have my way, I would blow up just about the entire world. I'd bomb Canada for calling us stupid Americans, I'd bomb the UK because they have their head up their butts and think America is foolish and never ever has common sense what-so-ever, and I'd bomb Mt. Fuji in Japan because the damn Japos are racists!! XD (That really doesn't have to do with the state we're in, but I felt I had to include it. Come on, laugh! :3) Pretty much the only places I wouldn't bomb would be the poles and Australia. Rest of the world can kiss my patriotic ass, because I'm sick and tired of them always ganging up on me like I'm a bad guy. I never did anything - look at our side for once. Yes, we're evil because we go in and attack people, but we're also good too. We supply places with food, medicine, and rush out immediately to go help.

Here's an idea, and I wish I could give it to Mr. President ;
Let's become isolated for one week. There is proof that we could run on our own without any exports or imports. It wouldn't be as decent quality of life, but it would be doable. We should not go out and help anyone, trade with anyone, or do anything with any other country. Pull right out Iraq, Iran, Korea, all of those places, and especially Africa. No longer help anyone - just help ourselves. We'll see how well the world can survive without America.

(I personally think we should go into other countries and stop their fighting and tell them what to do. They're like children fighting; someone has to be the responsible adult and break up the fight. If they can't see that they are fighting like little children, then someone has to prove it to them and make it stop. We can't have the world falling to pieces because the "UK" is afraid of stopping it.)

[ on abortion ]

I am against abortion.

o sum this up, rape/abortion victims seem to have a more negative outcome than a woman who was raped and kept her child. Emotionally, she is weakened from the rape, and losing her own child will take it's toll. Physically, she may never have children again.
"Good can come from evil." Rape is evil, and a baby is good.

I'm kind of in the middle of this whole thing. I see both sides. I don't agree with either (but I do agree mostly on no to abortion)
I don't know about the mother health thing though. I mean, if she's going to die, at least she lived a good life (hopefully), and the baby would get to live. Mothers usually love their children, and would give up their life for their children. Most women feel this motherly bond. They would hope their baby got to live a good life, and make something out of themselves. It's a choice the mother should make, but on the downfall, the baby will never get to live if the mother gets the abortion.

[ on war ]

If I could have my way, I would blow up just about the entire world. I'd bomb Canada for calling us stupid Americans, I'd bomb the UK because they have their head up their butts and think America is foolish and never ever has common sense what-so-ever, and I'd bomb Mt. Fuji in Japan because the damn Japos are racists!! XD (That really doesn't have to do with the state we're in, but I felt I had to include it. Come on, laugh! :3) Pretty much the only places I wouldn't bomb would be the poles and Australia. Rest of the world can kiss my patriotic ass, because I'm sick and tired of them always ganging up on me like I'm a bad guy. I never did anything - look at our side for once. Yes, we're evil because we go in and attack people, but we're also good too. We supply places with food, medicine, and rush out immediately to go help.

Here's an idea, and I wish I could give it to Mr. President Bush;
Let's become isolated for one week. There is proof that we could run on our own without any exports or imports. It wouldn't be as decent quality of life, but it would be doable. We should not go out and help anyone, trade with anyone, or do anything with any other country. Pull right out Iraq, Iran, Korea, all of those places, and especially Africa. No longer help anyone - just help ourselves. We'll see how well the world can survive without America.

(I personally think we should go into other countries and stop their fighting and tell them what to do. They're like children fighting; someone has to be the responsible adult and break up the fight. If they can't see that they are fighting like little children, then someone has to prove it to them and make it stop. We can't have the world falling to pieces because the "UK" is afraid of stopping it.)
(^?^)?(^?^)

F4LL3N #fundie escapistmagazine.com

The new born conceived through the product of rape is not at fault for that rape, and killing him/her will not change or lessen the pain a woman feels after being raped

[[How many rape victims have you conversed with to acquire this statement? I just want to know where you're getting your information, you know, besides your own heavily religious influenced opinions.]]

Absolutely no where and with minimal religious influence. Maybe I'm wrong. In which case, the mother would have serious mental health issues if killing her baby makes her feel better about herself after being raped. She lost all her power during the incident, and now wants to gain it back. Extreme I know, but it's one potential example of why a mother wouldn't want to conceive a child through rape. The idea that a mother would look down at her belly and call it "a dirty little c***" or something is rather sick too(another extreme example, because quite frankly I couldn't think of any other scenerio where a mother would want this.)

Enlighten me? After all, that's why I'm here.

p.s. I'm completely against rape, so I'm not trying to come off as insensitive about the issue.

EDIT: Well, it's a memory I guess. A constant reminder... In which case, it's still sick. If someone would rather their kid dead then to be reminded of a single bad occasion...

With that in mind, I don't need to get my information first hand off a rape victim to know what I said is true. It's either true or there are some extremely selfish/confused women in the world. Of course, that's a matter of perspective (almost certainly a minority opinion.)

I just think of it this way. Let's say a mother finds out her 5 year old was actually conceived from the rape that occured 5 years ago rather than the partner she originally thought it belonged to. Would she love him/her any less? Would it be okay to kill that child? Would it make her feel better? Short and simple answer, no! If this is true, then surely the same applies to unborn babies.

Bay Area Guy #racist archive.today

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction
renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.
So how does this play out? While leftists love to gloat about how whites are either the true global minority or increasingly losing numbers in Western nations, the truth of the matter is that it is SJWs and cultural leftists who are the true global minority. In order to substantiate my claim, I’m going to analyze the attitudes and behaviors of the non-white global majority, with much emphasis on the heavily populated Asian nations that comprise much of this colored alliance.

I’ll begin with China, which has over one billion non-white people and is poised to challenge Western power in the years to come. Having taking courses on China during college, I learned that nationalism and intense patriotism are very much mainstream in China, and that regular Chinese have no patience for the agitation of minority groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. Sure, minority groups receive certain benefits such as being able to have more children and a few affirmative action programs, but there’s no support for the kind of multiculturalism or radical leftism that bashes the Han majority or celebrates the impending demise of ethnic Chinese dominance. If one were to attack and demonize the Han Chinese in the same manner that SJW’s attack whites, he had better brace himself for a fight. China would also run afoul of leftist gender sensibilities, as their very own state feminist agency denounces unmarried “leftover women.” While women in China are able to acquire good careers and rise, they are also held to moral standards and society expects them to conform to some manner of traditional behavior. China, by and large, is very much a conservative society.

China’s fellow Asian giant and brown neighbor India exhibits similar tendencies. India’s Hindu majority certainly would not engage in the kind of self-flagellation endemic to white liberals, nor would they tolerate having their culture pathologized or deconstructed in SJW fashion. Their election of far-right nationalist Narendra Modi, who presided over a brutal pogrom against Muslims in 2002, indicates that they would do more than just employ the “tone argument” against those with the audacity to admonish them to “check their privilege.”

It also goes without saying that feminism of the Western variety doesn’t fly in India. India, like China, remains a conservative society with an unapologetic majority and a strong sense of tradition.

Lest one think that such chauvinism is merely confined to poor and dysfunctional third world countries, Japan likewise makes no effort to win any multicultural or feminist awards. Makoto Sakurai, the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group who wrote a blatantly racist anti-Korean book, was rewarded by having his book become a number one bestseller on Japan’s Amazon. While he may be extreme, the Japanese as a whole reject mass immigration and multiculturalism. Most Japanese likewise do not look kindly on liberals who bring up negative episodes of Japan’s history. With the blessing of Shinzo Abe’s popular government, the Japanese right is currently putting the squeeze on liberal media outlets. The Japanese are also not renowned for their embrace of feminism, outrage over certain sexist antics notwithstanding. Despite boasting one of the world’s most advanced economies, Japan nonetheless subscribes to fundamentally conservative values.
The aforementioned nations are just the tip of the iceberg. To be clear, this isn’t to say that these countries are cauldrons of hatred where minorities are pelted with rocks every time they leave the house. However, they are nonetheless unapologetically proud nationalist nations that defend their ethnic and religious majorities. Dota once told me that throughout the world, there are very few liberals. Rather, there are nationalists and moderates, with moderates upholding fundamental nationalist values (with the crude bigotry removed). Some might point to the popularity of socialists in Latin America, but even there socialist movements often take place within the context of racial nationalism, as demonstrated by Evo Morales and indigenous revivalism in Bolivia.

Indeed, it is only in the Anglosphere and Western European nations where suicidal liberalism and radical leftism flourish. The real reason why SJWs relentlessly demonize and attack white people is because they can. They know that they live in societies where their subversive views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. They know that white people as a whole won’t fight back. In fact, if they’re successful self-promoters like Tim Wise, they can even manage to enjoy lucrative speaking gigs at prominent universities and media outlets.

This knowledge ought to provide a measure of confidence to those of us in the alternative right. Far from being fringe extremists, we are the true global majority. In fact, we would be considered open-minded moderates by global standards, as most of the non-white planet regards our views as sensible and pragmatic. Subversive leftist deconstructionists are the real global minorities, and we should strive to remind everyone that our enemies represent true deviancy.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.

So how does this play out? While leftists love to gloat about how whites are either the true global minority or increasingly losing numbers in Western nations, the truth of the matter is that it is SJWs and cultural leftists who are the true global minority. In order to substantiate my claim, I’m going to analyze the attitudes and behaviors of the non-white global majority, with much emphasis on the heavily populated Asian nations that comprise much of this colored alliance.

I’ll begin with China, which has over one billion non-white people and is poised to challenge Western power in the years to come. Having taking courses on China during college, I learned that nationalism and intense patriotism are very much mainstream in China, and that regular Chinese have no patience for the agitation of minority groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. Sure, minority groups receive certain benefits such as being able to have more children and a few affirmative action programs, but there’s no support for the kind of multiculturalism or radical leftism that bashes the Han majority or celebrates the impending demise of ethnic Chinese dominance. If one were to attack and demonize the Han Chinese in the same manner that SJW’s attack whites, he had better brace himself for a fight. China would also run afoul of leftist gender sensibilities, as their very own state feminist agency denounces unmarried “leftover women.” While women in China are able to acquire good careers and rise, they are also held to moral standards and society expects them to conform to some manner of traditional behavior. China, by and large, is very much a conservative society.

China’s fellow Asian giant and brown neighbor India exhibits similar tendencies. India’s Hindu majority certainly would not engage in the kind of self-flagellation endemic to white liberals, nor would they tolerate having their culture pathologized or deconstructed in SJW fashion. Their election of far-right nationalist Narendra Modi, who presided over a brutal pogrom against Muslims in 2002, indicates that they would do more than just employ the “tone argument” against those with the audacity to admonish them to “check their privilege.”

Let's see courageous SJW's challenge their privilege
I don’t think SJW’s would have the temerity to challenge their privilege

It also goes without saying that feminism of the Western variety doesn’t fly in India. India, like China, remains a conservative society with an unapologetic majority and a strong sense of tradition.

Lest one think that such chauvinism is merely confined to poor and dysfunctional third world countries, Japan likewise makes no effort to win any multicultural or feminist awards. Makoto Sakurai, the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group who wrote a blatantly racist anti-Korean book, was rewarded by having his book become a number one bestseller on Japan’s Amazon. While he may be extreme, the Japanese as a whole reject mass immigration and multiculturalism. Most Japanese likewise do not look kindly on liberals who bring up negative episodes of Japan’s history. With the blessing of Shinzo Abe’s popular government, the Japanese right is currently putting the squeeze on liberal media outlets. The Japanese are also not renowned for their embrace of feminism, outrage over certain sexist antics notwithstanding. Despite boasting one of the world’s most advanced economies, Japan nonetheless subscribes to fundamentally conservative values.

The aforementioned nations are just the tip of the iceberg. To be clear, this isn’t to say that these countries are cauldrons of hatred where minorities are pelted with rocks every time they leave the house. However, they are nonetheless unapologetically proud nationalist nations that defend their ethnic and religious majorities. Dota once told me that throughout the world, there are very few liberals. Rather, there are nationalists and moderates, with moderates upholding fundamental nationalist values (with the crude bigotry removed). Some might point to the popularity of socialists in Latin America, but even there socialist movements often take place within the context of racial nationalism, as demonstrated by Evo Morales and indigenous revivalism in Bolivia.

Indeed, it is only in the Anglosphere and Western European nations where suicidal liberalism and radical leftism flourish. The real reason why SJWs relentlessly demonize and attack white people is because they can. They know that they live in societies where their subversive views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. They know that white people as a whole won’t fight back. In fact, if they’re successful self-promoters like Tim Wise, they can even manage to enjoy lucrative speaking gigs at prominent universities and media outlets.

This knowledge ought to provide a measure of confidence to those of us in the alternative right. Far from being fringe extremists, we are the true global majority. In fact, we would be considered open-minded moderates by global standards, as most of the non-white planet regards our views as sensible and pragmatic. Subversive leftist deconstructionists are the real global minorities, and we should strive to remind everyone that our enemies represent true deviancy.

Unknown #racist obamaisabitch.wordpress.com

image

Polls taken during World War II indicated the majority of Americans identified “the uncontrolled Negro” as “a greater danger to the nation” than “a Jap soldier” and more dangerous than “a Nazi” throughout the entire war!!! Funny how we elected a Communist, Muslim, Racist, Liberal Negro Nazi as president!!! Training one to kill, to murder and then sleep like a child to awaken refreshed, thinking what a glorious day to sink a knife into someone’s belly starting all over again with a new wind of righteous ice-hatred, is essentially just remembering that killing, in the end, is part of everyman’s natural inheritance. So, claim the same proud place in history where your ancestors once stood!!!

When will real men and women decide to unleash the torrent of bitter cravings for revenge against the traitorous liberal scum in Washington?!!! No more illegal immigration, no more robbing from our future generations, no more endlessly taxing the people, no more stupid environmentalism, no more gay marriage bullshit, no more United Nations, no more redistribution of wealth, and no more multiculturalism and diversity only the indescribable rapture and harmonious euphoria of breathing in deep the fresh blood of a fucking liberal politician or the blood of any liberal killed by bullets, bombs, or whatever is available!!! Of course, I’m not advocating or condoning any violence and/or criminal activity against any liberal or politician!!! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

But only with such a radical approach can conservatives, libertarians, and white people even exist in 500 years, essentially because we shall make them choose between living life in fear or living life by design physically separate from us or not living at all!!! Learn from our own recent past. Let them know you are already smelling them out!!! Make ‘em terrified!!! This is what all piece of shit Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans deserve!!! Death to All Liberals!!!

Sparrow's Song #sexist incels.co

We cannot restore the old patriarchy, it wouldn't fix our faces anyway... We need a Neo-Patriarchy.

Consider a society with nationalized healthcare, facial surgery for anyone who needs it, artificial wombs for anyone who wants them, realistic and affordable waifubots that are superior to foids in every way... This would be a patriarchal society that femasites could not complain about because since we would have no use for them, they would not be "oppressed". We could build a wall and outside of our advanced society, the current, barbaric, matriarchal cuckold society can remain intact as long as it can support itself.

This might sound gay but hear me out... Ectogenesis will be available soon, but CRISPR will still be very expensive. Males, with ectogenesis and stem cell technology, can reproduce asexually, one drop of blood can produce sperm or eggs in a lab. If you want to reproduce asexually but cannot afford to modify your genes with CRISPR, you will have the option of starting a "bromance" family with another straight male who's genetics would combine favorably with yours. This is not traditional by any means, but this is better than cuckolding, telegony, and allowing your bloodline to end with you. I would argue that today's femasites are so selfish and barbaric, that a child raised by two straight males in a "bromance" household would have a better upbringing than a child raised by a single mother who ignores it's cries while passed out in a puddle of chad cum surrounded by empty Smirnoff Ice bottles and Xanax pills. In reality, these children would have FOUR parents as opposed to ONE single mother because not only would the child have two bro dads but it would have two waifubot mothers as well. The bros can sustain a population by fathering two children each, you would have one child made from your sperm and your bro's egg and one child from your egg and you bro's sperm.

To make our society fair for femoids, we would not have only sons, daughters would be born in even number to sons. However, all sex between humans would be illegal, men are only allowed to fuck waifubots and foids are only allowed to fuck chadbots. The punishment for having sex with another human is exile, violators would be forcefully removed and left on the other side of the wall to join the roasties, cucks, and chads. Sex between humans is an act of violence towards the genes of other humans who are not having sex, the root of all evil humans do to other humans is sexual reproduction and sexual competition, therefore sex between two humans is seen as the most severe form of barbarism and forbidden in our advanced and merciful society. We would even allow people to leave without violating the sex rule if they wish, they would be educated about how our society works versus how the chad harem/cuckold society on the other side of the wall works and would be free to choose which society they want to live in at 14.

Even without the wall or separate societies, we should be pushing for bromance households, waifubots, and artificial wombs. We are not trying to "oppress" femoids or "make them obsolete", we are simply trying become sexually and reproductively independent from them. Sub8 males and LGBT people deserve dignified options for reproduction and family starting. If the foids say "asexual reproduction is misogynistic", we can say "you've made yourselves independent from men and in charge of your own reproduction, we deserve to be independent from femasites and in charge of our own reproduction"... If the conservacucks say "a family is only for a man and a woman and should only be started through natural means", we can say "silly bigot, don't force your outdated cultural norms on us, times have changed, it's the 21st century"... If the foids and cucks say "it's not natural to have sex with a robot", we can say "being robosexual isn't a choice, I was born this way, robosexuals are people too and deserve as much rights as anyone else, stop trying to oppress us, bigots"...

TL;DR:
We cannot go back to the old patriarchy, the masses will never accept it because they are too cucked. Even if we could, the arranged marriage foids wouldn't be attracted to us and would lust after chads anyway. The only way to win is to be more progressive than the progressives, we need to be sexually and reproductively independent from femoids. The so called "progressives" have no reason to oppose this, it doesn't negatively affect foids in anyway and it helps LGBT people. The current ideal family unit in The West is a single mother roastie and her neglected bastards or a landwhale cumslut and her soon to be divorced raped cuck hubby hanging from the ceiling in the other room by an electrical cord while the bastard child plays fortnite on mommy's phone aka chad summoning device. The future ideal happy family will be two bromosexuals on NEETbux taking bong hits on the couch and playing vidya while their waifubots do all the housework and get their genetically superior, asexually created children ready for school.

MarineSentinel #racist freerepublic.com

White democrats, liberals, elitists, leftists, progressives, left wing-nuts, communists, socialists, gays, lesbians, leftist loons, mentally handicapped—meaning their vocabulary is so small it would fit in a navel cavity of a flea, Nazis, republican rhinos who are really democrat insider fools, traitors, anti-Americans, and yes last but not least my favorite—lying maggot politicians are the most racists individuals around. This is a fact that these racists purposely try to shove off on their opponents namely Conservatives. The truth hurts and if ever there was a time where racism is more visible than today it is none other by these kooks I’ve mentioned.

Dr. Ben Carson a renowned neurosurgeon who put it truthfully and factually that “Liberals are the most racist people there are.” He is right and they can’t deal with a black man telling the truth about them and how they really think. This isn’t something new; these crazies have always been racists who date back to the “KKK” and slavery. They are the ones responsible for the many deaths associated with and committed by the “KKK” period. Dr. Ben Carson has made all of these kooks nervous and they don’t know how to deal with him especially coming from a successful educated black man.

I recently saw this racism on full display yesterday when a known liberal such as Bob Beckel went nuts over Dr. Ben Carson telling the truth about liberals. Bob Beckel said about Carson, that most liberals don’t care what he Carson says or thinks. This was his whole point genius Beckel couldn’t wrap his mind around that “White liberals and the rest of these kooks don’t care about blacks or other minorities who are different from them, ergo he and his “White liberals are racist.

The reason the liberals and the rest of their kook fringe are after Dr. Carson is they view him with the Uncle Tom tactic they tried with Herman Cain. Its funny how these crazies call us racist but when a decent Conservative black man who believes in God and tells it like it is they turn the table on him. Dr. Martin Luther King said it’s not the color it’s the content. This alone sheds 100% light on their racist’s views. Dr. Carson is the mesquite thorn in the racist lefts a**, both uncomfortable and poisonous which the truth does that.

Dr. Carson revealed what a loser Obama and his ilk really are; at the bottom of the barrel if you ask me. The liberals and the rest of these kooks are scared of him because he is a brilliant man and he is everything that they and Obama are not. Obama and his ilk=affirmative action and Dr. Carson=All Merit. The liberals and the left remain on their road to destruction and they are dragging the country down with them. The true Patriots of America must do all they can to take back our country.

I recently read a column about Dr. Ben Carson’s up and coming book where he makes a great and valid point. He says that it is just as much about racism to vote for someone because he is black, just because he is black even though you don’t agree with his politics. I have never voted this way for any President and those who have should be ashamed. Liberals may not care what Dr. Carson has to say now, but soon they will know if they don’t already he is their worst nightmare. Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example that America truly does work and liberals despise him for it. This President really thinks “White Liberals” actually like him. I’m here to say NOPE, they don’t. They are just using him like Bob Beckel to help him bring down the country. I say keep talking “White Liberals and the rest of their kooks, you are making our point.

The flip side to “White Liberals” is the “Black Liberals” who espouse to the same playbook. These crazies have fallen into the trap of actually believing “White Liberals” care for them when in reality they think blacks are not capable of doing things on their own. “White Liberals” truly believe that if you’re not white you are not capable. Why else would liberals demand affirmative action? Affirmative Action has done nothing more than exacerbate black poverty period. Look at most poor neighborhoods; they are all Democrat represented areas, Always. “White Liberals” always pat you on the head and tell you you’re so brilliant, but not brilliant enough to get anywhere on your own. We 20 years later have a President reaffirming everything we know to be true about “White Liberal” mentality. From his lips to our ears—“You didn’t build that, you didn’t get there on your own.” Molon Labe.

Paul Bury #fundie #conspiracy #homophobia familyfriendlygaming.com

Family Friendly Gaming, the industry leader in covering the family friendly video games is continuing our requested series on the DARK SIDE OF GAMING. This article is on the extremely radical slant in the majority of video game media. We are also seeing this slant spread like a disease in more and more video game companies. What is that about? Why do they want to alienate half or more of their audiences? Why do they have such venom and hatred for those that think differently from them? When will they start to be tolerant of diversity? When will they start to celebrate diversity? Something needs to happen for their eyes to be opened. I really have no idea what that is.

For anyone with an open mind it is very easy to see how the gaming media and too many video game companies have been radicalized. Take the scandal Nintendo had with Tomodachi Life. Don’t remember that one? Please click here for a refresher course. Nintendo exposed themselves as being radical on the far left. Any honest journalist would make the points Family Friendly Gaming did. The super majority of radicalized far leftist gaming media outlets demanded Nintendo include sexual deviancy in the games as soon as possible. They took a side in a hot button issue, and their side was on the radical far left. No fair and balanced coverage. No inclusion of anyone from the super majority that do not want that shoved down our throats. Nintendo black listed Family Friendly Gaming for exposing their lies and hypocrisy.

That is one scandal among many in the video game industry where the extreme radical far left slant is exposed. Remember the corruption unearthed by Gamers Gate? How did the radicalized far leftist gaming media outlets respond to their own readers who were unhappy with the corruption? They attacked them. They did not listen, or tolerate views that demanded honesty. They were downright hostile to their own readers. Their promotion of rebellion against God is disgusting. The imbalance in the video game industry is horrible. Family Friendly Gaming is speaking out on this important issue because it needs to be said. The problem cannot be fixed until we all openly acknowledge it. What can you do to spread the word?

I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.


God bless,
Paul Bury
Emperor
Family Friendly Gaming

phillyboy801 #fundie technology-science.newsvine.com

How can I say this nicely. You would have to be a complete fool of a person to believe we came from somewhere else other than created by God. I mean a fool when you have the complexity of the human body just to make it function the way it does. Then you have the sun,stars,and moon line up perfectly for human life to exist here on earth. Oxygen to breath for us to live. I mean you have to be a fool to think that this all happen by chance.

Liberal media is always trying to find something in the liberal scientific world to make a case for evolution by working together to continue to fool the people into believeing that we came from apes and some kind of bacteria soup. Everything points to a God and creation. We have it recorded in a book called the Bible. Just another attempt by the far left radical liberals to throw God out of society all together.

Various communists #fundie facebook.com

Person A: I´m a stalinist pro-gulag communist so i wanted to ask you comrades about how much truth is behind all these labour-camp stories in the DPRK. I have heard south koreans get paid by the CIA for talking some fairytales of how they fled the DPRK.
Sources?

Person B: Even if there are gulags in the DPRK, the capitalists that are in it deserve it.

Person C: Why are people so fucking obsessed with a few prison tents in North Korea? You have fucking massive prisons the size of the entire fucking towns and cities in the USA, the US mega gulag prison industrial complexes, thousands of these all across the country, with over 2.3 million in prison, with several million more going in and out, for some of the most bullshit most ridiculous charges.

Person A: No my problem are not the gulags themselves, my problem is that there are those stories which just cannot be true like imprisoning the whole family because one of them did sth. The people interviewed must be payed by the CIA but i just cannot find some sources

Person C: Of course, I agree with you. The stories about North Korean prison tents are bogus propaganda. But on the other hand, if you look at the US, they really have a problem, a massive and gross human rights problem with their massive prison and justice system, injustices that parallels no other country in the world, and along with that a hyprocrisy and narcissim that parallels no other other country in the world. Before Americans especially their media and journos and the American human rights industrial complexes with their many fraudulent human rights groups and activisits go shouting and screaming about human rights issues in some other X country, they should be really looking themselves in the mirror.

Person A: but i am not talking about the US i am talking about the DPRK. The interviews exist and as long as we cannot prove them wrong we will have to face this topic when discussing with a western liberal.
I would personly throw reactionaries and criminals into a cold gulag where they do sth for society but never the family members and i cannot imagine this to be happening in best Korea.

Person C: Well, a lot of the western liberals are American. and Americans don't want to discuss their own problems, they rather invent some shit in some other country to divert their attention or use it as a pretext to start illegal wars or illegal invade or overthrow leaders in other countries. I think it's important to bring this up, to show the major hypocrisy and major narcissism of western liberals especially Americans. because it can cost millions of lives.

Person D: The prison camp system in the DPRK is a lie perpetrated by the Western Media and their handlers in the CIA and if it isn't a lie then it's good and justified.

Jesse Lee Peterson #racist #wingnut #fundie wnd.com

GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY
LOVE WHITE PEOPLE OR LEAVE MY COUNTRY!
Exclusive: Jesse Lee Peterson challenges the true racists in government

Somehow in this country, white people became the only ones called “racist” (even though “racism” does not exist; it’s either right or wrong, good or evil). Everyone is encouraged to hate white people. The Civil Rights Movement, which I regret participating in, only brought destruction. Blacks forced white private businesses to service them, and whites began catering to blacks. Then other immoral people came in and used black people for their own agenda, to bully the weak whites. Women who hate men, radical homosexuals, illegal aliens and others seduced black false leaders, comparing their wicked causes to blacks’ supposed “struggle.”

I often ask black and Hispanic liberal guests on my talk shows, “Do you love white people?” Rarely can they simply answer, “Yes.” But when I ask them if they love blacks or Mexicans, it’s suddenly an easy answer – “Yes!”

This month of July is my second annual celebration of White History Month. America is great thanks to white people. But it’s so overrun with blind white-hating people that we now have a Muslim woman with a head rag in Congress! Rep. Ilhan Omar, D.-Minn., is an evil, America-hating, Christian-hating “social justice warrior.” But she falsely claims, “I probably love this country more than anyone that is naturally born.” Her kind of “love” is the same emotional, egotistical spirit as angry single black mothers who raise thugs and defend them when they commit crimes.

I’ve been saying for years that if anyone does not love this country, they can leave! If you hate white people, and you believe in so-called “racism,” even though whites let you into this country, go back to Africa or wherever you came from! Same with the white communist antifa members who hate American freedom – get out of my country!

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

President Trump rightly said the same thing in a few tweets last Sunday. He suggested that these “progressive” Democrat Congresswomen “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” He’s right. But they won’t, because they’re hypocrites – including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. Not only will they not fix their own communities, they want to mess up ours! They only offer abortion, immoral socialism, false victimhood and hatred of white people, men and Christians.

Although the president defended white female Democrat Nancy Pelosi against false accusations of “racism” by Cortez, Pelosi turned on Trump, paying back evil for good. In order to help “women of color” who hate her, Pelosi led a controversial vote condemning what she falsely called “racist tweets,” denigrating the president. In response, Trump pointed out that “this was the first time since 1984 that the Speaker of the House was ruled Out of Order and broke the Rules of the House.”

Thank God, a beautiful crowd in Greenville, North Carolina echoed the president’s sentiments, chanting, “Send her back!” – referring to America-hating, Israel-hating Ilhan Omar. The children of the lie, including the liberal media, Democrats, RINO Republicans and Never Trumpers, of course freaked out over the lack of political correctness. These deceivers hate good people, and support America’s enemies. Weak, cowardly establishment Republicans begged the president to distance himself from the “send her back” chant, which he obliged to a point. But when pressed by media, the president stood by the people of North Carolina as “incredible patriots.”

President Trump loves America, and said that these Democrat women “can’t get away with” denigrating its people. “I’m unhappy that a Congresswoman … can call our country and our people ‘garbage.'” He referred to Cortez (the socialist), who trashed the opportunities offered by this country, and called the late President Reagan and working white people “racist.”

Trump said, “I can tell you this, you can’t talk that way about our country, not when I’m the president.” These are the words of a real man. Not a weak, pathetic person concerned with silly notions of “racism,” “sexism” and whatever else they come up with – Trump stands on what’s right. He’s a straight, white, conservative Christian man of power – everything the children of the lie hate.

Ilhan Omar promised to be the president’s “nightmare,” which really means she wants to be America’s nightmare. Trump said, “She’s lucky to be where she is. … And the things that she has said are a disgrace to our country.”

I say shame on us for allowing such a woman to come here. But this is what evil wants. It’s time for the people on the side of good to stand up. Thankfully, President Trump is doing that.

There’s nothing more important than rebuilding men. There are no men in the Democrat Party – only weak beta males. Women run the Democrat Party, which is anti-American and of Satan. We saw what happened when men disappeared from black homes. The black community worships “mama” while they kill one another. Now other races, including whites, follow in blacks’ footsteps of self-destruction, by following women. Whites have turned to weakness and surrender, thinking the people of color will love them. That’s not the way.

Watch and learn from this president, who makes evil unwelcome again.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=D_J1HRwqt94

Ramin Mazaheri #fundie countercurrents.org

Why has CounterPunch spiked Andre Vltchek’s ‘Lies of the Empire’?

I first started reading Andre Vltchek on the website CounterPunch, which is a truly great leftist website… even though I will probably never get published on there, even if I was relaying the cure for cancer: CounterPunch appears totally opposed to working with any state media, and I work for Iran’s PressTV.

Rather anarchist and ivory-tower, but… whatever.

Reporters have only two choices: work for either privately-owned or state-owned media. I.e., you can work for shareholders, a patrician family (whether urban giants or rural petty tyrants), or some billionaire whose new sports team is in the middle of a boring rebuild, or you can work for the People.

I chose the People. Even if this closes a million doors to me – and the fact that I work for the Iranian People closes a million others – I have zero regrets.

(Blogging – working for Yourself – is now a third choice, but I don’t have the tech savvy to make that economically viable, and the vast majority of blogging journalists say the same thing.)

But what happened to Vltchek on CounterPunch? I don’t see anything from him on CP for more than a year? It is a truly top dissident media site, and they carry great thinkers, but I know they didn’t find someone better – at least not by much. I’m not the only one who has noticed this.

Is it because he has a Russian background and CounterPunch was duped on a few articles by a troll allegedly from Russia?

What is far more weighty is: given the 2+ years of a dangerous, misleading and appallingly stupid Russophobia campaign, US-based CounterPunch has an obvious obligation to promote Russian-linked leftists even more strongly now. That seems so obvious from a leftist analysis that I don’t think it requires much explanation. And yet… this is when CounterPunch chose to drop Vltchek?

Isn’t the US left supposed to be fostering a push to the left in the Trump era? That was supposed to be the best thing about Trump: he would pull the sheet off of American fascism – which has never been domestically discredited, unlike in Europe – to reveal that Trump is no different than Dronebama, the Clintons, the Bushes, et al. Many Americans are more hungry and receptive to leftism than ever, and leftist journalists should gladly feed them the political nutrients they have been long denied by the Mainstream Media. So how could Vltchek’s work have been spiked by CounterPunch during this particular era? One would think that leftist interest in Vltchek’s work would spike during this time, not that he would get spiked!

Maybe it’s just an oversight by CounterPunch – I’m sure they get many submissions.

The solution is obvious: Bring back Vltchek, and perhaps tap some of his compatriots and colleagues at the superb New Eastern Outlook (full of Russian communist intelligentsia who have practical knowledge of socialism) for contributions. They could also run the superb analyses of The Saker, who is a courageous anti-imperialist and also Russian. Adding these Russian worthies would emphatically show that Russia is not the enemy.

But does CounterPunch believe that…?

Is it telling that CounterPunch’s website advertises the book Russia Without Putin? Putin is centre-right in the Russian context, sure, but check your local magazine stand – surely some US journal has a cover vilifying Putin this week. The book is clearly predicted on a fantasy; it has also found a way to not be only anti-Putin, but “non-Putin”. Regardless, it seems like a interesting read, and I hope somebody reviews it on Amazon.

But, at first glance, this seems like more fantasist thinking from Western leftists, which I find particularly aggravating. Just as Western leftists know noting, investigate nothing, will not tolerate anything which challenges their fantasies on socialist-inspired Iran, the dumping of Vltchek seems like more Western leftism which refuses to see Russia as it really is, but instead as how Western leftists wish it would be. There is PLENTY of socialism in Russia, still; there is PLENTY of socialism in Iran, since 1979.

CounterPunch gets major kudos for having run Vltchek before, because Western Leftists generally have no interest in learning from the practical experiences of leftists in the Old World, and certainly not from the two main enemies of the US – Russia and Iran. US animosity towards the “continent” of China is nowhere near as strong as towards Iran, but the socialist achievements of all three of these socialist-inspired nations are not just denied by Western leftists, but denigrated as well. For whatever reason, Latin American leftists are deemed more acceptable to Western leftists – seems like an anti-Asian thing? We can certainly add in North Korea and especially Vietnam, whom Western leftists rallied around in the 1960s but whom they strangely and completely ignored once Vietnamese leftists won. Vietnam has the 2nd highesteconomic growth rate since 1990 (probably since 1981), China is #2 in increasing their UN Human development Index from 1970-2010, while Iran is #2 from 1990-2014) but – nothing for Western leftists to learn here, right?

Just being “anti-Putin” is not a very leftist stance from a leftist media like CounterPunch – right now is the time for CounterPunch to stand up for Russian leftism (and for the leftist insistence on internationalism), and not after the FBI finally admits they have nothing on Trump and Russia. However, it is very typical of Western leftists to be merely “anti-” (although being “non-” is indeed an original stance), but it’s not enough to sustain leftist-inspired revolutions, and this helps explain why the West has none.

CounterPunch should re-add Vltchek, and then add other Russian leftists as well (I think the “West Coast hippie” viewpoint can afford to lose a couple slots). This will help set many good examples, and it will counter the widespread belief that Western leftists can only push their own regional version of leftism, and are so individualistic and ethnocentric that they often appear incapable of being true internationalists.

But Vltchek is no affirmative-action hire: He is one of the very, very few open and unrepentant socialist journalists who have been around the world, burned the lying flag of imperialism, and kept the leftist flag upraised. Vltchek’s journalism helped gave me the confidence to do leftist advocacy journalism, and he can do the same for others.

I once read that a good critic doesn’t just bash what he doesn’t like – he sings the praises of that which he does like.

The book, a huge compilation of nearly 70 articles, is Vltchek serving as the world’s best socialist tour guide. It’s an encyclopedia of leftist, on-the-ground reporting from… nearly everywhere.

It’s especially fascinating to read because he seeks out reports, which overturn the Mainstream Media accounts. He goes to the places the West vilifies and lies about (Out and About in Zimbabwe’s Capital: Harare – Is It Really the Worst City on Earth?), or totally ignores (Eritrea: African Ideological Ebola for Imperialists). Zimbabwe never gets a good write-up in the West – they nationalized White farms, after all; Eritrea never gets positive press – it’s a unique socialist state, which has massively uplifted its People.

But he also goes to the West and intellectually scorches them with equal vigor. He demolishes what they incorrectly hold up as worthy of emulation (Shameful, Cowardly European Art) and he shows how hollow their own alleged “democratic successes” are, as well as those of their allies, such as Indonesia and Nigeria.

Vltchek does things like going to North Korea to make a 25-minute documentary, which the West would surely love to ban entirely and which should be on CounterPunch, but it’s his writing style which really sets him apart from other leftists: he is not telling you a story, but relating a human being’s history. Even if that person was sacrificed to capitalism-imperialism 400 years ago, Vltchek seems to feel as though it just happened and right in front of him.

I would say that Vltchek writes with the conscience of a 13-year old, and that is quite a compliment: these idealistic, freshly-minted adults are not only absolutely certain that something better should be done immediately, but that they could do it if only they could hold the reins for a time.

You see the same words over and over in Vltchek’s reports, and they are completely foreign to the daily hard-news journalism I was trained in: words like “compassion”, “humane”, “dehumanization”, “nightmarish”, “struggling”, “conscience”, “miraculous”, “beautiful”, “shameless”.

When is the last time you read a report in a newspaper – not in an editorial – which described an economically right-wing policy’s outcome as “shameless”? Vltchek uses it when talking about free-market fundamentalism, capitalism, US foreign policy, etc. Unlike the absurd, rabid, Russophobic anti-Trumpers, Vltchek is no fake-leftist – he knows it’s all about class & economics, and the permanent link between capitalism &imperialism.

Another favorite word of Vltchek’s is one which journalists don’t utter, and which they feel is their duty to ignore, is ”humiliation”. France’s protesting Yellow Vests, for example, apparently never feel “humiliated” by their 10-year, austerity-enforced, slow descent into borderline / real poverty, even though they are, and even though this explains their anger and violence (which was only marginally exceptional in France solely during the first 6 weeks of the movement).

One is struck by Vltchek’s insistence on the fact that third worlders actually do deserve to not live in humiliation – in a just media world, such a sentiment would be in every story about the developing world… but that would undermine the false idea that capitalism & neoliberal globalism is working great / has learned from the most recent crisis / could never be the reason for a foreign army base.

In his writing he is appalled by horrid living conditions, by lack of worker safety, by infrastructure so dilapidated it creates a lack of citizen safety, and by other conditions people just write off as “normal for those people”. For Vltchek, people riding on the tops of trains in Jakarta (and getting maimed or killed) is not the chance to run a bemused photo, but it always is for Western Mainstream Media. Whereas most of us gloss over it, he relates to the reader like it was the first, worst time he has ever seen poor governance, the abuses of capitalism, the rapes of imperialism, etc. This fresh-eyed view is incredibly inspirational.

Like any 13 year old, Vltchek has a clique of friends who are SO, SO much cooler. Vltchek goes to these places – like to doctors in the Bolivia of Evo Morales – and reports back, providing the reader with yet another heaping of inspiration. If he had not done this, perhaps Vltchek would have been like many other lefties – content just to vilify their neighbors, eventually growing embittered, superior and apathetic.

“To me these sights in the middle of the Bolivian Andes were like the essence of human nature – by now almost extinct – but still the essence played in front of my eyes. I was very much aware of the fact that this was exactly the socialism in which I have believed for decades; it was right here, in action, in front of my eyes. And it was simple, natural and undogmatic.”

It is these stories, which supply the vital, other half to his work: the requited passion, the justice, the action, the promises kept, the potential fulfilled.

It is fundamentally flattering to the reader, and correct, that Vltchek appears to treat every true leftist as though they were Che Guevara: he does not overvalue the leftist figures from his own nations, and he does not see historical figures as Ubermen from a golden or Salafist era. He sees everyone standing on the same level – even if that person is barefoot and dirty. What impresses him is only moral leftist effort, struggle and sacrifice. That is the true socialist mentality, just as much as it is true leftistinternationalism.

Vltchek is an opponent of the smug & cold, the poseur & the disingenuous, the elitists & those who stratify themselves away from the People. For example, Vltchek is an atheist, but that doesn’t mean he supports stupidity when it comes to those who are anti-religion (from Blaming It All on the Muslims):

“She is not the only person in Istanbul I know who has those moments. In the ‘City of Dreams’ to show spite for Islam and for practicing Muslims is clearly some commonly-used secret password to the universe of what is acceptable here as brainy and hip.”

You don’t read that from the Mainstream Media because, to them, being Islamophobic IS brainy and hip; you don’t read that from a lot of leftist media because they ARE Islamophobic, which includes the fear of Islam as a political force in any definition of the term. Islam is not the danger in the Muslim World – capitalism-imperialism and Western racism-ethnocentrism are the dangers. Vltchek is an atheist, but it seems he’s not so dogmatic, superior, ruthless and politically-stupid as to think socialism can function without embracing members who also choose to be religious. In short: he’s not an idiot nor a bigot – he’s a true internationalist.

If I had to pin down his official label I would describe Vltchek’s overall view most in line with “Cuban-style” socialism: after all, no country (other than the USSR) has been more truly internationalist (there would have been no South African independence without Cuban assistance to Angola, which was not even a Spanish colony); conversely, Chinese and Iranian internationalist efforts, while extensive, vital and costly, have been limited to regional affairs.

In a justworld, Vltchek is tapped to run a media company by a leftist billionaire. I don’t think there is such a thing, though….

However, there are leftist-influenced states – two of them are publishing me and Vltchek (NEO is part of the Russian Academy of Sciences), whereas CounterPunch is not, whatever their reasons are. Thank God for state media, eh?

Leftists writers all know: we are not in this for money, because what we propose is a guaranteed loser – writing leftist journalism in the English language. No Anglophone country is remotely socialist and most are ardently anti-socialist, so there is near-zero demand. We should pick something with slightly greater sales prospects: like selling pamphlets on atheism in Farsi, or books railing against the evils of hockey & donuts in Canada.

But if you can’t bankroll a media company, I hope you have some money to buy Vltchek’s book. The most important unsaid leftist phrase in the West is “anti-imperialist” – here is a book which tells you the state of that struggle around the world.

TheyCallMeRamon #sexist reddit.com

Transgender Politics is the Easy Way Out

Anyone should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the stereotypical confines of their biological sex, as long as it does not harm others.

This is a maxim that both liberal feminists and radical feminists would agree with. The solution should be to eliminate the stereotypical confines. However, this is not possible in 2018, so rather than try to move toward that end, liberal feminists have invented the concept of gender in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the stereotypes for certain fringe individuals (while paradoxically strengthening the stereotypes for society as a whole). The concept of transgender is a much easier pill for middle America to swallow than the possibility of gender confines being pointless nonsense.

Consider a hypothetical: a biological male working at a law firm decides to wear a skirt to work. Law is a rather conservative industry, so the dress code does not allow men to wear skirts. The attorney’s boss gets annoyed and asks him why he is wearing a skirt. The most earnest answer would be “because I want to, and the dress code is stupid,” but that is just going to anger the boss further, and interfering in such tedious office politics is not traditionally the end goal of many political movements. So the attorney instead says “because I am a woman, and women are allowed to wear skirts.” The boss doesn’t actually understand this either, but it doesn’t annoy him as much as the first answer would, and the political movement tells him “transwomen are women,” so he can carry on with his day silently wondering if he’s the only one not smart enough to see the emperor’s new clothes.

Therefore, the transgender movement is a way for the most feminine biological males to wear whatever they want wherever they want in 2018. Is this a laudable achievement? Sure. But should it come at the price of everyone else? Should “masculine-presenting” women be considered to be men, unless they tell us otherwise? Should children who don’t like the right color of clothes be injected with hormones? Probably not.

And then the liberal feminists get themselves tangled up in their own fake logic (or perhaps more cynically need to keep the coverup going so that no one catches on), so people who eschewed the stereotypical demands of yore—anyone from Dante Tex Gill to Joan of Arc—are labeled transgender instead of the true renegades who said “I want to, and the dress code is stupid.”

Hunter Wallace #fundie occidentaldissent.com

[From "Why Did The Southern States Secede From The Union?"]

As we have seen, Rainbow Confederates like to pretend that race, slavery and white supremacy had nothing to do with the historical Confederacy. They like to imagine that their Confederate ancestors were cucks who shared the racial attitudes of the Baby Boomer generation.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Confederates believed that 19th century racial science had established the inferiority of the black race. They believed that 18th century Enlightenment theories of human equality and natural rights were antiquated and discredited.

In their eyes, the South was menaced by the threat of “Black Republicanism.” This was their term for Northerners who believed in “the doctrine of negro equality” and whose radical liberalism impelled them to undermine and destroy all social hierarchies. Abolitionism was only one of the many “-isms of the North” which were seen as a threat to the Southern social order. These included Bloomerism, anarchism, atheism, socialism, communism, Oneida incest and Mormon polygamy.

Abolitionism undermined the master-slave relationship. Bloomerism undermined patriarchy. Anarchism undermined state sovereignty. Atheism undermined our subordination to God. Socialism and communism undermined property rights. Incest and polygamy undermined Christian morality. The Confederates saw themselves as standing for hierarchy against the excesses of democracy.

In their more candid moments, the intellectual vanguard of the Confederacy declared that their objective was the defeat of American democracy. They wanted to abandon liberal republicanism in favor of classical republicanism. They admired the Greeks, Romans and the Normans of Medieval Britain. They wanted to secede from the United States to create a new conservative nation based on “the political thought of the Norman” which they believed was opposed to liberal democracy.

The Confederate view on race, slavery and white supremacy is consistent with their philosophy of inequality. The same is true of their views on patriarchy, religion and politics. They were natural conservatives who believed in preserving hierarchies, order and social distinctions. In their view, it was natural for man to be subordinated to God, wives to be subordinated to their husbands, children to their fathers, slaves to their masters, the ignorant to the wise, etc.

John Brown was seen as a wild-eyed fanatic in the South. What sense does John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry make if the Rainbow Confederates are anywhere close to being right?

Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession

Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession

Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech

Jefferson Davis, Farewell to the US Senate

Alexander Stephens, Speech to Virginia Convention

William L. Harris, Address To Georgia Assembly

Michael Bresciani #fundie raptureforums.com

America's three pronged plunge into reprobation - No politics can solve this dilemma

1. Over 40 years past America decided that nine Supreme Court justices got it right when they ruled that women could legally abort (murder) another human being. The battle to stop this genocide has raged since then, but to no avail. Under the Obama administration it has reached all new heights and taxpayers and working class people have begun to pay for these abortions.

2. America was the first nation to recognize Israel's statehood when she became a free and independent nation in 1948. Since then most presidents have supported Israel unequivocally. Today for the first time under Barack Obama that recognition has waned and fluttered to the point that most Americans now believe that in a showdown between Muslim nations and Israel, Barack Obama would throw Israel under the bus in an instant.

3. Thirty seven states now allow "same sex marriage" and the Supreme Court is once again on the cusp of allowing the general acceptance, streamlining and lawful practice of this perversion throughout the nation.

Purpletricycle #fundie reddit.com

(Yesterday Greta Van Susteren asked people on Twitter if she should make a segment on Hillary's health. Today she abruptly left FOX after 14 years. What the fuck?)

Because the murdochs are radical leftist and no real conservative would work for them. Today is the day fox became the new CNN

Todd Strandberg #fundie raptureready.com

Jesus, when He walked the Earth in the flesh, didn't fall prey to Satan's attempts to bribe Him with earthly power when the devil offered Him all of the world's kingdoms.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4: 8-10).

Jesus didn't correct the evil one by telling him that the kingdoms of this world were not his to offer. That is because Satan indeed is allowed for the present time to control, to a great extent, the political realm of this fallen planet.

The fact that the God of all creation would not even consider such an offer of earthly power makes it more than certain that He would not lower himself to participate in a humanistic election.

The answer to the question posed by the title of this article is, "No, Jesus would not vote Republican." He would not vote, period!

Jesus would, however, offer very pointed advice on issues to those who do participate in the election process. He would enunciate the godly principles underlying the issues upon which the voters must decide. As a matter of fact, He did just that.

Jesus is the Living Word of God (John 1: 1). God's love letter to mankind is given through His blessed Son, Jesus Christ. The Bible gives us God's precise rules for conducting all areas of our life--including our participation in the political process.

Human beings must, in the final analysis, vote upon the issues of life that will determine how we will be served by human government. Departure from wise, godly principles delineated in the Bible invites the sort of confused and debased culture in which we are mired today. Such foolish decision-making ultimately brings foolish, even debased, perverted leadership, and even devilish tyranny.

Linda Goudsmit #fundie conservativenewsandviews.com

Religion and religious freedom gone wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition.

What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation.

What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

Practical application

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs. This applies equally to citizens of the United States, guests in this country, illegal aliens, or citizens of other countries. But we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29]

Words mean things

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/case.html

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion included items 1 and 2:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question:

What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Instead, Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam features religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. It is also intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion. So we cannot allow it religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Suppose Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion. Then would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism? Would they defend its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia?

There is no difference.

Apologists for Islamic barbarity claim that Islamists have perverted their religion. If so, it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other. Moreover its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Lydia Church #fundie disqus.com

(Responding to story “Vulgar ‘Abortion Is Normal’ Art Exhibit in NYC to Benefit Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee”):

And this "it's normal" stuff? Sure, if you're hitler, then it's 'normal,' for psychopaths!
And it's not God who they are to 'thank,' it's satan! God opposes this murder and no matter how brazen they feel about it, that unrepentance instead of shame will land them in hell. Then they'll know how it feels.

I can't get over their evil heartedness! Oh sure, all these people, men and women, feel they have the right to f#@& left and right, then they get pregnant, so they feel they have the right to butcher it and murder the resulting human being! And they call this the height of 'enlightened' civilization! What a joke!!!

It is interesting to notice how society has gotten so far away from God and has become truly evil. Back in the 50's, folks would get married and have a family. Most would wait until marriage for sex, at least if they were Christians. The mother would stay home to be a mother to the children and not outsource her job to someone who is not their mother. If a woman got pregnant, the man would marry her. Fast forward to today. 99.99999% of all men expect sex before marriage, and that includes those who attend church. Then if the woman happens to get pregnant and doesn't run straight for an abortion, but approaches the father, he just implies that she should murder the baby because, you know, the option is there. If she still decides to have the baby, many men abandon the woman, look for another, and the cycle continues. The woman may cave and murder her unborn child, or end up a single mom in a rough economy. My solution? Keep it in your pants until the wedding night. It worked best then and it still works best now. The Bible was right after all: Don't fornicate. But who knew?!

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

Re: Today I Was Assaulted By My Biological Sister And The Police Didn't Arrest Her

[LONG POST REDACTED]

Tl;dr Sister stole 20 bucks from nephew. I ask where it is. She gets offended and we argue. She threatens me with violence and I don't back down. She starts swinging at me, I evade the punches but she cuts parts of my face, leaves two long red streaks on my chest and I call the police. Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her even after 'giving me the choice'.

(mikesteane)
I would give Charles the 20 pounds and write your fridge off to experience. Then cut your sister out of your life and let her dig her own grave.

PS: A useful trick if someone is throwing punches at you and you do not want to hit back is to deliberately bring your elbows up in front of her fists, if you can. A fist meeting and elbow will get the worst of the encounter and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

(ThePigmanAgain)

and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

Yes. And in this day and age she could probably get away with it too!

(TheMythof_Feminism)

Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her

I'm surprised they didn't detain YOU.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but you made a huge mistake. Never call the police, I have read many stories where something similar to what you describe happens (woman starts a fight, man calls police) and it ends with the man being taken away in irons.

Yeah I know that doesn't make sense, but that's how skewed things are in favor of women.... those visible cuts saved you.

(Wsing1974)
Please don't advise men not to call the police. Yes, it's true that men will often not be treated seriously, and it's also true that occasionally the male victim is the one who gets arrested.

But if we're ever going to change this scenario, we need to get female on male assaults documented. We need the statistics to show that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. We need women to be jailed over this.

We can advise men to get better evidence - like pictures, video, and confessions. We can advise them to separate themselves from women before calling. But please don't advise them to not call. That's only going to perpetuate the problem.

(TheMythof_Feminism)
Domestic violence calls do not end well for men. I will advise them on what I consider to be the best choice for the circumstances, in this instance the application of law is so horrendously skewed against men that I do not think it is a good idea to call the police.

You believe calling the police and risking a terrible outcome will accomplish this?

I would never throw a man under the bus for "the greater good". I understand your general argument but your methods are unacceptable to me.

(IronJohnMRA)
I'm sorry but I disagree completely. Mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution make this too risky of an action for me to ask men to take. For the time being, I will continue to advise them not to do it.

(Kirei64)
In my country, people are always complaining about the fact that "police don't take into account women's complaints", that women are harassed and can't do nothing. But these idiots don't realize that police also don't take into account men's complaints, and that most of men can't do a single thing when a woman tries to hit them. What you're saying is a large proof that there is cases of women who punches men unfairly (and I think that a woman saying to a man that she would "kick him in his balls" is also pretty sexist). As long as there is this stupid "women are wonderful effect", most people will not realise that women can be violent and cruel (stealing money from a 12 old nephew is heartless, and she even tried to punch you for complaining about that...) In fact, people needs to know that women can be evil too, so cases like your will not occur again.

(HeForeverBleeds)
I don't trust the CJS for reasons like this. I've experienced first hand and learned about countless more accounts of males assaulted by women at best not getting justice even after reporting, and often being treated as the abuser

People say male-on-female violence is worse and more dangerous, but a female has more recourse against a violent man than vice versa. If a man doesn't hit back, he gets seriously injured. If he does hit back, he gets arrested. And whichever he chooses, the CJS isn't going to protect him from the abuser

I'm really sorry this happened. Have you considered cutting her out of your life entirely? Would that even be possible? Toxic relationships are terrible things to endure, and her being a close relative doesn't make it any more justifiable

Kiran Opal #fundie twitter.com

Look at CNN STILL fucking appealing to moderate fascists - I mean GOP - while throwing actual leftist Chavez & Venezuela under the bus.

If you have a problem with socialism, communism, Chavez, Castro, Cuban revolution, don't waste my time. Just go educate yourself out there.

I'm not here to debate fascists nor argue w/ fascist enablers aka liberals. Don't yap at me about things you have never studied in depth.

(@freshxdesign: Chavez did use the same methods to discredit the media there.)

Do you know what the difference between a socialist like Chavez & fucking fascists & fascist wannabes like Trump, Erdogan, Putin??

Do you only see superficial things like liberals? Or do you know the underlying philosophical & political ideas of those different people?

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

(proreason)
This illustrates one of the core problems with liberals of all stripes. They have no limits on their unhinged desire to control everybody and everything around them.

(aka Randy Yonkers)
The left is driven by toxic emotions.
They thrive on the control they get from making themselves and everyone around them miserable. They label destruction and misery "Progress". They manufacture pain and rage and sell it for profit, by taxing a guilted public and forcing them to pay for the "cure".

(Eskel Gorov)
The entire concept of "AGW" is preposterous. Even if there were an AGW "consensus" (which there categorically is not), it's irrelevant. Consensus is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of scientific process. Relying on those more educated than you are is just fine until science becomes corrupted by politics and the politician's eternal quest for more tax dollars from the uninformed. AGW is indeed about politics, wealth redistribution, and crowd control. We can and should be better stewards of our planet; but, we don't need to abandon all scientific process and commit suicide in order to do so. This stewardship has little or nothing to do with CO2. Regardless, a consensus of people from NOAA, NASA,and the IPCC who have all been caught red-handed altering data to meet their failed modeling assumptions is worthless on its face. Failed models, failed theory, end of story.

(redpilldebtslave)
CO2 is plant food. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and the earth is covered by a bunch of it. Imagine if they went after water like they do the energy industry. We need politics to stay out of science. This all fell apart when they got caught falsifying data. Follow the money.
Leftists are the science deniers! LOL! Too funny!

(ricocat1)
Those liberals who are concerned about CO2 should hold their breaths until they turn blue. Don't exhale. No CO2. No liberals. Problem solved.

(Trump Train aka Honey Badger)
These liberals idiots would have rather breathed nuclear fallout by voting for HRC... end of the planet for sure!
There is no greater contaminant then of one’s mind, you can thank the liberal ideology for that!
Our youths minds are being poisoned all across the campuses in America by these liberal professors.
President Trump already saved the planet by defeating the nuclear holocaust know as HRC, ending the Paris Accord, slashing the EPA and ending big bureaucratic regulations!

(Johnny)
these people are seriously mental defects and delusional,, they dont stop to think who is going to fund these places without republican support,, liberals arent going to part with weed money to keep the lights on

(proreason)
Allow me to crystalize your comment a bit more. I think it has a core that is a real insight. You said: "these people...dont stop to think".

Liberals are too p*ssed off at everybody else for not complying with their manias to think about anything other than enforcing their will.

(Pleiades R)
"bite the hand that feeds them" comes to mind

both comments so valid, so many liberals I know think work is beneath them, they spend money on the latest cell/computer/clothing/shoes/entertainment/restaurants... then complain insurance, utilities, necessities are too expensive.... some are on assistance, but they own a "vape", a big screen tv and cable...

they make fun of me for having an old phone and not dressing expensively... I don't have cable or a tv.... but, I pay my own way...

amusingly they support open borders... if only they were destroying their own world, not the world we share...

(redpilldebtslave)
I often tell them they advocate their own destruction. By destroying the family and abusing the legal system, we have today's society. That is advocating for the leftists grand utopia. Leftists advocate their own destruction. Everybody must suffer as they do.
I usually say it just like that. They accuse me of making threats on the leftist sites. All I do is predict their futures.

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

Please support our Vets and Police! Boycott the Superbowl this weekend! #Boycottsuperbowl #PleaseStand

(Eric Simpson)
It's a consensus of ideology, not of science. Notice that nearly every conservative scientist does not believe the leftist scam.

(rennyangel2)
Not, "conservative" scientists but many REAL scientists who study cause and effect, are knowledgeable about history, and are not trying to impose their own views on outcomes or results.
There is a current complaint in the scientific community that too many "experiments" are not repeatable, as they should be if the same processes are followed, and I think the problem with replicating in today's science is because too many choose a pre-determined outcome and then force their "experiment" into the desired result. No wonder, one scientist has trouble producing the same conclusion, again.

(earlysda)
The problem in science is that they fell for a different god than the the Creator (Jesus Christ), and have been wandering in the darkness ever since.

(Reno Rivera)
Doesn't matter. The left lost on this one.

I don't feel sorry for the fickle, Rebekah Mercer. She's getting some payback here for betraying Bannon.

Also, she is not behind BB and never one who made BB popular.

I guess she is now since Bannon left and BB becoming effeminate with increased People Magazine type and news stories.

(earlysda)
Sadly, most of our youth are taught the doctrines of Evolution as "scientific fact", when actually, even Richard Dawkins admits: "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".

(Mash Draggin)
Science is being subverted and swallowed up by politics, and the fact that there are so many marxists at our universities is a big reason why. The left wants to use science as a political weapon. It's actually slowing down real scientific advancement too.

Camelknees33 #fundie rr-bb.com

(Commenting on ebil emails from her mother:)

Anyway, she is a very liberal, leftist, lesbian, pacifist, and unsaved person. Everything about her just repulses me. My problem is this. She sends me emails constantly about her candidate, Obama, and news articles about liberal crap, and most recently, she sent me an article about two lesbian women in her community getting "married" now that they can. I emailed her back and asked her why she thought I would remotely even be interested in that article. She emailed, and said that she thought I would be happy for her and her civil rights. ???

Stan and Elizabeth Madrak #fundie demonbuster.com

There is a DIABETES spirit which operates in the inner-ear. He inhibits your hearing, he inhibits what you receive through your ears. He flips your hearing backwards and puts water in your inner ear. Spirit of deafness works with the spirit in the inner ear.

Itching, irritation and incoherent demons work with DIABETES.

Spirits lodged in the heart causes pain in the feet. Another spirit causes inflammation of the pancreas and destroys the insulin and generates self-rejection.

My prayer for you is that if the DIABETES spirits are binding you and destroying your body, that you will seek the Lord for help and DELIVERANCE.

The medical community says that the DIABETES can be controlled, but you cannot control a demon.

David played the harp that soothed the demon in King Saul, but it only lasted temporarily and that demon would manifest and Saul would throw that javelin at David because the music would only control that demon for a short while.

You are not going to be able to control DIABETES. He will eventually gain the upper hand. He will make your life miserable and will ultimately destroy you.

The Lord Jesus Christ said in John 10:10, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I AM come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

He said, "Come that you might have life and might have it more abundantly" for those who call upon the Lord will be delivered."

So let us take the ten (10) arms of the DIABETES spirits and cast them out of you so that he can stop hindering your life.

Praise the Lord!

Conservapedia #conspiracy conservapedia.com

The Constitution provides that if a Senator is unable to complete his or her term then the governor of their state will ]]appoint a replacement Senator. Below is a list of Senate Democrats from States with Republican Governors. Currently the Democrats hold a 58 seat majority in the Senate. If these Senators were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors, the Republican party would regain a commanding majority in the Senate sufficient to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from socializing medicine, nationalizing the financial and auto industries, and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

Mark Begich AK
Dianne Feinstein CA
Barbara Boxer CA
Bill Nelson FL
Daniel Inouye HI
Daniel Akaka HI
Evan Bayh IN
Mary Landrieu LA
Amy Klobuchar MN
Ben Nelson NE
Harry Reid NV
Kent Conrad ND
Byron Dorgan ND
Tim Johnson SD

FlyFace #sexist incels.co

Unless they fix ugliness they won’t fix BDD that’s for sure

There is a way to solve this. Monogamy. Not Polygamy, not Hypergamy. We as human males are not animals, the human female certainly is though and should be tamed and house broken so they don't go and start shitting out children. The Foid should have never been given rights or autonomy.. they have ruined society for Men and are trying to gaslight Men into believing that their natural impulses are the cause of their distress and that Femifascism is the one and only thing that can save them from themselves. In reality it is not acting on these impulses, effectively having our own human feelings blocked from becoming reality which is what is causing Mental Strife among Males in our society. If we are not allowed to act on our Human impulses are we really Human? Or are we like a pack mule, destined to slave away for a carrot we will never even have until we have seen it rot in front of our eyes for an excruciating amount of time, which we then have to thank Femiturdism for. Thanks for making it so Carrots have rights now and don't get to be eaten right away.. it is Patriarchy to want to eat after all. If we want that Carrot to taste good that is also Patriarchy because it is forcing the Carrot to take care of itself. You want to eat the Carrot right away? Patriarchy. You aren't entitled to the Carrot tasting fresh.

You might think this is foolish to think of Sex like Food.. but in the Hierarchy of Needs it is on the same tier.

If we can't even fill in the bottom part of the pyramid.. the literal baseline to feeling like a Human, how can we ever build up any kind of life without everything instantly crumbling on top of us? Something Chads get for free everyone else has to slave for.. variances of time are needed for slaving away according to your looks.. but I as a Human Being want what other Human Beings have. I want what they have and I believe I am entitled to it.

Women getting rights has the been the worst social experiment in all of humanity and if it does not stop unforeseen consequences will arise.

Women when it comes to money are Communist.
Women when it comes to sexuality are Fascists.
How the hell does that work? One would think that if someone is Liberal they would be exactly as that statement is.. Liberal, in all facets of life.. not true. There lies the falsehood of Women getting any power whatsoever. They want money(our tax money) but they don't want to give anything back to the people that provide that money. It is a framework for a society that will self explode if not course corrected.

Adele McConnell #fundie inquisitr.com

"Apparently, to some, it’s legitimate for states to try to promote “bathroom bills” and other anti-LGBT legislation, but it’s crossing a line for a corporation to take as stand against discrimination. Target, as the first national retailer to publicly weigh in on the LGBT subject publicly, is bearing the brunt of conservative anti-LGBT activism."

This opinion piece by Patricia Ramirez is about as ridiculous as Target's Kumbaya inclusiveness. She's dead wrong or possibly just a bad liar. Everyone and I do mean EVERYONE knows full well that bathroom bills aren't "anti-LGBT legislation", but (now necessary) intended safety mechanisms that while not 100% foolproof provide a modicum of safeguards for women and children in public.

Further, as a conservative, I'm unaware of ANY "anti-LGBT activism". If common sense practices are considered "anti-LGBT activism", Target that should change it's name to Pander, and the rest of the leftist loony liberals should look to themselves. Who would have thought 20-30 years ago that cities, counties and/or states would have to legislate ordinances and laws to protect women from others who legislate to give sexual predators carte blanche to pursue their crimes and obsessions in public restrooms? Ms. Ramirez, get over yourself - everything isn't about LGBT's or BLM or Occupy whatever.

Galen #racist stormfront.org

No he doesn't. Blacks are the lowest form of subhuman. White countries and Asian countries don't benefit from bringing in these animalistic knuckle-draggers who reproduce almost exclusively through rape.

Over here in Los Angeles it is hilarious to see the White liberals with their adopted feral negroes. The monkey-like negroid picaninnies are treated almost like PETS. The white liberals who mate with negro pavement apes also seem to have idealised views of their "chillun" and therefore would never be real mothers to these empty-eyed soulless black jungle bunnies.

The only place for blacks in a white country should legally be as fertilizer for hemp plantations. The law should be that negroes found in America should be fed directly into the woodchipper and sprayed into compost piles. If it were legal, I would love to personally have the job of throwing groids into the chipper. It would be a dream come true. Should I be nominated exterminator, I'd pull the lever all day and watch the rainbow form as the liquified negroes sprayed out of the woodchipper into the sunshine. In their new function as compost they would never again rape, murder, rap or create more EBT card users. They'd instead stop stealing oxygen and help plants provide oxygen.

As for their fear of paragraphs, there actually are a few negroes capable of writing coherently. However, these negroes all have some White blood in them.

Steven R. #fundie #wingnut #homophobia #transphobia simplychristian.fandom.com

Sermon 15: Voting the Bible

By Bro. Steven R.

“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.”-Deuteronomy 1:13

In Canada, they just had an election where they essentially re-elected wacky socialist and racist Justin Trudeau. Trudeau did lose some seats to the “conservative” party but just like most Republicans most Canadian “conservatives” are pro-abortion and pro-sodomite “marriage.”

Canada’s got this weird sodomite predator named Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv. Yaniv is an effeminate sodomite who wanted a local business to have a female employee wax his testicles. Closet sodomite Trudeau supports this nonsense. Even effeminate sodomite Blair White got in a spat with Yaniv over this. Yaniv is even more ridiculous than Charles Clymer who decides to call himself “Charlotte” and wear gaudy makeup like Ronald McDonald to earn “woke” points with leftists.

Here in the US, we have an election coming up in 2020 and the Republicans have a sick and demented incumbent president guilty of adultery, child abuse deceit, collusion with a hostile power, cocaine and Adderall and Sudafed abuse, as well as supporting sodomy and pornography and gambling as well as cannabis. The Democratic Party will nominate someone even more liberal who will promote socialized medicine, “non-binary” IDs, tuition free college, a stipend for doing nothing but sitting on your rear end, as well as promoting polygamy and bestiality.

Look, finding a biblically right candidate will be difficult, but it’s possible. There are still a few good Republicans who aren’t sellouts to the liberal RINO agenda promoted by Wicked Donny out there, who actually value life and religious liberty. We don’t need compromises like Ted Cruz or Gregg Abbott (a papist) in Texas. Sure they’re not insane looks like Gavin “free healthcare and orgies for illegal aliens” Newsom, but no compromise isn’t acceptable. The Constitution Party is full of solid biblically sound conservatives. Look at some independent candidates in your area as well! Live your faith and exercise your right to vote even if things seem bleak right now! We can save ourselves from liberal moral decadence, but we need a a revival!

Dave Blount #conspiracy moonbattery.com

Republicans Sell Out, Agree to ObamaCare and Cloward-Piven Spending

Vince Lombardi said it well:

“Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser.”

In light of Republicans caving in to President Jarrett by voting to implement ObamaCare and raise the debt ceiling yet again despite a $17 trillion national debt that does not threaten but rather promises to destroy our nation, the good loser commentariat at National Review provides a gut-wrenching example:

At the last GOP conference meeting of the two-week government shutdown, no lawmakers went to the microphones to give their take.

Instead, after Speaker John Boehner told Republicans they had “fought the good fight,” they all rose up to offer a standing ovation.

A standing ovation — for surrendering to socialism and bankruptcy.

To be fair Boehner is not the worst the dying Republican Party put on display during this debacle. That would be John McCain and the other backstabbing RINOS in the Senate. When they made it clear they would side with Obama, Boehner dabbed at his tears and then threw in the towel.

In addition to imposing the disaster of ObamaCare and allowing the debt to rocket even further toward national insolvency, the deal also threatens the constitutional structure of our government by taking the power of the purse away from Congress and placing it in the now unchecked Executive Branch. Reportedly, the deal effectively takes away the ability of Congress to nix inevitable future debt ceiling increases. Whether this is true doesn’t matter; it has already been proven that all Obama has to do is threaten to violate the Constitution by defaulting, and Congress will comply with his every demand.

With nothing to stop Obama’s Cloward-Piven spending spree, economic collapse is unavoidable. No wonder Chase is reportedly limiting cash withdraws and overseas money transfers. No wonder the Chinese responded to the Republican capitulation by downgrading the USA’s credit rating.

Republicans ran on a platform of saving us from ObamaCare. Now many of them have turned around to fund it. Each Republican who voted yea on this vote must be primaried. If they win their primaries, I strongly suggest voting third party in their elections. If we are to be ruled by Democrats, let them at least be honest enough to admit they are Democrats. Even a Harry Reid is better than a John McCain.

It’s not as if the Republicans who sold out their constituents, their party, and their country got nothing in return. Senate Minority Leader was paid off with a $3 billion earmark for a dam project in Kentucky. As for Boehner, funding is nearly quadrupled for a dam project in Ohio. Avoiding this sort of naked corruption is a strong argument for states funding their own damned projects.

There is now effectively no opposition party, yet the GOP continues to subsist, serving to stabilize the Democrat Party to which it is subservient by creating a phony sense of consensus to left-wing policies that only a small percentage of the American public supports (ObamaCare, bailouts, etc), and taking the blame from the media when things inevitably go wrong. It would have been far better for Republicans to resign en masse than to accept this role by agreeing to fund ObamaCare.

The Libertarian Party must be picking up quite a few new voters at the moribund and useless GOP’s expense.

Racheli Reckles #fundie breslev.co.il

Do you remember that Pink Floyd song, "Comfortably Numb"? I think they were ahead of their time when they sang this one! To me, this sums up the state of our generation. The problem goes beyond the five senses. We have become emotionally numb as well. Young men and women, even pre-teens, are becoming intimate without thinking twice. I've ever heard of people meeting in clubs and going home together, without even knowing each others' names! Women are coerced by society to become more emotionally detached from intimacy by the destructive forces of television and magazines like Cosmopolitan. They try to make women feel archaic and ugly if they're still pure! As if that were even an assumption- most women are assumed to have lost their purity. You'll never see a popular magazine promoting chastity! Like, that's so 1800s! It's a very sorry state of affairs. And what about the next generation? They're brought into this without a say in the matter. It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to have a baby without knowing who the father was, never attempting to find out, and raising her child without a father! The child grows up thinking not having a father is a normal thing! Or, if the woman marries someone else, the child may not even know until later in life that this is not his real father! It's a tragedy of the greatest proportions!

[...]

There are so many ways we can bring ourselves back to a state of spiritual sensitivity. Throw away the garbage magazines, as my mother would call them, and replace them with books of emuna and spirituality. When was the last time you read "The Garden of Emuna"? Did you ever experience the joy of reading "Chassidic Pearls" to your children during Shabbat dinner? Eating kosher meat is another way to make our hearts more sensitive. Kabbalah teaches that a person absorbs the energy of the animal that he eats. If it is a non-kosher animal, or was slaughtered in a non-kosher way, this contributes in a major way to a spiritually thick, fatty coating around our hearts that creates an impermeable barrier to emotions. Nothing goes in and nothing comes out.

Donald Trump #fundie news.com.au

Donald Trump reveals frustration with Ivanka over Roy Moore sexual harassment scandal

A RIFT has formed between Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka over her views on sexual harassment, a White House insider says.

SHE’S usually the apple of his eye, but Ivanka Trump has angered her father as they take opposing views on Alabama senator Roy Moore’s sexual harassment allegations.

President Trump continues to support the Republican candidate despite nine women accusing him of sexual harassment or molestation in the 1970s, including one woman who was 14 at the time — Moore was 32.

Earlier this month when asked about Moore, Ivanka told the Associated Press:“There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children.”

“I’ve yet to see a valid explanation and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts,” she said.

Now the [i]New York Times[/i]reports President Trump was irritated upon learning of his daughter’s comments, “venting” to several aides in the Oval Office.

“Do you believe this?” he asked the staffers, clearly exasperated, the White House source said.

President Trump offered up another tacit endorsement of alleged sexual molester Roy Moore in a tweet overnight by blasting his Democratic opponent in the Alabama Senate race as a “Schumer/Pelosi puppet.”

“The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY,” Trump posted, referring to the Democratic leadership of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“Jones would be a disaster!” said Trump, referring to candidate Doug Jones.

The tweet left Republican Senator Lindsay Graham questioning why the president would “throw a lifeline” to a candidate facing serious sexual assault accusations.

“That’s a political decision by the president. He’s definitely trying to throw a lifeline to Roy Moore,” Graham of South Carolina said on CNN’s State of the Union.

”If he wins, we get the baggage of him winning and it becomes a story every day about whether or not you believe the women or Roy Moore,” Graham said. “Should he stay in the Senate should he be expelled? If you lose, you give the Senate seat to the Democrat at a time when we need all the votes we can get.”

”What I would tell President Trump: if you think winning with Roy Moore is going to be easy for the Republican Party, you’re mistaken,” he said.

Trump’s tweet is the second time in a week that he has implicitly endorsed Moore.

Last week as Trump left the White House to head to his exclusive Florida resort Mar-a-Lago for the thanksgiving holiday he said Moore, 70, has denied the allegations.

”He denies it. Look, he denies it,” Trump said of Moore. “If you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours. He totally denies it. He says it didn’t happen. And look, you have to look at him also.”

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

SamHB, you're free to deny obvious bias against outspoken Christian athletes. But be aware that determined denials ultimately lose credibility.

Do you even deny that Tim Tebow was criticized more harshly, and more unfairly, than other quarterbacks? If you take your denial to that level, the loss in credibility will be complete. If, however, you admit that liberals criticized Tebow more harshly than others, then why do you deny it with respect to Gabby Douglas? Notice that you never provide an alternative plausible explanation for the unfair criticism of Douglas.

You say that liberals do not criticize their Christianity specifically, but it obvious why they criticize other things instead. If any liberal criticized someone directly for being a Christian, then the liberal would lose support. Liberals are not that dumb.

randy crawford #fundie liveaction.org

If the last space on a lifeboat can be given to either a 97 year old granny or a 17 year old high school girl, then all other things being equal 99.999% of the population would acknowledge the last seat goes to the 17-year-old. Similarly, any baby in or out of the womb is "more valuable" than the mother (or father) because the baby has more years of life available. For that reason, if some sort of surgical intervention is required and the honest choice is having to sacrifice exclusively either the mother or the child, the lesser evil is to sacrifice the mother in the interests of the greater number of years available to the child's lifetime. The only exception to the foregoing would be if the baby had some serious developmental defect that condemned the baby to a shorter lifetime than the mother.

As to rape and incest, the pro-abortion argument is selfish and clearly false. We all have one mother, two grandmothers, four great-grandmothers, and 1,024 great-9x-grandmothers. At a rape rate of 1% (and crime statistics indicate the rape rate is much higher), we all have on average at least 10 female ancestors resulting from rape a few generations ago, plus more ancestors born earlier and perhaps more ancestors more recently. Adding in male children, the number of rape-resultants in anyone's ancestry is double. If it were legitimate to kill the baby for his or her mother being raped, the extermination of the corresponding ancestors would have made sure that practically everyone would never have had a mother and/or a father born, and therefore practically everyone would have had zero chance to be born. When pro-abortionists chant devotion to their idol of killing babies to make the innocents pay for rapes they didn't commit, they are denying the validity of their own existence and therefore their own line of argumentation. Of course, like abortion hypocrites always do, they wouldn't follow their own advice and vivisect and dismember themselves simply because they resulted from a mother or grandmother or great-grandmother being raped. Their whole argument is one of selfish convenience, as with any mafia-style system of using crude pretexts so as to conceal the truth with elaborate lies. Even more hypocritically, Live Action's videos clearly prove Planned Parenthood doesn't care about rape at all, and they actively and elaborately cover up rapes that are reported to them. So the "abort for rape" lie falls apart at all of its twists and turn. And "rape resultants" like Rebecca Kiessling are happy to testify, along with their mothers, that after being raped the right decision was proven to be KEEP THE BABY to make mother happy she did the right thing.

Whether rape is involved or not, we all have El Derecho de Nacer (The Right to Be Born). This was the title of a Mexican movie made in 1952, set in Cuba, and it is available on Netflix with English subtitles.

Rev. Ronald E. Williams #fundie #sexist fbbc.com

[From "Working Mothers"]

Families are under tremendous pressure today from many quarters. Because the institution of the home was created by God, we can logically expect Satan to oppose and frustrate its success however he can. Satan is well aware that strong, stable homes are the progenitors of strong, stable children who will leave their home to reproduce the same vital faith in Christ and godly character in which they were trained. Such soldiers of the cross do not just accidentally appear on the scene. They are the normal, expected fruit of godly, well-ordered families where each family member has been obedient to his or her God-given responsibilities.

Bitter Tears

I have met numerous gray-headed folks who have been agonizing over their wayward children. Some have asked prayer for a son who is incarcerated for his crimes, others have children who are on their second, third, or fourth marriage. Most are not a regular part of a fundamental, separatist church. Parents weep bitter tears as they see their rebellious sons and daughters spurn their faith in Christ and accept the shallow, sensual values of the age in which we live. Their agony is exacerbated when grandchildren are born for they know they will be a worse child of hell than their parents as they quickly adopt the hedonistic, rebellious, self-centered lifestyle of their mother and father.

Almost everyone of these broken hearted parents has related to me that they made serious mistakes in parenting and if they had it to do over, they would radically alter how they raised their families.

[...]

Frustrations of the Working Mother

Because most women have a natural "nesting" drive deep within their breast, being in the work place is a constant source of frustration for her. She knows her children need their mother full-time. She knows she cannot do justice to a marriage, house and children as a homemaker and to a job at the same time. How can she clean and make her house beautiful when she is too tired to do these things after her 40 hours a week in the work place? How can she effectively kiss away little tears, care for a fevered brow, bandage a scraped knee, give spiritual counsel, character training, and consistent, timely discipline when she only sees her children in small segments of time allowed by her job? How can she cook, sew, clean, and plan for her family when she is down at the office and caught in rush hour traffic? How can she properly respond to her husband and meet his needs when she is overly tired, tense, frustrated over her situation and even resentful?

The Demands of a Homemaker

When Paul wrote the phrase "keeper at home" in Titus 2:5, it came from two words: "home" and "work." The godly woman is not only home where she belongs and desires to be, she is working! She is not stretched out on the sofa watching soaps and popping chocolates into her mouth. There will not be cobwebs in her house that are life-threatening, dust balls as big as rodents, green hairy stuff growing in her refrigerator, or piles of unwashed clothing, dishes, and unmended clothes like Mt. Everest! Being a wife, mother, and homemaker is a full-time, creative, demanding, fulfilling and tiring job.

Count the Cost!

Mom, what have you gained even if you obtain nice clothes, an expensive car, beautiful house, material possessions, prestige, notoriety, and even authority on the job while your children are strangers to you. How can you enjoy the "good life" when your presence at home would have prevented all the wrong friends your children now refuse to relinquish. How can you have peace within when a mother's supervision would have prevented experimentation with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and even immorality? Position, authority, salary, fringe benefits and a host of other job-related "blessings" pale in significance if your marriage is in serious trouble and there seem to be barriers between you and your husband because of tight schedules, rare intimate communication, and because your fulfillment has come from outside your home.

Small wonder many children and young people forge such strong loyalties to peers even though they are an adverse influence on them. In the absence of a full-time mother, a child will naturally seek guidance, companionship and fulfillment from another source. Loyalties that should have been cemented with his parents and family are instead farmed out to evil-charactered peers readily provided by a Satanically dominated world.

Mom, your husband needs you, another woman should not be meeting his needs. Your children need you, not a surrogate hireling. You cannot be replaced by another. God has called you to be a "keeper at home", not to stunt your creativity or imprison you in an unfulfilling, demeaning role, but because you have been called to the high and noble office of a homemaker; a responsibility with unmeasureable rewards, heavy demands, great fulfillment, and inestimable blessing for you, your husband, and your children.

hankie #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

You maybe calling for war but I say get them aslums ready cause they are freaking crazy. If you know the constitution at all you will understand everything they are screaming about has no foundation. Nothing they have gained has had anything to do with them or civil liberties. Divorce for the Homosexual who married is sky high sure they wanted to be married but not the cost of it. It did not make them happy because that was not their problem. The abortion law was not and I mean not about abortion on demand, they have pushed the envelop to the extreme, they can use birth control or have a tubes fixed, just quit murdering their offspring and ruining their mental health and selling baby parts. The right was already in most of the states to start with, so why did they need the supreme court, some other reason, call it eugenics of people of brown shades.

There is not affirmative action to loss that already been rule none effect. They even cried they would take voting rights away, only for illegals, mind you if they had kept the Republican laws it would have been where you would not be worried about voting. Democrats caused that problem not republicans. See, the republicans put in that everyone now were equal and to be treated as everyone man, no matter the color of their skin and also, the women's right to vote, dang democrats wanted none of this, and no they never swapped parties and good lie to fool the people and they wrote the education history and controlled the democrat liberal unions of education. That was the problem, it lying to people.

I want it to be sent to the state to formally be recognized and never be brought up for vote again to be legal, see they keep it in that order to scare the population, your voting rights will be taken away. I going to see what I can do about this one. I am a constitution person and no it does not need to be changed improved in way but by they states they only way to do so.

Arcy #fundie freerepublic.com

[About a play depicting Jesus as gay.]

This play and the people who support represent in seed-form the reasons why al-queada and other muslim-extremists want to attack America!
The culture of the middle east is VERY conservative. Unfortunately, America - as viewed through middle eastern eyes - is a country of people who live unbridled lives of adultery, accept overt sexual promiscuity in their media and accept extreme immoral behavior such as homosexuality. Can you imagine homosexual weddings in ANY middle eastern country? Hell no!

This is why they hate us. They see us as a threat to their own culture. They see us exporting our immoral lifestyles and influencing their younger generations. They recognize it for the poison that it is.

Unfortunately, our Republican and Conservative leaders have failed miserably at explaining how liberal ideologies have caused and even invited the hatred of America by those in the middle east and that liberal thought and behavior endanger our very existence!

Republicans and Conservatives could gain support from millions of Muslims in this country by joining forces to combat the promotion of immorality, which is fostered in our nation's schools and taught in all too many liberal universities. Combating liberals could literally save our country from Islamic radicals who want to destroy us because of the ideologies promoted by liberal democrats.

Silas Reynolds #fundie therightstuff.biz

[From "A Current Year™ Listicle: The “They Had It Coming” Catalogue"]

Steve Otter is now dead. In a delicious bit of irony, the White communist and anti-apartheid activist was murdered by vibrant home invaders on December 16th (Reconciliation Day in South Africa). Naturally, the powers that be in the failed state of South Africa are both deeply concerned, but also in a state of profound grief. South Africa’s minister of culture, Nathi Mthethwa, delivered a sorrowful statement on the late anti-White agitator’s fate, “We are devastated and outraged to learn about the fatal attack which claimed the life of author and former journalist Steven Otter.”

[...]

But, in my honest opinion, Steve Otter sounds like he had it coming – if you catch my meaning. That’s not a clarion call for any would-be warriors to begin physical removal, but rather a sense of smug satisfaction in shitlibs (or I call them socialist-slash-communists because that’s what they are) and anti-White agitators receiving their just deserts.

It’s our Current Year™ now. The Old Right is in shambles and the Left has lost over a 1,000 legislative seats under President High Yeller. Purple haired and gender fluid SJWs are bravely and literally shaking from fear. Hate trumps love in the Current Year™ and any minute Vice President Pence will institute widespread and enforced electro-shock conversion therapy – starting with San Francisco. That being said, it’s worthwhile to dive into the (non-retconned) history books and celebrate a commie’s comeuppance on occasion.

Below is a Current Year™ listicle on now lionized, but thoroughly perverted Marxists and, occasionally and coincidentally Jewish, subversives that said sayonara.

5. This Machine Kills Fascists…Not Really.
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Victor-Jara.jpg
Víctor Jara
– was supposed to be Chile’s next Woody (or Arlo) Guthrie (it doesn’t matter though, they were both equally shitbags anyway). He was a Chilean teacher, theatre director, lovesick poet, singer-songwriter and political hack. As we all know, Chile experienced something akin to a miracle in the early 1970s with the rise of Augusto Pinochet – a man with a penchant for sunglasses and physically removing communists via helicopter rides, along with his elite death squad called the “Caravan of Death.” Shortly after the anti-communist coup on September 11th, 1973, Jara was arrested, tortured under interrogation and eventually got a bullet in the head. Afterwards, his body was thrown in the street of a shanty town in Santiago. Good riddance.

Why Removal? Despite being labeled a peaceful singer/song writer, Jara was a dedicated communist and antagonist to the traditional and conservative Chilean people. He considered himself essentially a man of the people and the bard to the Popular Unity Government under Salvador Allende – who planned on making Chile a Soviet satellite state, after he converted the country to a leftwing socialist nightmare (inflation was at 150% prior to the coup with plans for land redistribution and social justice reforms). Early in his recording career he showed a knack (don’t they all) for provoking normal and religious Chileans, releasing a traditional comic song called La beata that depicted a religious woman tempting a priest at confession. The song was rightfully banned on radio stations and removed from record shops. Prior to being physically removed by Pinochet’s men, it was well known that Jara had made visits to both Cuba and the Soviet Union (including a concert in Moscow) in the early 1960s and he had officially joined the Communist Party. In addition, there were rumors that Jara was involved in unsavory sexual activities (think pedophilia).

The Happening: On the morning of September 12th, Jara was taken as a prisoner by the military and interned in the Chile Stadium. His body was later discarded outside the stadium along with other subversives who had been killed by the Chilean Army. Prior to being shot in the head, Victor Jara had his hands broken – either as a punishment for playing his guitar or something more sinister.

4. The Power of Poetry vs. El Caudillo
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Miguel-Hern-ndez-removed.jpg
Miguel Hernández
- was an early 20th century Spanish poet and playwright associated with the Generation of '27 movement and the Generation of '36 movement. His fate was sealed as a member of the Communist Party of Spain since Hernández “fought” for the Spanish Republicans, the merciless bastards that wanted to destroy Catholic Spain during the Spanish Civil War. During the war he wrote poetry and propaganda. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful in escaping Spain after the Republicans finally surrendered (they hardly ever won a battle, unless it was murdering priests and nuns). After the war, he was arrested multiple times for his anti-fascist sympathies (think pinko commie signaling).

Why Removal? Eventually, Hernández joined the First Calvary Company of the Peasants' Battalion as a cultural-affairs officer, reading his propaganda poetry daily on the radio. He traveled extensively throughout the country, organizing communist cultural events and doing poetry readings for soldiers on the front lines. Like Jara, Hernández also traveled to the USSR, where he acted as a representative for the Spanish Republic (and likely got his marching orders from the Soviets). He also attended the II International Congress of Antifascist Writers which took place in Madrid and Valencia.

The Happening: After the Republicans and their communist allies were defeated, he was condemned to death in 1939 - he was described as, "an extremely dangerous and despicable element to all good Spaniards." The Nationalists gave him a pretty reasonable out - he was presented with an opportunity to renounce communism and apologize for betraying Spain. He refused, but his death sentence, however, was commuted to a prison term of 30 years, leading to incarceration in several prisons where he eventually croaked from tuberculosis in 1942.

3. "Muh Resistance"
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Jean-Moulin1---Removed.jpg
Jean Moulin
– the French Resistance, for the most part, was extremely overrated by both the Western Allies (the Soviets had a different sort of involvement) and Charles de Gaulle – de Gaulle probably deserves his own Alt-Right dressing down, the man was a disgrace to both the French military and the Pied-Noirs. Thanks to de Gaulle’s involvement, Jean Moulin was propped up and became the face of the Resistance and idolized after the war. He is remembered today as the main emblem of the Resistance, owing mainly to his role in unifying elements of the French Resistance (think communists, trade unionists and, finally, patriotic Frenchmen) and his highly publicized death at the hands of the “Butcher of Lyon” Klaus Barbie.

Why Removal? For starters, Moulin was no soldier during the Fall of France in 1940. He was a prefect (think government administer with broad powers). He was arrested shortly after the German invasion because he refused to admit that French Senegalese colonial troops had massacred French civilians. To be fair, there is much of the Second World War that could be described as “murky” at best, but the Senegalese (African units both from the French colonies in North Africa and also many from sub-Saharan Africa) were known after The Great War (think "The Black Shame") and after World War II (their mass rape of Italian women) for grotesque horrors committed on the civilian population. After the massacre, the German Wehrmacht had many of the Senegalese executed and requested that Moulin sign-off on the action to prevent them from being accused of “muh war crimes.” Moulin refused. He even refused after personnel from the German army personally walked him to the site of the massacre and showed him the bodies of civilian men, women and children who had been butchered, raped and mangled.

Now, most of the history of the Second World War is shrouded in propaganda and most everything the Germans claimed (with respect to conduct) has been described as “lies” by the press (especially today). In Moulin’s case, the Germans claimed that while he was imprisoned in a POW camp with those Senegalese troops (likely quartered with Moulin as payback for not acknowledging the massacre), Moulin developed “a taste for blacks.” Per the Germans, Moulin was a homosexual and during a lover’s quarrel with one of his African comrades, the dindu slit his throat with a piece of broken glass. Moulin claimed that he attempted suicide, but that doesn’t really stack up – considering that rumors about Moulin’s homosexuality still exist today and his close “friendship” with (((Max Jacob))) being a blatant red-flag – Jacob was a well-known communist and homosexual poet and painter. Immediately after the war, Moulin was painted as the epitome of the Frenchman womanizer, but in the Current Year™ - it’s pretty well known in France that he was a homosexual.

Moulin was eventually released from custody (because that’s what the evil Nazis did) and joined the French Resistance.

The Happening: In reality, Moulin’s involvement in the Resistance was exaggerated at best – and, he overshadows brave men who did fight and die in the Resistance. Like the others on our list, Moulin was clearly a communist infiltrator (and by some accounts utilized by the Soviets to get close to de Gaulle). Moulin had been described as a “fellow traveler” due to his friendship with open communists and he had supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War (a recurring theme). Moulin was eventually betrayed by a fellow member of the Resistance - some historians, including Klaus Barbie, blamed communist (((Raymond Aubrac))). Rumors on Moulin’s death, along with Barbie’s interrogation “tactics,” are so outrageous that they demand a certain level of skepticism – like skinning Moulin alive or using bestiality as a torture technique. For a man labeled the “Butcher of Lyon,” it’s somewhat suspect that he was (again) rumored to have been recruited by the West German government to eventually assist the CIA with tracking down Che Guevara.

2. An (((Uprising))) Crushed
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Rosa-Luxemberg-Removed.jpg
(((Rosa Luxemburg)))
- was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist, anti-war activist and revolutionary Jewish communist. A convenient piece of history that occurred in Germany after the First World War and is generally excluded in modern history books (at least in the US) – was that Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution (called the November Revolution 1918 - 1919). The outcome being either the failed Weimer Republic or a Soviet Germany. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany, led by Karl Liebknecht and (((Rosa Luxemburg))), who had previously founded and led the revolutionary leftwing Spartacist League, along with (((Leo Jogiches))), (((Paul Levi))), Ernest Meyer, Franz Mehring and (((Clara Zetkin - honorary))).

Why Removal? The Spartacist Uprising (also known as the January Uprising) was a general strike, including armed battles in the streets, in Germany in January 1919. On Sunday, January 5th, thousands of armed communists gathered in the streets of Berlin. By the afternoon, Berlin’s train stations and the newspaper district were occupied by the communists. They also took over a police headquarters and demanded the overthrow of the German government – their vision – the destruction of an already weak and exhausted Germany and its transformation into a Bolshevik state (led by communist Jews).

The Happening: The German government eventually unleashed the Freikorps – a band of World War 1 veterans with a fondness for physically removing subversives and communists. In addition to crushing the January Uprising, they would also fight the communists in the Baltics and defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It could be fair to call them one of the world’s first “death squads.” With respect to the militant Jewish uprising led by (((Luxemburg))) and her toady, Liebknecht – the men of the Freikorps quickly liberated the blocked streets and buildings and many of the insurgents were killed or surrendered. Unsurprisingly, (((Luxemburg))) and Liebknecht were found hiding in a Berlin apartment a few days later. They were arrested and handed over to the Freikorps unit - Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen-Division, led by Captain Waldemar Pabst. In the end, it probably didn’t matter how much the communists squirmed and tried to talk their way out of their fate – they were both shot in the head. Particularly fitting was (((Luxemburg’s))) demise, her body was unceremoniously dumped in the Landwehr Canal – it was discovered months later.

Her last known writing before she met the business end of a German 98 Mauser was “Order Prevails in Berlin.” It was written while she was hiding after the uprising was crushed. Here is the last line: ““Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing: I was, I am, I shall be!”

Sounds crazy. Sounds like she had it coming.

1. A First-Class Coincidence
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Ruth-First---removed.jpg
(((Ruth First)))
- was a South African anti-apartheid activist and commie scholar born in Johannesburg, South Africa. Her parents were Latvian Jews that immigrated to South Africa in 1906. Predictably, as soon as they arrived in their new home they began the process of destroying it – they became one of the founders of the Communist Party of South Africa. Eventually, (((First))) would become a communist as well, with her mission being the overthrow of the White minority government and securing the country’s utter devastation. Just another coincidence in history – Jews immigrating to a new county and then advocating for said country’s demise through either radical leftist agitation or racial disunity (or both). She would later encourage mining strikes and communist subversion and found herself banned and exiled from the country. She was also married to another prominent anti-apartheid activist, proud communist and politician – (((Yossel Mashel Slovo))) – changed his name to “Joe” for easier infiltration (also a Jewish immigrant from the Baltics).

Why Removal? Do we still need to ask at this point? In March 1960, thousands of South African dindus essentially tried to destroy a police station in Sharpeville, South African. The White police officers, using Sten sub-machine guns and bolt-action rifles, along with armored personnel carriers, were eventually able to quell the crowd through deadly force. Today – the incident is called the Sharpeville Massacre. In South Africa the “official” story is that a peaceful and vibrant crowd of oppressed South Africans were brutally attacked by the evil and racist police state. In reality, less than 200 White police officer were being swarmed by 20,000 rioting blacks hurling stones at them – everyone in the Current Year™ knows the real score. It was fight or be torn limb from limb.

Anyway, (((First))) and her anti-White husband (((Slovo))) were doing what all Jews do – instigating and riling up the dindus against the White government (the government and people that created civilization in Africa). She and her husband had been the vanguard of anti-White rioting during the 1950s. (((Slovo))) had actually joined a communist and explicitly anti-White militia (designed off the Red Army). In addition, scores of White South African police officer had been assassinated, killed in raids or assaulted during the Jewish-led “soft” uprising during the 1950s.

By 1960 (and after the Sharpeville riot), her time in South African came to end. Back when governments actually cared for their people, the South African government came to the wise decision that this Jewish subversive needed to be exiled and removed from the country.

The Happening: Not content to live her life peacefully abroad, (((First))) moved to London and became involved in the British anti-apartheid movement. She would later move back to Africa (Mozambique) and continue advocating for the destruction of Whites in South Africa. Cue a man called Craig Williamson – quoted as once saying, “I respect a person who's willing to die for his country, but I admire a person who is prepared to kill for his country." Williamson, exposed as spy (and all-around “special operator”) in 1980, is accused of physically removing (((First))) in 1982. Evidently, she received explosive first-class prank mail – which ended her anti-White and communist campaigning.

[Each entry is accompagned with a photography of the subject on which is overwritten "Physically Removed"]

The DiDi Delgado #fundie medium.com

In Defense of Punching Cops

Why the original slave catchers can catch these hands

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Black Lives Matter or any affiliations thereof.


I have a friend who punched a cop?—?or as he describes it, he “two-pieced his white ass and laid him out on the street.” This is doubly impressive because my friend is a queer Black man and he lived to tell about it.As legend has it, a white cop was witnessed aggressively harassing Black school children for exhibiting Black joy (aka running), and my friend (we’ll call him “Pigslayer”), was so overcome with emotion that he confronted the cop and the situation escalated from there. Before Pigslayer knew what came over him, he knocked the cop on his ass and made his escape by hopping on a conveniently departing bus nearby. Pigslayer watched from the moving window as the officer got to his feet and tried to regain his composure. Assuming the bus would get pulled over, my friend gave his belongings to a random passenger who volunteered to keep them safe upon his arrest.But an arrest never happened.The cop?—?presumably too embarrassed to report he’d just gotten his ass whooped by an angry faggot with frosted tips?—?never so much as called in the incident. Folks on the bus thanked Pigslayer for intervening to protect the Black youth, and now my friend re-tells the story whenever he has three or more drinks in his system. And no matter how many times he tells the story I think it’s going to end with his funeral, because 9 times out of 10 that’s exactly what would have happened. And 10 times out of 10 the cop would have gotten away with it. It’s no secret that in the United States, police have a license to kill.
In the United States, police have a license to kill.
It’s for this reason that I own a hoodie that reads, “Police Murder People.” I don’t wear it ironically; I wear it because (spoiler alert) police have a habit of murdering people. Call me antagonistic, but I think that warrants some acknowledgement.
image

“Police murder people.” No lies detected.Perhaps more interesting, however, is the fact that many Americans are under the belief that police are murdering us for our own good. Sometimes we eagerly call them to our houses so they can murder us in front of our families. Just two weeks ago, police killed a pregnant Black woman named Charleena Lyles, who had called to report a burglary at her home. The fact her death barely interrupted the news cycle should scare the shit out of all of us. Instead, most Americans remain unfazed. I’m not one to give cops credit, but that’s an impressive public relations feat.Convincing Americans that killer cops are performing a public service is the fascist equivalent of selling road kill as “free-range organic.” Bravo. I might even respect the deception if it didn’t put a huge target on my back?—?and the backs of all marginalized folks. In fact, the prevailing message that law enforcement has a right to brutalize us is so normalized that most of us don’t even find it odd. And why would we?This past spring, I watched a new TV show in which cops were given high-tech military grade weaponry to patrol and terrorize low income minority communities. In a rational world, we’d recognize this as blatant fascist propaganda. But in 2017 America, it’s just the third most racist show on Hulu Plus. It’s part of an ongoing PR campaign which allows police to assault everybody from children to old ladies with relative impunity. That sentiment is frightening enough in its own right, but this PR stunt has an added side effect I hadn’t considered until recently: The higher we place law enforcement on a seemingly immovable social pedestal, the more blasphemous statements like, “cops murder people,” become?—?even when undeniably true.This explains why I’m frequently referred to as a fanatic and an extremist in the comment sections of my articles and social media posts. I’ve even internalized this, and (like many queer Black organizers) have started referring to myself as a radical. I wear it as a badge of honor, but I don’t know if I’m prepared to live in a world where single moms who blog and actually pay for Hulu Plus are considered radical. If I’m radical, what does that make Pigslayer? If I’m an extremist, what does that make of the folks behind this violent NRA ad?


Aka: “In Defense of Shooting Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and the Poor”Inevitably, as the status quo shifts to the far right, it drags all of us along with it. That’s why Democrats today are about as liberal as stormtroopers®, and Pride festivals are patrolled by cops driving rainbow colored paddy wagons. Even the “liberal media” recently praised mass-murderer-turned-oil-painter George W. Bush for criticizing Donald Trump’s overt racism. This is the same guy who called for a constitutional amendment permanently banning gay marriage. Why is he suddenly doing light-hearted guest spots on Ellen? How did George “Mission Accomplished” Bush become the golden boy of the Huffington fucking Post? It’s likely for the same reason I’m now being lumped in with radical freedom fighters like Assata Shakur and Korryn Gaines, even though I thought a Molotov cocktail was a mixed drink until I was 28.One of the best examples of this glaring political shift happened back in January, when actual neo-Nazi, Richard Spencer, was punched in the face. Twice. It’s not the punches that highlighted the shift, but the fact they caused a national discussion on the morality of punching Nazis. I shit you not.
Being civil in the face of oppression is to be a spectator?—?or, more accurately, a perpetrator.
There was a time when punching Nazis was the only thing all Americans agreed upon?—?even before most Americans were cool with Black folks drinking from public water fountains. We set aside our differences when it came to understanding that Nazis ought to have their bells rung on sight. Here’s a short list of fictional characters who have physically assaulted Nazis over the years: Wonder Woman, Deadpool, Captain America, Rafael from the Ninja Turtles, Indiana Jones, Superman, and Captain Planet. Even Daffy Duck gave Hitler a concussion with a croquet mallet[/url], and we all agreed it was fine because Nazis obviously deserve concussions. Or at least they used to. Today, it’s up for debate.
image
Duck the police.

As Isaac Hayes¹ once said, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” That seems to be true for everything except American liberalism, which has largely decided that acts of resistance should not extend beyond clever memes and stern words of admonishment. Being civil in the face of oppression is to be a spectator?—?or, more accurately, a perpetrator. During the course of my life, I’ve seen the far right crank the dial up to 10, while the left has tried to politely reason with them over the deafening noise. They want to be remembered as the voice of reason, not the voice of revolution. In essence, liberals are the fuckboys of America?—?screenshotting their seemingly righteous indignation so they can gaslight us later and stake claim to the moral high ground.Boy, bye.From where I’m sitting, there are only two possible solutions for re-calibrating the political spectrum to redefine leftist radicalism and far right conservatism. We can continue to slowly build grassroots movements and increase pressure on the powers that be to abandon their regressive and oppressive regimes…. or we can punch cops.I think both of these solutions have merit, but cop punching might solve our problem faster. For starters, we don’t need a lot of people punching cops. We just need enough so that Fox and Friends will think twice before labeling people like me extremists. The goal is to burst the bubbles of those who view my boring ass opinions and lifestyle as “extreme” in any way. Nothing puts that in perspective faster than Officer O’Mally getting laid out in front of 1 Police Plaza.I know that if my child one day becomes a victim of police abuse and harassment (and statistically they will), I’d want somebody to intervene and defend them. But I also know that aside from myself and Pigslayer, not many people would. I find that realization frightening. Does that make me an unhinged extremist, or a mother concerned about a legitimate threat to my child and a violation of my reproductive rights?As a bonus, decking cops would make decking Nazis seem tame by comparison, and essentially end that debate once and for all. If history is any guide, we know how this plays out anyway. It ALWAYS comes down to the people rebelling and punching cops. It’s only a question of when. The new normal is not sustainable. I’ve been to the mountain top, and trust me; it’s covered in knuckle sandwiches with extra bacon.Punching cops would be the perfect plan, if it weren’t for one glaring reality: You’ll probably end up getting murdered. Which sounds terrible, until you come to grips with the fact that cops are already murdering us. Maybe if more people knew, my idea wouldn’t sound so radical. Maybe I should stock up on more hoodies.________________

afchief #fundie charismanews.com

You are right, the time has come for the parting of Christianity and the GOP. The majority of Republicans in the Senate and Congress are RINOs (Republican in name only). They no longer hold to the Republican beliefs of smaller government and individual freedoms. The Republican Leadership has sided with evil. Witness the complete focus now by Boehner on legalizing the illegals which is exactly what 0bama wants. What does 0bama not want? Repeal of 0bamaCare and spending reductions. What has the House indicated on these? It will not do anything to repeal 0bamaCare or restrain spending. Who does the Republican leadership identify as their enemy? The Tea Party. What does the Tea Party represent in this battle? Goodness and the American way. So, the Republican Leaders are now operating as an elite few who see their role as that of shepherds, moving the conservatives of America into the new Liberal World Order.

With that said, the other side of the coin is the Democrat/socialist/Liberalism view which is not only the "religion" of the new age progressives, it is their porn. It truly is a mental disorder that is being used as an offering to the childish, dependent, and weak minded as an alternative to personal responsibility and self reliance, and in exchange for absolute human rights. It empowers the most vile aspects of humanity via the "tolerance" of the "group think" to believe that their selfish hedonism is "freedom". The United States now exports the true concept of freedom in smaller quantities than ever before. Freedom isn't free and that is a lesson lost on the chronically self indulgent.

David Harsanyi #fundie thefederalist.com

This week, the Democratic Party was unable to pass a watered-down, platitudinous resolution condemning anti-Semitism, due to “fierce backlash” from presidential candidates, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the now-powerful progressive base. Rather than censuring Rep. Ilhan Omar, the intellectually frivolous, Hamas-supporting freshman representative from Minnesota, she was rewarded and inoculated from party criticism.
More consequently, the Democrats deemed Protocols of Zion-style attacks a legitimate form of debate. That’s because Omar, despite what you hear, has repeatedly attacked Jews, not only Israel supporters, and certainly not only specific Israeli policies.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who would finally bring an “All Lives Matter” resolution to the floor, told reporters she didn’t believe the congresswoman’s comments were “intentionally anti-Semitic.” No educated human believes Omar inadvertently accused “Benjamin”-grubbing Rootless Cosmopolitans of hypnotizing the world for their evil. These are long-standing, conspiratorial attacks on the Jewish people, used by anti-Semites on right and left, and popular throughout the Islamic world.
Even the Democratic Party activist groups that typically cover for the Israel-haters, like the Anti- Defamation League, have condemned Omar. Yet it was the lie that coursed through the Democratic Party’s defense of Omar.
Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren claimed that “branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has had a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians.” Either Warren believes that accusing Jews and their supporters of dual loyalty and sedition is a legitimate criticism of Israel, or she is deliberately mischaracterizing Omar’s comments to gain favor with the growing faction of anti-Semites in her party.
“We must not,” the socialist Bernie Sanders argued, “equate anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel” because such a thing would be “stifling” debate. Does anyone believe that if left-of-center Kahol Lavan were running Israel, Omar would be less inclined to smear the bipartisan squishes at AIPAC?

Omar has mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu (who, incidentally, is in every way more of a genuine liberal than either Sanders or Omar) once in her Twitter feed, and then only to use this very talking point to defend her comments. As a political matter, no major party in Israel is going allow an independent Palestinian state run by theocrats and terrorists to exist, so Omar and her allies will never be appeased.
Of course, no one argues that Omar’s speech should be curtailed or stifled. The same can’t be said of her defenders, however, who not only falsely claim criticism of her tropes is “chilling speech,” but also decided to transform this 38-year-old firebrand into a helpless, childlike victim.
“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America,” said Sen. Kamala Harris, who, like many Democrats, tried to dilute criticism of anti-Semitism in a torrent of phobias. “But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”
We shouldn’t exaggerate the prevalence of hate crimes in America, which is low, but it’s certainly worth pointing out that Jews are the target of 60 percent of those crimes—a far larger percentage than anyone else. In New York City, there have been at least 36 hate crimes against Jews so far this year so far. Shouldn’t Harris be more concerned about Omar’s rhetoric?

As Gad Saad noted yesterday, Omar’s brand of Israel criticism “is almost ALWAYS a cover of existential and definitional Jew-hatred.” This anti-Israel sentiment—opposition to the idea of a national Jewish state—is the most consequential form of anti-Semitism that exists in the world today. It has done more to undermine Jewish safety than all the dog whistles and white nationalist marches combined. Yet, many Democrats have now seemingly joined Corbynites and leftists around the world perpetuating this radicalism.
The normalization of Omarism is a long time coming. Omar’s defenders have been praising and participating in the Women’s March, led by Louis Farrakhan acolytes who believe Jewish people bear a special collective responsibility “as exploiters of black and brown people,” since Trump was elected. But it goes even further back.
When leaving the CBC meeting, “members formed a circle around Omar and Marcia Fudge literally stuck her arm out to prevent reporters from asking her questions. Then a few members hugged Omar, including Al Lawson.” It is unsurprising that Omar, who has great trouble answering simple questions, has the CBC running interference for her hatred. At least seven members of the CBC—a group seemingly immune from criticism—have coordinated and worked with Farrakhan, the anti-Semite preacher who believes “satanic” Jews are “termites” who “deserve to die.” Liberals keep telling me Farrakhan is just a conservative boogeyman, and yet his contingent is growing as Omar and allies like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez join the ranks.
Democrats’ allies in media quickly came to Omar’s rescue, as well. The Washington Post ran three articles after Omar’s initial comments this week. All three defended her. “Want to combat hate? Stop the hazing of Ilhan Omar and start listening” wrote Wajahat Ali and Rabia Chaudry. Not only shouldn’t Jews censure Omar, the authors argued, they should shut up and listen to her wisdom. In the progressive worldview, Jews, who are successful and predominately white, should put up with a little bigotry for the common good.

As Rep James Clyburn (D-SC), who once also shared a stage with Farrakhan, noted, Omar should be given a free pass because she fled Somalia. “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” he explained. It’s personal to hate Jews when you fled Somalia? The number of people defending Omar on the risible grounds that Muslims should be immune from criticism isn’t surprising when you realize that identity politics demands strict adherence to the hierarchy of victimhood.
When New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg (whose article in the aftermath of Omar’s dual loyalty remarks asked if Jewish people had too much power in Washington) and Glenn Thrush (who may or may not be taking diction from the Democratic National Committee) authored a piece about the resolution fight, they spent a large chunk of their space letting everyone know that President Donald Trump—whose daughter converted to Judaism and who moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and who stopped coddling the world’s most dangerous anti-Jewish terror-state—had also used anti-Semitic tropes.
While it’s not worth again debunking the fact that Trump never said neo-Nazis were “very fine people” or pointing out that most of the Jews at the Republican Jewish Coalition laughed at his jokes, it is worth mentioning that Democrats have embraced the worst kind of “whataboutism.”
NBC’s News’ Chuck Todd, in his “I’m obsessed with” segment, offered a jaw-droppingly misleading lecture accusing both parties of having an anti-Semitism problem by comparing elected officials like Omar and Tlaib — who have been embraced by their party, take part in policy making, and now widely defended on the mainstream left — to a fringe Nazi murderer who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, whom not a single Republican supports and has nothing to do with the GOP. The very fact that Todd was forced to shoehorn these comparisons is revealing.
In truth, Pelosi’s first watered-down resolution would have passed with most Republicans voting for it, and a number of Democrats defecting. This would have been embarrassing. So she promised to dilute it, and even that wasn’t enough for Democrats. Now, leadership is poised to pass some pointless resolution condemning all hatred.
Omar, an intellectual lightweight, is certainly a problem for America. But the fact that Democrats apparently believe what she says is fine is an absolute disaster.

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

image

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

Triumph of the Trannies

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

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

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

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

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

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

The high and the low

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

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

Actual authentic lesbians

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

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

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

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

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

Aspects of religious psychology

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

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

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

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

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

Better than Black

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

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

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

Dan Payne #fundie raptureforums.com

Islamic Invasion of America

I am growing very weary of writing over and over again about the false narrative of true Islam. Why do so many people rush to defend Islamic terrorists who kill in the name of their god?

A devout follower of Jesus Christ will submit his neck to the sword. A devout follower of Muhammad will commit his sword to the neck.

Insult Christ and a true Christian may pray for you. Insult Muhammad and a true Muslim may slay you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The most "radical" born-again Christian fundamentalist would be someone who walked in perfect love and humility. The most radical Islamic fundamentalist would be someone who walked in perfect Jihad against all who do not practice true Islam.

Just because false Islam rides in defense and peace during its response to a terrorist attack, doesn't mean that true Islam did not ride in offense and war during its execution of that same terrorist attack.

Likewise, just because someone kills innocent civilians under the banner of Christianity doesn't mean that true Christianity is a death cult. True Islam has to be compared with true Christianity.

Any attempt to compare false "peaceful" Islam with false "militant" Christianity is morally irresponsible and reckless. True Islam is militant and true Christianity is peaceful. To say otherwise is an outright lie.

cosmicgirl #racist stormfront.org

Re: Ideal world

i suppose i will start ?

I would consider an optimal world to be one where each race has its place, insofar as geography is concerned, and positive eugenics is practiced by all species-races. Trade and commerce may still happen between the species-races, but there would not be excessive migrations between the races. As such, there would not be a significant african-american or latino presence in america, and Europe would not be besieged by afro-arab muslim 'refugee warriors' who are hell-bent on geneseed warfare.

Thusly, America would be unswervingly majority white, the black slaves would have gone back to Africa during the jim crow era, native americans would have alot more reservations, in atleast afew more states, Europeans would stay firmly European, and Mexico wouldn't be so damn sore about losing the spanish-american war (and the american southwest states).

Also, in Africa, there would optimally be no Boer population, and no need for apartheid. The Africanoid species-race would either build its intelligence base, and thus develop some semblance of civilization which doesn't fall apart, or remain tribal.

European Gypsies would pull their heads out of their hind-ends, and either go back to India, and/or adopt an east-indian identity-culture, and stop being such back-birthed brigandts who are apparently driven to make endless trouble.

The Semitic species-races would optimally Not Exist to begin with, and therefore Judaism and Islam would never be developed. Paganisms of various sorts would be definitively more prominent. Perhaps Christianity would instead stem from Buddhism ?

Most to all of the sand of the Sahara desert, being that it is actually silt material, would likely be either slowly dumped back into the ocean, and allowed to fill out alot more beaches around the world. or would be put to being made glass, and therefore we would see alot more glass goods being produced.

In culture, there would be no (((Constant Leftist Push))), and so cultural mores would not really degenerate. As such, history would likely be vastly different. I suspect that Rome would not fall to Islamic blockades and jihad, so much as morph and transfer to one area or another, and change with the eras. As such, there would be no feudalist dark ages to have to re-develop from, and Mediterranean ethnicities would probably be alot less swarthy in genetic composition.

Architecture would still be largely dominated by beautiful and wholesome buildings, and i suspect that various forms of classical greco-roman, gothic, Art-Deco, semi-Modernist, and neo-futurist architecture (and everything in between ?) would compose the city landscapes. Postmodernism, Brutalist, and dada-ist architecture, without jewish factions to push them, would likewise not exist.

Technologically, Nikola Tesla (and/or inventors like him) would have been readily funded and not blacklisted and cast into poverty, bumped off, and all materials stolen by the military. Thusly, we might / would have had alot more technological progress, alot earlier.

Nathan Larson #racist nathania.org

CATLETT — 4 June 2017 — Nathan Larson, independent candidate in Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017, announced today that he is designating the week of 11-17 June 2017 as Slavery Appreciation Week, in observance of the institution that, from 1619 to 1865, helped America develop into the successful first world country it is today.
"Slavery Appreciation Week celebrates the many benefits that slavery had on our Commonwealth, creating a booming cotton industry that worked to the advantage of both blacks and whites," Larson noted. "Africans were able to leave behind their old life as peasants living in mud huts, and migrate to America to help build the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Films such as Amistad and Beloved commemorate and dramatize the exciting adventures of that era, which blacks would have missed out on had it not been for slavery.
"While some Africans did not survive the journey to America's shores, as a whole, they did better than if they had stayed in the primitive squalor from which they came. The claim some blacks make that their ancestors 'wuz kingz' suggests that, unless these were anarchist societies in which every man was a sovereign, there must have been some Africans who served under the rulers, rather than being monarchs themselves. The ultimate result of their voyage across the Atlantic is that their descendants now are happier than they would be if they had stayed in Africa, as evidenced by the fact that few American blacks today feel any need to move back to Africa. They are wealthier, freer, and safer than they would be in the impoverished and war-torn countries of the continent from which their ancestors came.
"America has always required that immigrants pay their dues. Many white colonists had to enter into indentured servitude in return for the costly passage. Today, immigrants arriving on our shores still have to live here for years before they are eligible to have all the rights afforded full citizens. Africans were just another category of people who had to earn their freedom. Even before the Civil War, it was common for slaves to be emancipated as a reward for faithful service, as in the case of the slaves of George Washington Parke Custis, who were set free by his executor, Robert E. Lee.
"Some demagogues want to take down Confederate monuments and discourage the waving of the Confederate flag. But the Confederates stood for decentralized government, in which the states would serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny. Today, the federal government in many ways harms and discriminates against blacks, for example, through the 18:1 disparity in the Controlled Substances Act between how crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses are punished.
"A tendency toward racist policies arises, not so much as an ugly legacy of slavery, as from the fact that in a democratic republic, whatever group is in the majority will tend to dominate because they have more votes. They will tend to rig the election system, the criminal justice system, etc. against minority groups that disagree with their political stances. If you are in a minority demographic, you have to either accept the state of affairs as part of the cost of living together with the majority group in one country; separate and form your own country where you will be in the majority; increase your numbers to become the new majority; or use some form of pressure to force your will upon the majority.
"The Union victory over the Confederacy gave rise to the extremely divisive politics of our era. Imagine what America would be like if the south had split away. The south would probably have a relatively conservative President, while the north would have a relatively leftist President. There would be no need for half the country to suffer under the leadership of the other half's preferred candidate. They could each have their own way.
"Secession and racial separatism should always remain on the table as options in case it should ever become evident that the costs of integration have exceeded the benefits. Our country was founded by secessionists who dissolved their political connection with the U.K., and the U.K. has recently declared its own secession from the European Union. West Virginia also seceded from Virginia over the issue of slavery. Certain parts of Virginia, such as many of the communities in Virginia's 3rd congressional district, consist mostly of blacks, and they should be allowed to split off and form their own state if they ever decide that would be their best interests. The same goes for other ethnic groups as well. Secession serves as a final safety valve by which a people which feels itself oppressed can throw off a despotic government and provide new guards for its future security.
"It is amazing that some blacks call for slavery reparations, when the life they get to live in America is already the greatest reparation they could ever have. Virginia in particular has the highest rate of black-white marriages in the country. Isn't getting sexual access to some of the most beautiful women in the world enough of a reward for the black man's ancestor's agricultural services? Why does he also need 40 acres and a mule?
"When we compare African blacks and American blacks along almost any measure you can think of, such as infant mortality, HIV/AID prevalence, median educational level, median income, and so on, we see the true legacy of slavery. In the long run, it turned out to be a force for lifting up the black race, while at the same time, building up the country as a whole, producing benefits that they were eventually able to share more fully in. That is something for which we all should be thankful."

CH #racist heartiste.wordpress.com

White liberals would be more ethnocentric in their own society. Part of the reason they are so outgroup-favoring in our societies is the fear of us.

So if you never had to fear “The Handmaids Tale”, you would feel less inclined towards white guilt. Additionally, the Bluestan(s) could write constitutions that explicitly define the fundamental values of society as left-liberal, so White Bluestanis could have a strong civic nationalism.

Look over the border at President AMLO, a white leftist, but also a strong ethnic and civic nationalist.

216 is an interesting commenter, but I believe he inverts the underlying motivations of Bluestan shitlibs here.

First, you won’t get anywhere analyzing White shitlib (SWPL, for short) behavior without understanding that psychological projection is at the heart of it. White liberals don’t fear White conservatives. Not really, at any rate. They may virtue signal fear of us, but they don’t really feel it.

What White liberals are doing is projecting their own desire, to viciously and utterly rule over White conservative “intransigents”, onto the latter. White libs accuse White cons of doing to them precisely what White libs do to White cons. If any group has justifiable reason to fear a despotic overthrow of its cherished values and preferred social arrangements, it’s White conservatives who have been under relentless attack from White liberals for the better part of a century, and losing nearly every battle.

Case in point: there was never a “Handmaids Tale” in America. There has been, however, a “SlutPride Tale” and gay marriage and trannyfreak singing to schoolchildren and borderline infanticide and man-hating divorce courts and toxic masculinity conspiracy theories.

White liberals have in fact never had to fear “Handmaids Tale”, but White cons have had damned good reason to fear all of the above, because those things have actually happened. And yet, White cons aren’t “outgroup favoring”, presumably, as leverage to neutralize the power of White libs. White cons have had to fear all those White lib depredations on their preferred way of life, and yet don’t have any “White guilt”.

216’s theory doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

White liberals did not live in a constant state of fear in pre-Roe v Wade America that a patriarchy was about to force women into breeding camps. Any “fear” that White liberals express about America becoming a version of, in this example, The Handmaid’s Tale is either irrational or disingenuous. The purpose of the lib fear-mongering amongst themselves is 1. to juice their virtue signaling score (the more fearful, the more valuable one’s moral posturing against the thing causing the “fear”) and 2. to provide a phony justification to ram their shitlib agenda down America’s throat.

White liberals — GoonWhites — aren’t outgroup favoring because they fear White conservatives — FreeWhites. No, White libs are outgroup favoring because

they have inherited an excessive altruistic feeling toward outsiders that is corrupted into a pathology by globalist mass migration
they get a tingle up their legs from playing the role of the beneficent enlightened betters patronizing POC lessers
they HATE HATE HATE FreeWhites for not sharing their r-selection-shaped worldview or their high disgust thresholds, and find it expedient to “adopt” nonWhites and their grievances and to use them as battering rams against FreeWhites.

For these reasons, I doubt White liberals would be more ethnocentric in their own societies. Instead, what I see happening is GoonWhites’ virtue signaling compulsion turned on each other, in the absence of FreeWhites to target, until the purity spiraling results in some sort of social breakdown or mass hysteria/mental illness.

I also foresee Bluestans eventually succumbing to their Diversity, which will eat at the White lib seed corn with increasingly ravenous disregard for the future. Remember, too, that “strong civic nationalism” and multiracialism are mutually exclusive; civic fellow-feeling is always and continually undermined by the very human and natural urge to tacitly or overtly identify with one’s own kind.

It’s possible that White libs, left to themselves, will concoct some rhetorical sophistry for keeping out the Diversity that doesn’t overload their egos, in essence creating a de facto White lib ethnocentrism, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the modren White shitlib can casually betray her ego without having an existential crisis. If FreeWhites aren’t around, maybe GoonWhites can easily and expediently dispose of every race equalism and White privilege belief they claim to cherish, just as they now easily and hypocritically contradict themselves to “score” political points against their FreeWhite enemies.

Nevertheless, this is all moot speculation because White libs would prevent any peaceful separation solution to the eternal intra-White animosity that is burning hotter now than it has since the days before Civil War I. White libs don’t want White cons to go their own way; they want to lord it over White cons, to force them to submit to White lib rule, and to rub their faces in their humiliation and despair. The totalizing authoritarian streak is a mile wide and ten miles deep in GoonWhites. For White libs to allow White cons their own nation would be, in the White lib mind, tantamount to Nazis getting their lebensraüm.

White libs don’t want to run away to build their own nation and write their own left-liberal constitution; what White libs want is to build their own nation and write their own left-liberal constitution RIGHT WHERE WHITE CONS LIVE, BECAUSE FORCING WHITE CON SUBMISSION IS HALF THE FUN.

This is why I predict that if there is a blood-drenched Civil War II, it will be the fault of White libs who won’t tolerate White cons attempting a peaceful separation from them. And, unlike Civil War I when White libs had a facsimile of moral high ground to prevent secession, this time around all the moral justification will be with the FreeWhites who just want to get out from under the yoke of White lib tyranny.

TimeWarpWife #fundie rr-bb.com

[The background; a British great-grandmother has been sentenced to a hundred hours Community Service after being found guilty of '...sending an indecent or grossly offensive letter' claiming 'Muslims worship Satan in the guise of Allah' to Manchester Islamic High School for Girls along with an accompanying twenty-three page Chick Tract entitled 'Is Allah like You?' She admitted sending over fifty similar letters on previous occasions and said she intended sending more]

So according to this British judge it is "crossing the line" and "harming others" to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them. Get ready America, this ideology has infected the liberals in this country and they are chomping at the bit to start fining and jailing Christians for their faith. The name of Jesus Christ is an offense to these evil Satanic minions and they want His name and all traces of Him wiped off the earth. Sadly, they actually believe they can silence Jesus when the bible says that if man didn't do it, then the very rocks would cry out and declare His glory. Lunatic liberal judges, radical Islam, nothing will stop the gospel of Jesus Christ from being preached to the entire world! Glory to God Almighty!!!

Fading Light #racist stormfront.org

1. Assuming Amerinds really were the first humans to set foot in the Americas (which is questionable), what gives them the right to claim every last square inch of the entire double-continent whether they were living on it or not, using it or not, watching it or not, and had national boundaries or not?

2. Setting aside the atypical encounters associated with Cortez and Pizarro, what makes you pretend that the usual colonists from Europe would have arrived on the shores of America and chosen obviously occupied land that would likely be highly dangerous to live on and defend as a safe place to build farms and raise families?

3. Since White colonists obviously didn't choose occupied land to build farms and raise families, what makes you side with the Amerinds who started attacking them instead of the Whites who were just trying to build homes and make a better life for themselves? Do you hate diversity? Are you opposed to immigration? (Just looking for some consistency in your ideology.)

4. Whites had the technology to easily kill every last Amerind in less than fifty years. If conquest was their goal, why didn't they do that?

5. If Whites had no intention of respecting the treaties they created with the Amerinds, why did they bother drafting them, signing them, and making the agreements public record? Were they afraid the Amerind's lawyers (which did not exist) would sue them? Were they afraid White liberals of the time would take them to task somehow? Why would they not simply have lied and said that the Amerinds at the treaty-signing had tried to attack them and had to be put down by force?

6. Every baby understands the concept of ownership. How can you possibly be so naive as to excuse the incessant thievery and violent attacks by the Amerinds on land that they had AGREED IN TREATIES WAS NOT THEIRS with the excuse that "they had no concept of ownership"? If you contend that they believed their lands were being invaded, how could they have such a concept as "their lands" if they had no concept of ownership?

7. If Whites were so bent on taking everything that was theirs and committing genocide against them, why did Whites set aside reservations (literally Red-Indian conserves) for them at great expense and inconvenience for themselves instead of simply wiping them out, especially after centuries of war with them during which the Amerinds repeatedly violated the treaties they had agreed to?

8. You are very fond of pointing out the diseases that Whites gave Amerindians. What about the numerous diseases they are known to have given Whites? What about the fact that the plague was started in Europe by Asians launching diseased corpses into a fort that Whites were defending, ultimately causing the deaths of at least a third of Europe? What about the fact that Whites had to first survive every disease that they later spread to the Americas?

9. Why do you not see a problem with your ideology when every known Amerind tribe currently has a rapidly increasing population, while the population of Whites the world over is declining?

10. If you contend that America should go back to the Amerinds, even though they did not build the infrastructure here, do you not also agree then that Amerinds should have to pay Whites for the technology and techniques we have shared with them? Would the value of this surely not greatly exceed the cost to buy the entirety of North and South America several times over? (Multiply the United Nations' estimate for the value of a human life by the number of Amerindian lives our technology has saved and/or made possible, which greatly exceeds the number that died. This estimate neglects compensation for the improvements to the overall length and quality of life that our technology has made possible.)

Gregory Hood #wingnut #racist amren.com

What Next for the Democratic Socialists of America?

“I want to firebomb the White House,” said leftist activist Sythan Pok, “and you can quote me on that.” Politico did so in a respectful article about the “young left.” If someone said this at an American Renaissance conference, I’d predict swift federal action, and in-depth investigations about who to blame for “radicalization.” However, one of the nice things about being on the hard Left is that you never have to say you’re sorry. It also means you can keep organizing, agitating, and building power without much media or government scrutiny.

Bernie Sanders’s once surging campaign collapsed because the moderate wing of the party threw its weight behind Joe Biden, and Senator Sanders tried to appeal to woke non-whites instead of white workers. However, like the prediction that Texas will eventually go blue, this “political revolution” hasn’t been prevented, just delayed. It will take a different form than the one Mr. Sanders expected.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown 10-fold since 2016, according to organizer Kristin Porter. Just a few years ago, MAGA events around the country attracted white advocates, paleoconservatives, and traditional conservatives. These groups are weaker today. Conservatism Inc. tolerates far fewer nationalists within its ranks than it used to. Socialist groups are stronger than ever and already have many elected officials.

Many young socialists are driven by race and cultural issues. Mr. Pok says he was “the only brown kid in Utah.” (Unfortunately, this is not true, especially because the Mormon Church supports non-white immigration.) Another leftist organizer, Hunter Quaffman, says he is “queer.” Nikki Velamakanni says young people, “especially young people of color,” have a socialist vision for America. Another socialist says that though Senator Sanders probably won’t win, he’ll be “just as excited on behalf of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she runs for president.” These young activists clearly think in terms of race.

Senator Sanders started a movement, but he won’t finish it. He lacks the toughness to fight like a real revolutionary. He also promotes broad programs that would theoretically benefit white working class people. Non-whites would gain relatively less. I’m not a socialist. I doubt such programs would work, especially with open borders and a majority non-white population. However, whites are already subsidizing non-whites. We already have a sort of racial socialism.

What’s coming next will not be Senator Sanders’ “democratic socialism,” but the racial socialism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. The Green New Deal, a supposedly universal program, has set-asides for non-whites. Miss Tlaib and others support reparations. The last DSA conference was extremely “woke,” with outraged delegates on the floor protesting “gendered language.” Senator Sanders, for most of his career, defended broad social programs and disdained identity politics. After him, democratic socialism will be driven by racial grievances.

In the short term, socialists will blame the Democratic National Convention (DNC), the media, and establishment candidates for consolidating behind Joe Biden. One Bernie Sanders campaign organizer has already promised Milwaukee “will burn” if Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. My colleague Chris Roberts predicts at least some “radicalized” leftists will conclude there is no political solution and will turn to violence, as the Weather Underground did.

My response is that this has already happened, and almost no one noticed. A Sanders supporter shot Congressman Steve Scalise in 2017. Willem Van Spronsen used an unregistered AR-15 to attack an ICE facility, but the normally anti-gun media barely covered the story. The Trump Administration has not gone after antifa groups, leftist gun groups, or radical political movements even after attacks on government personnel and property. Instead, the FBI is arresting Trump supporters, such as those in the Rise Against Movement.

Still, it is a good thing Bernie Sanders did not win the Democrat nomination. He was the last candidate who could sell socialism to working-class whites. His non-white replacements are ethnic chieftains and media mascots, not leaders of a mass movement.

The DSA organizes freely. Socialist podcasts can raise money on Patreon while white advocates have a hard time keeping a credit card processor or a bank account. According to Jack London’s The Iron Heel and Noam Chomsky’s theories about power, the corporate press should be supporting reactionaries. Instead, it gives self-avowed communists generally favorable media coverage as they post almost whatever they want on social media, raise money, sell merchandise, and host podcasts.

There will be Bernie maniacs. There might be violence or some demonstrations at the DNC, assuming the coronavirus doesn’t cancel it. That won’t discredit the socialists, who are in a much stronger position than white advocates. We don’t have legal and financial protection, nor can we openly organize without a tremendous fight.

Conservatives shouldn’t be complacent. Just as demographic change eventually dooms conservatism, it also dooms capitalism. The difference between a President Sanders and a President Ocasio-Cortez is that she would think in terms of race rather than class. It would be South Africa style “socialism,” or redistribution of wealth on racial, not class grounds.

Some white leftists may become racially conscious when the new socialist movement casts them out. Others may claim to be non-white or queer, or use some other way to avoid being associated with whites and the historic American nation. The new socialist movement will be a tribal hodgepodge, unified by its contempt for traditional American history and culture. These new socialists will have plentiful resources. They will be dangerous foes.

However, there’s also an opportunity. There is still a political opening for nationalist policies that will help American workers, defend national sovereignty, and advance white interests. The coronavirus outbreak is more evidence that America needs sovereignty and independence, not more globalism and mass immigration. The Republican Party can still become the “workers party” President Trump promised during the 2016 campaign, even if he didn’t complete the transformation.

Whites, “left” or “right,” must unite to fight for our interests. This campaign has already shown white “Bernie Bros” what the DNC thinks of them. While some leftists will drift into bitterness or even violence, far more will join our ranks. The “libertarian to alt-right” pipeline is dry, but I think the “Bernie Bro to Dissident Right” pipeline is about to open up for business.

Ned Kelly #fundie returnofkings.com

AUSTRALIA’S GAY MARRIAGE VOTE MAY LEAD TO SPECTACULAR FAILURE FOR THE LEFT

Australia is currently voting in a postal survey on whether to legalise gay marriage. A clear majority of Australians support gay marriage but I predict that the “No” side will win the vote. When this occurs, the radical left will have no one to blame but themselves. There is a strong feeling of a Trump or Brexit type upset in the air, but the main reason that the “No” campaign will win is because the “Yes” side’s campaign has alienated the sensible center.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has compulsory voting in elections but this postal survey is not compulsory and I would be surprised if turnout is much over 50%. Opinion polls over recent years have consistently shown that around two thirds of Australians support gay marriage, but the expected low turnout makes the result of the postal survey hard to predict. Just as the “silent” Trump voters skewed the exit polls in the 2016 US Presidential election, there is probably also around 5% of Australians who are telling pollsters that they support gay marriage but who will in fact vote no.

The “Yes” and “No” campaigns

The “Yes” campaign is led by around half of the ruling centre-right Liberal/National government, including Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, plus the opposition centre-left Labor Party and the far-left Greens Party. Almost all prominent Australians are supporting the “Yes” campaign.

The “No” campaign is led by religious organisations and a few conservative politicians. The fact that most Australian Muslims will undoubtedly vote no is an ironic turn for the leftists who have campaigned so hard to allow them into the country. The overwhelming support for the “Yes” side amongst prominent Australians from politics to media to entertainment to sport is reminiscent of opposition to Trump in the US and to Brexit in the UK.

The “Yes” side is not really making much of an argument, they just keep saying “love is love”. Presumably they do not think that incest, paedophilia or polygamy are ok because “love is love”, but they haven’t elaborated.

The “No” side is not making much of an argument about gay marriage either. Instead, it is arguing that gay marriage is another step towards political correctness and denial of free speech and religious freedom. Australia’s former conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott is urging a “no” vote to “stop political correctness in its tracks”.

The left’s counterproductive tactics

The left is making two key strategic errors in its campaign. Firstly, it is arguing that there should not be a public debate or public vote on this issue. Secondly, it is bullying, persecuting and harassing anyone brave enough to declare that they will vote “no”.

The left has long argued against a public vote on same sex marriage saying that it will hurt gay people’s mental health and that straight people should not have the right to decide if gay people have “human rights”. The left does not appear to understand that people don’t like being told what they are and are not allowed to discuss, debate, say or think.

Some of the more radical leftist individuals and groups have also harassed, bullied and persecuted people who oppose gay marriage. On September 22, a “Yes” campaigner head butted Tony Abbott. A former champion boxer, Abbott assured the media he was “entirely unscathed” but said that he worries about “the brave new world of same-sex marriage if this is how some of the people who are most enthusiastically supporting it are behaving”.

In Canberra, an 18-year-old woman named Madeline was fired from her job at a children’s party business for advocating a “no” vote on her private Facebook wall. Capital Kids Parties owner Madlin Sims said she fired Madeline because “advertising your desire to vote no for SSM [same-sex marriage] is, in my eyes, hate speech”.

In Brisbane, the National Union of Students organised a rally outside a church to harass the attendees at a “vote no” meeting. The rally turned violent and one woman was arrested.

When “no” campaigners hired Skywriting Australia to write “vote no” in the sky above Sydney the business was abused on social media and the business owner received a torrent of harassing text messages including the following:

…you really are a shit human. You’re definitely the biggest piece of shit in Australia today. Probably tomorrow too. Hope you’re proud of yourself. Don’t be surprised by the hate coming for you. Titt for tatt, it’s only fair, right? You stupid, ignorant, remorseless, pathetic, old, LOSER.

The organisers of the skywriting later reported that GoFundMe “has decided to freeze our funds, until we give our names and locations. This is on the back of a massive amount of hateful messages we have received by people who want to silence our message and personally attack us.”

Of course, there are people on the “No” side who have behaved inappropriately too. The difference is that within the “Yes” camp the arguments that there should be no debate, or that those who oppose gay marriage should not be allowed to state their views, is mainstream.

Unlike the United States, Australia does not have constitutionally protected free speech. The Australian Parliament has passed laws imposing fines of up to $12,600 for anyone “vilifying” or “intimidating” another person during the gay marriage debate. I expect these laws will be enforced selectively against “no” campaigners for “homophobic” comments.

Lessons for the right

We shouldn’t underestimate the radical left, but we shouldn’t overestimate them either. Let them be themselves and they will alienate ten people for every one they convert. We on the right must not get down into the gutter to fight with these radical leftists or we will come out at least as dirty as they are. Let’s maintain the moral high ground and promote civilised debate, free speech, and non-violence.

They're just not like us! #racist niggermania.net

I too went to a private school, ironically to be with the feral beasts! I came from a radically liberal family and the school was a Catholic Convent basically. Full of coddlers and bleeding hearts. It was a small but very old and prestigious school. I was there during the heart of the struggle in the late 1980's. I became very involved in the anti-Apartheid struggle as did my entire family, to our un-ending shame. I eventually wised up in 2015, in no small part due to this NM community. And of course because of the fact that the black beasts create racists wherever their spores reach.

At my all too liberal Convent school, we also had a kaffir jack of (no) all trades, called Steve. He was an unwashed, smelly, drunk, who had an eye for us young girls, especially when we were in our PT kit. It still boggles my mind that the Monsignor should have thought everything would be just fine having this disgusting creature in an all girls school. He was forever interferring with us, but I shall save those nasty stories for another time.

I remember quite clearly, one hot and very humid February day in Durban, Steve was roaring drunk by 10:00 am. We girls were sitting in our classrooms, anxiously monitoring the compulsory hygrometers in each classroom, as we were released from school when the humidity climbed past a percentage, the specifics of which I have now forgotten. Well, as 10:30 am rolled around, the hygrometers hit the magic percentage and a rusty old nun's voice came blaring over the intercom that we were released. Many of us had to sit under the great old shade trees on the school grounds, waiting for our lifts. I was sitting with a group of other girls, we must have been about 17 at the time. Steve hobbled and stumbled up to us shouting and screaming and brandishing his private parts at us, or so we thought.

The filthy pig had been touching himself while looking at us and had somehow got part of his willy stuck in his pants zip. Now, we were proper little Convent girls, so we looked away, embarrassed and a bit frightened too. He somehow managed to liberate and tuck his privates away. Really, I've never seen anyone or anything as drunk as he was at that stage. He decided that he needed to tie his shoelace and bent over to do so. For the first time in my life the fog lifted and I realized I was 100% looking at a bona fide member of a species of great ape. The image has stuck with me to this day. However, my radical, liberal training took over and restored the fog in my brain that had been so temporarily lifted. I felt so guilty that I had had such an unacceptable tabu thought. And so it went on for years. Until 2015. The fog lifted until reality achieved critical mass and the fog was banished for ever. And I just KNEW that my long ago youthful instinct that had recognized an ape when I saw one had been right all along. I became a niggermaniac back then, at 17, but didn't know it.

I apologize for this long post, I haven't been able to post in some time, and the OP resonated with me completely. This post has an happy ending: Steve got drunk one night and, as was his wont, fell asleep in the middle of a road. An eighteen-wheeler truck came upon him, couldn't stop in time, and put Steve out of everyone else's misery! Keep strong.

Paul Kengor #fundie wnd.com

American communists are not sitting on the sidelines in the left’s attacks on Indiana over gay marriage. Hardly. They are condemning Indiana because they are firmly on board for gay marriage – for a host of interesting reasons. Communists have steadily but surely moved in this direction, a literal two-century-long progression I chronicle in my coming book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.” Once upon a time, the Communist Party USA booted out gays like Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society, and the likes of Fidel Castro (who, amazingly, is reportedly also now an advocate of gay marriage) once tossed homosexuals in insane asylums. Not anymore. There has been a fundamental transformation.

[...]

Why would this be? When did it happen? There are many reasons, which I chronicle in my coming book, but among them, the most significant (if not chilling) is this: For two centuries, communists and other leftist radicals have been seeking to take down natural-traditional-biblical marriage and the family. Since the early 1800s, they have made their arguments and tried different tactics. The Communist Manifesto spoke of “abolition of the family.” At long last, however, communists have the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage – a 21st-century novelty utterly without precedent in human history. Now, as the legal definition of marriage rapidly changes, the floodgates will be open to all sorts of new configurations.

Their efforts to redefine the family structure have been long at work, starting with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and moving on to the Bolsheviks, to cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich, and on to more modern Marxists such as Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and assorted ’60s radicals. Those leftist extremists, however, never made much headway in their efforts to redefine family and marriage. Only now, with formal legalization of same-sex marriage afoot, they are finally getting what they’ve wanted for multiple generations: the literal redefinition of family.

To be sure, Marx and Engels would be speechless at the idea of two men marrying each other. They would be equally baffled that mainstream Americans now gladly join them in rejecting the biblical design for natural marriage and family. Nonetheless, this is where the culture now stands.

And perhaps most fascinating of all, communists then and today would be shocked but delighted to find that gay marriage has provided them a stunningly effective tool in attacking what the far left has always hated most: religion. Marx and Engels and friends would be absolutely thrilled that gay marriage is offering a sledgehammer not only to remold the family but to bludgeon religious believers. It’s an amazing sight to behold. It has been a long time coming.

Anonymous #conspiracy griperblade.blogspot.com

I think it's interesting that they canceled Beck's show right before the election. As with most liberals, they would rather silence a dissenting voice rather than try to answer his talking points. The Democratic Party portrays themselves as smarter, more concerned, for the little people, etc. When you're motivated by hated, you will eventually be consumed by it. I'm a conservative Libertarian. In the '60s I was a radical liberal, but I grew up when I saw through the hypocrisy and hatred for anything conservative. I don't hate blacks, hispanics, or anyone else by virtue of their skin color or beliefs. The liberals are already playing the race card with Obama, saying that America is a racist country. So if he doesn't get elected, it won't be because of his questionable associations or policies that will essentially destroy this country, but America's "racism." Pennsylvania's former Governer, Bob Casey, wasn't allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. And being a Democrat didn't matter--it was that one issue that prevented him from speaking, even though he had no intention of even mentioning anything about that subject.
In other words, freedom of speech is only allowed if the speech is liberal. Period. End of story. Reading all the hate posts here is amusing--especially considering it's coming from caring, concerned liberals.
Incidentally, I found this site by typing in something very different. I'll leave you to figure out what it was.

DoctorDoom #racist libertydwells.com

Sister Atty, I have no argument with your point. However, the welfare parasites are of secondary impact. We have an avowed enemy of the United States polluting the People's House, a confirmed Marxist who loathes this country and everything that it has stood for since its inception. Being the lawless, illegal occupant of the world's most powerful office, he must be removed from any position of authority.

If nothing else is done, rendering the son of a bitch a lame duck in '14 should be Job One. And by the time next November rolls around, there are going to be tens of millions of victims of Obastardcare who will be ready to slit throats at the polls. And the standard RAT mantra, "The Republicans did it!" is becoming ineffectual. Only the terminally stupid still believe that.

The Magic Negro's phony anger at the dismal failure of the Ocare rollout is also wearing thin. It is HIS law. Even the OAKM call it Obamacare. At some point his eternal campaigning and his incessant claims to be fighting against his own policies will bite his 1/16th black ass.

Food for thought: the liberal media exist only to promote liberalism. Their seeming allegiance to the Kenyan nigga stems from his image as the very incarnation of liberalism. If his continued psychotic behavior threatens to imperil the liberal agenda, he is expendable. Ask HRC about what happens to a liberal media darling when an even more radical liberal makes the scene.

Obozo is committing political harikari by exposing liberalism in all its extremist ugliness. The media have to decide whether they will go down with him or defend liberalism at his expense.

They made him. They can break him.

Believe It! #fundie forums.narutofan.com

(In the fantastic world of Believe It!, by definition, homosexuals are liberals)

Republicans seem to be facing an epidemic of closet perverts coming out and showing their true colors at the party's expense. Craig, who was caught trying to solicit gay sex then tried to get out of it by making up bogus excuses that no one would believe. Worst part of it is, he's married. Such a thing as this is the ultimate betrayal, not only to his country, his state, his people, but to his family and his wife. He is a sneaking tail dragging cur, and we should do with him what we do with all RINO of this party.

Now, you're innocent until proven guilty, but I really think he is guilty. I hope he isn't, but then again I hoped he wouldn't have been a few other things. He's a liberal in a republican's suit. So if he is guilty then I say...

CRUCIFY HIM!!!

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Young people are confused today about nearly everything; including God, truth, roles in life, relationships, parenting, gender identity and morality. This is because Godless kook Communists, quacks liberals and queer leftists have deliberately confused them. Since 1963, God's Holy Word and prayer have been banned from America's classrooms. Can you imagine? Do we really trust in God as we profess on our currency, while we block Him from children's daily lives at school, and teach children instead that a Big Bang created them? What wickedness!!!

There is nothing more Godless than the dysfunctional public school system, which teaches children the bogus lies of evolution and the vile perversion of homosexuality. Children are confused, even many adults. In addition there is much conflicting information coming from the controlled liberal media, experts and church pulpits. We are a struggling nation in turmoil. Look at the shocking crimes being reported nationwide all the time. Was the Holy Bible really that bad for children? We are getting what we deserve as a nation.

Growing up in a home raised by same-sex parents is destructive to a child's sexual identity and proper character development. If you don't believe it, read the horror stories online and wake up . . .

Robert Oscar Lopez... crediting his two lesbian mothers for giving him the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple," while simultaneously emphasizing the sexual confusion he had growing up without a father figure that led him to becoming prostitute for older men. ...

SOURCE: Children Of Gay Parents Testify Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'

What a sad and tragic thing to grow up without a dad, craving the love of an older male so much that it made the boy easy prey for pedophiles and pederasts!!! Ultimately, it was his lesbian parents that led him into a life of male prostitution with sodomites. This is the dark reality of same-sex parenting! If you think this is an isolated case, you're a fool. LGBT activist groups and liberals in the media know the dark reality of homosexuality, but they cover it all up, fabricating bogus studies (which is super easy to do) and manipulating Gallup polls.

The following is typical lying propaganda from the kooky, liberal, leftist crowd . . .

Last month, a new study conducted by the University of Melbourne in Australia confirmed what experts have been saying for years: The children of gay parents are just as healthy and happy as the children of straight parents.

SOURCE: Conservatives harm children by opposing gay adoption | July 2014

WHAT A LIE!!! The article actually goes on to say that children of homosexual parents even turn out better sometimes than having normal heterosexual parents. WHAT A JOKE!!! Nothing could be further from the truth, evidenced by countless disturbing statements from adults who had gay parents. The truth is coming out, and will continue to do so. The only information claiming that gays make good parents is coming from the liberals, kooks and queers. The truth is coming from the victims themselves.

The following man was raised by two lesbians and was permanently harmed by it . . .

Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who’s done relief work in war-torn areas, was outraged by the French same-sex marriage law. He admitted to Le Figaro that, after being raised by two women, he has “suffered from the lack of a father,” from the lack of “a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”

SOURCE: Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting: Four Big Myths Debunked

God's way is not just the best way, it is the only way that works. We're hearing a lot of propaganda from liberals about how difficult it is for homosexual children to cope in a “homophobic” society, but the truth is that homosexuality is a sin just like murder, stealing and adultery, and should be dealt with as such and discouraged because it hurts other people. The Bible teaches that men ought to fear God, Who will be every man's Judge in eternity (Romans 2:1; James 4:12; Romans 14:10-12). Proverb 8:13, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” Proverb 9:10, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” We are a nation greatly lacking wisdom, because few people fear God anymore, evidenced by the transgression of the wicked. Sin abounds today, and the love of many people is waxing cold just as Jesus foretold in Matthew 24:12. This trend will only worsen as we draw nearer the end times.

Davey #fundie forum.myspace.com

[In response to the validity of evolution]

Or the real life situation....

Child: Mommy where did we come from...?

Mother: "Slime son, we evolved over millions of years and come to be what you see today?"

Child: "........ok......so i'm the result of slime?"

*Ten days later Timmy shoots 5 people and then shoots himself in the head at school*

Mother: OMG WHAT WOULD CAUSE MY CHILD TO DO SUCH A THING!!!! *cry*

*Timmy wasn't aware that there were consequences for doing evil deeds, and since he thought he came from slime, whether or not he lived or died didn't matter. He was going to die anyway eventually. Since Timmy was unware of this, lied to, and a child, he will descend to heaven along with the other 5 innocents he murdered. However, because of the suppression of truth, his mother would suffer much long after the death of her beloved child.

Hunter Wallace #racist #wingnut occidentaldissent.com

[From "Southern History Series: The White League of Louisiana"]

Editor’s Note: The Rainbow Confederates are unable to explain why thousands of Confederate veterans banded together to overthrow the government of Louisiana during Reconstruction instead of settling down to enjoy the fruits of the new multiracial democratic paradise.

The following excerpt which appeared in The Franklin Enterprise before the election of 1874 describes the formation of the White League in Louisiana during the later days of Reconstruction. It comes from Stephen Budiansky’s book The Bloody Shirt: Terror After The Civil War:

“We ask for no assistance; we protest against any intervention. We own this soil of Louisiana, by virtue of our endeavor, as a heritage from our ancestors, and it is ours, and ours alone. Science, literature, history, art, civilization, and law belong alone to us, and not to the negroes. They have no record but barbarism and idolatry, nothing since the war but that of error, incapacity, beastliness, voudouism, and crime. Their right to vote is but the result of the war, their exercise of it a monstrous imposition, and a vindictive punishment upon us for that ill-advised rebellion.

Therefore we are banding together in a White League army, drawn up only on the defensive, exasperated by continual wrong, it is true, but acting under Christian and high-principled leaders, and determined to defeat these negroes in their infamous design of depriving us of all we hold sacred and precious on the soil of our nativity or adoption, or perish in the attempt.

Come what may, upon the radical party must rest the whole responsibility of this conflict, as sure as there is a just God in heaven, their unnatural, cold-blooded and revengeful measures of reconstruction in Louisiana will meet with a terrible retribution.”

Here is the platform of the White League:

“Disregarding all minor questions of principle or policy, and having solely in view the maintenance of our hereditary civilization and Christianity menaced by a stupid Africanization, we appeal to men of our race, of whatever language or nationality, to unite with us against that supreme danger. A league of whites is the inevitable result of that formidable, oath-bound, and blindly obedient league of the blacks, which, under the command of the most cunning and unscrupulous negroes in the State, may at any moment plunge us into a war of races . . . It is with some hope that a timely and proclaimed union of the whites as a race, and their efficient preparation for any emergency, may arrest the threatened horrors of social war, and teach the blacks to beware of further insolence and aggression, that we call upon the men of our race to leave in abeyance all lesser considerations; to forget all differences of opinions and all race prejudices of the past, and with no object in view but the common good of both races, to unite with us in an earnest effort to re-establish a white man’s government in the city and the State.”

Does that sound like the eternal principles of classical liberalism? In Louisiana and other Southern states, classical liberalism to the extent it ever existed here was always counterbalanced by the even more powerful authoritarian forces of slavery and white supremacy.

Louisiana was one of three Southern states with black majorities which had the worst, most bitter experience with Reconstruction. The other two states were Mississippi and South Carolina. The enfranchisement of the former slaves and the disenfranchisement of Confederate veterans by the Radical Republicans produced an explosive situation in the state. Louisiana came to be ruled by carpetbaggers who plundered the prostrate state on the basis of the black vote.

The White League was a paramilitary organization composed of Confederate veterans which fought to restore white supremacy in Louisiana. This culminated in the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874 when 5,000 members of the White League fought and defeated the forces of the Republican carpetbag governor in the streets of New Orleans. The White League actually took New Orleans and the Louisiana State House, but was forced to withdraw after President Grant sent federal troops to relieve the city.

Why was the Yankee occupation so bitterly resented in Louisiana? Shouldn’t everyone in Louisiana have celebrated abolition and the triumph of the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and meekly submitted to black majority rule? This is a peculiarly Yankee perspective of the American Revolution that was utterly foreign to the South. The Old South believed in classical republicanism, not classical liberalism. These men celebrated “liberty” in the sense that they saw themselves as the Roman paterfamilias of their plantations.

Louisianans believed that the sort of “liberty” and “equality” and “democracy” unleashed in their state during Reconstruction was utterly destructive and was a moral smokescreen calculated to dispossess them in their own lands while enriching Yankee carpetbags in the process.

Guided Meditation #conspiracy tubebn.info

Non-Elected elites in their luxury sky boxes are going to herd people like cattle into Fema camps. Confiscate their property and force them to live in urban hell holes. But only if we let them. Supporting Globalists, supporting Antifa, supporting Hillary, and what the Democrat party has become, is all helping to ensure your children live in a Megacity Hell Hole.\n\nThe Globalists use carrots and sticks to herd people into thinking what they are doing is their own idea. Like staging tragedies like the Vegas Shooting to confiscate guns. They inject hundreds of millions of dollars into groups like BLM to spread hatred and mistrust in Police departments in hopes that the people will demand the federalization of all 18,000 police departments and 640,000 full-time police officers. A Massive Power Grab. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wo-QEnBP4c&t=118s\n\nOur whole legal system and government is multi tiered with one set of rules for elites and another set for ordinary people. We even have to constitutions. Both political parties are stacked with Freemason and deep state loyalists so that no matter which party wins -- THEY are in power. People don't like to believe that old familiar faces in politics and on network news are actually agents of the elites and the one world police state. Republicans have their RINOs (Republicans in name only) that always can be counted on to stop legislation and tow the Elite party line. And there are kind and friendly faces on the News like Diane Sawyer that are praised for their help and silence by the Council on foreign relations, in promoting the one world police state. \n\nProtecting American Sovereignty, Securing our borders and stamping out Globalism like the cancer it is, will be the best ways for us to stay free. Notice how loving your country and being proud of your flag and anthem are suddenly a bad thing? Well don't believe it. They are trying to undermine the United States from within so they can destroy it. Megacities will be our eternal bondage.

cultureshift #fundie cultureshift.tumblr.com

["I’m a middle aged, married, employed, Canadian mother of 2. I had an abortion for a lot of reasons- but one of them is that a pregnancy and another baby would severely impair my ability to care for and provide for my children. Just because I look like I could handle a 3rd child, doesn’t mean that I could. I might look weak that I couldn’t handle another babe, but I was strong enough to make a difficult, thoughtful decision that was best for my family. I don’t regret my abortion, it gave me the ability to be the good mother I know I am."]

First, we need to establish the FACT that the child you killed was one of your children that you were caring for, but then withdrew that care through abandonment, resulting in their death.

Second, have you ever heard of ADOPTION? If you were so concerned about having to 'sacrifice' for your child, why didn't you simply place them for adoption?

Let me be crystal clear: you are not 'strong' and your decision was not 'thoughtful.' You said the decision to slaughter your third child was difficult. Why was it so difficult if they were not really a human being? We both know why it was difficult, don't we? We know it was difficult because we know that you literally killed your living son or daughter. Killing your child while cradling them in your womb is absolutely no different than killing that same child while cradling them in your arms. No matter how hard you try to believe the lie, you know deep down that what I am telling you is the truth. We all do.

Know this without doubt - you are not a good mother. Any mother who would intentionally kill her living child, whether preborn or post-born, has neglected her first duty as a mother - to protect and nurture her children. You failed to do this for the child you removed from your womb. A child who's heart was beating and who was counting on you for their very life. And you snatched that life away.

If you want to honor the child you destroyed and begin to embrace the truth of what you have done, you must fight for the lives of children like yours who are currently facing the slaughter of human abortion. Turn your back on the lies that led you to kill a member of your own family. Embrace the beauty of Life by protecting the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our human family.

MacArthur Parks #fundie pccboard.com

I don't control Jim Dobson's calendar. However, why would you want to meet with Cal Thomas if he's going to write a defeatist book that goes against what you believe?

I respect Thomas too. However, writing good stuff about Ted Kennedy and teaming with a liberal to write another book about today's toxic political environment is not the best way to go.

It's not about legislating morality. It's about mobilizing Christians to do their duty.

If every one of the 40 to 50 million born again Christians in this nation voted, and voted correctly, our nation would be a different place. It would not be a utopia because that won't happen until Jesus comes back, but you could leave your doors unlocked at night and you would not be afraid to shop at the mall.

Imagine the U.S. Senate with 70 conservative Republican members and even a handful of conservative Democrats. A federal judge makes a bad ruling, and he or she is impeached, disbarred and imprisoned within a week's time.

Imagine liberal college professors who would be fired and blacklisted if they criticize this nation and try to stir up subversion.

Imagine every mosque in this nation with an FBI informant within their ranks. After which, most would be closed.

Imagine liberal churches losing their tax-exempt status if their speakers wax political.

Imagine child pornographers and gang members being hanged in public.

Imagine balancing the budget and paying off the national debt. You would keep a lot more of your money.

Imagine George Soros being deported and Michael Moore being exiled to Saudi Arabia.

All it would take to bring that about is for Christians to do their duty. We could bring this nation's government back to what it used to be. Obviously, it would not change the hearts and minds of most of the public, but it would make for a much better society.

Read Proverbs 29:2.

Council of Conservative Citizens #fundie conservative-headlines.org

[From "If The South Had Won"]

Like Hank Williams fantasized in his famous song, it’s fun to speculate about what America might be like if history had taken a correct turn, and the South had won the War Against Yankee Aggression and then seceded.

Two Jew-boys who produced the Game of Thrones are allegedly planning a new cable series on HBO, to be titled “Confederate.” It is rumored their new series will speculate about what America would be like if the South had successfully seceded from the Union, and slavery were still legal. Clearly, their “speculations” will be very different from my own, which follow…

First of all, if the good guys had won, there would be no holiday celebrating Martin Luther King, and King’s FBI Files would have been released and not redacted in any manner. The truth about this disgusting communist and pervert would finally penetrate even the skulls of the ghetto-dwellers, race-hustlers and frauds that routinely invoke his name.

Instead, America would have established real holidays to celebrate our true National Heroes, such as George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Patton and Ronald Reagan. All those arbitrary three-day weekends created by Congress would end: Holidays would be celebrated only on the birthdays of these genuine, American heroes.

Taxation would be used exclusively to fund a Public Purpose: Use of the Taxing Powers as a means to achieve transfers of wealth would be unconstitutional, a restriction that would apply to Foreign Aid, as well.

Welfare would have become a true “safety net” and not a way of life. There would be semi-annual drug-testing of all welfare “Heads of Households,” and a positive test result for any illegal substance would be sufficient to permanently remove these scammers from the welfare rolls.

Furthermore, those who apply for welfare benefits would be eligible only once, and annual benefits would decline by 20% each year for five years, until they ceased altogether. (After five years, “If you breed ‘em, YOU FEED ‘EM!”)

Once again, America would have become an avowedly Christian Nation: Moreover, anyone running for public office or appointed to public office would be required to give a detailed description of the churches they attended and the years they attended them. These would substitute for the detailed financial disclosure statements usually required.

Using its powers under Article 3, Section 2, Congress would have removed Federal Court jurisdiction over school assignment cases, Congressional and state redistricting, and any other alleged inequities involving race, ethnic identity or gender.

Likewise, any member of the Federal Jewdiciary who attempted to create law — rather than merely apply the law — would be subject to summary removal from office by the President, or impeachment by a 51% vote of Congress. This would become our 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio, Escobido v. The United States, Brown v. Board and any Congressional Redistricting cases would all be considered “judge-made” law, since each is a blatant attempt by federal judges to usurp the functions of Congress and all state legislatures by writing “codes of conduct” for them. They also perpetuate the lie that federal judges are less biased or “political” than members of a deliberative body.

Anyone engaging in voter fraud would face a mandatory sentence of three years and a fine of $1,000 on each count. Those found obstructing justice in such cases would serve the same sentences as those convicted, and in the same penal institutions.

Term Limits for Congressional office-holders would not only be Constitutional, they would become the 29th Amendment to the Constitution. Also, any member of a state’s Congressional Delegation could be Recalled by a 55% majority of voters at any properly scheduled election.

A petition by any citizen with evidence of a pattern of “fake news,” lying, or disinformation by any electronic news media outlet would be sufficient to compel the FCC to investigate such allegations. If found to be true, revocation of that offender’s FCC License would be mandatory.

Any law enacted by Congress would have a five-year “Sunset Provision,” requiring that it be re-enacted by a Majority of both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President every five years of its existence. Failure to re-enact would constitute automatic repeal.

There would be no Department of Education, no Labor Department, and no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EPA would be staffed with scientists, not radical environmentalists, and they would have no authority beyond making recommendations to Congress.

America would have become a sanctuary to white people, so long as they pledged allegiance to democratic and Republican principles in the Constitution, and were financially self-sufficient. Those who betrayed their Oath of Allegiance — like the Jewish communists who emigrated here from Europe in the first half of the 20th Century — would be hastily deported to some far corner of the globe, preferably one populated by cannibals or head-hunters.

Immigrants who have gone without employment for two years would be deported to their nations of origin, along with their families, pets, friends and associates. (Just kidding…)

Those who interfere with immigration authorities in any manner would become subject to deportation, as well. This would apply equally to clergy or political authorities that defy immigration laws and harbor illegal immigrants, particularly those who attempt to create “sanctuaries” for them.

Illegal immigrants would be subject to asset forfeiture by the states in which they reside. Return of such assets would be exclusively at the discretion of the individual states involved, and done so only after all debts and penalties against them have been assessed. The residual could be refunded to them in their new nations of residence.

Finally, Capital Punishment would be used to a far greater extent for First Degree Murder and crimes that involve significant amounts of violence or murderous intentions. Each capital case would be allowed one Habeas Corpus appeal to the Supreme Court: If rejected, only a commutation by the state’s Governor could stop a scheduled execution.

This would mean an end to absurdly long and frivolous appeals in capital cases, some of which have taken 30 years to effectuate.

CasualBystander #sexist alienhub.com

The problem is liberal arts courses and radical feminism.

The solution is to create a "conservative arts" curriculum that emphasizes honesty and rational thought. The inverse of a liberal arts course.

The other thing is to defund women's studies and black studies program and prohibit any federal dollars from supporting them.

It is absurd to have courses that teach women to hate men, and blacks to hate whites.

How would liberals feel if we had men's studies courses that taught men to hate and take advantage of women. Or White studies programs that reinforced aryan-nation views on white superiority?

At the very least any institution that receives federal funds and offers women's and black studies, should be required to offer men's and white studies.

Al Masetti #fundie forums.catholic.com

Bush's problem is that he is too respectful of the Constitution.

His predecessors have used Executive Orders to really mess things up. Taking coal deposits out of development and production, for example.

Bush could have, on day two, ordered drilling for oil and gas.

And reveresed the previous executive orders banning coal.

And ordered surplus military bases used for refinery locations.

And issued additional operating licenses for new nuclear electric generating facilities.

AND mandated that all railroads switch to electric power instead of using diesel power.

He could have done those things.

Instead he allowed the Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans to tie up the economy in bureaucratic knots.

One of the Ten Commandments forbids stealing and another of the Ten Commandments forbids coveting (envy). Bush allowed the Liberals to use legal manipulations to steal from the people and to get away with envy of people who are productive and produce the things that we all need for our daily existence.

MenacetoSociety #racist stormfront.org

Possible European White State Proposal
This is my possible proposal that I hope to see fulfilled one day if our nations continue to ethnically cleanse us and our numbers decrease. This proposal is entirely possible to achieve.

This proposal is modeled after how the Jewish state was created which was through Jews all over the world converging on Palestine with guns and conquering the land even though it was still under the control of Britain. This proposal is also inspired by the ISIS who hopes to achieve a Sunni Nationalist Islamic state.

I'd like to state that our enemies have gotten control of all major media outlets. They control the educational system in which they indoctrinate our people whether it be through public schools or colleges. This is why intellectuals tend to lean toward Liberalism. I should know, I am still in High School and have been very observant of the school curriculum. This also explains why your children often lean toward Liberal beliefs. The Liberal Leftist who are the enemies of our people, who are socially backwards are misguided and deceived. You know the same phrases, the same propaganda methods they use that have destroyed our nations, and deceived our people into embracing their own self destruction.

That is why I am proposing this idea for a possible new nation in a relative empty but fertile land. The land in the western world is infertile to growing white nationalist beliefs that is why we must find a new land for our ideology or else rick being destroyed. I know some of you hope that the tide will change in the future, but I tell you by then it will be too late. Some of you might be unwilling since you are deeply connected to your land but I urge you to consider this proposal.

In the far East of Russia, North of the nation of Japan there is an island under the control of Russia. It is named Sakhalin Island. It's a rather large island with very fertile land. Though as there are so few people living there(under 1 million, compared that to Japan which is about the same size with a population of 130 million) the land is quite under-developed. Which I think works in our favor. I believe Russia if we converge on the island and occupy it we might be able to negotiate independence from Russia. Our ideology and Russia share something in common that Putin and Russia emphasizes, that is we share a common enemy. The ideological beliefs of the western world. The same beliefs that Russia and Russian people have often showed their disgust for and the main reasons why Russia passed the anti-gay propaganda law. In addition, I don't think Russia would want bloodshed. I imagine there would be millions of us and do not think Russia would be willingly to start a war to eliminate millions of people. I think the UN would be critical as well even though we are nationalist.


The Sakhalin Island:
http://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/8b4cb37fba47da1c76cf3e44aa940cd2/sakhalin_map_2.jpg

If our people, politically those who are nationalist oriented, continue to be pushed and ethnically cleansed I recommend this idea as a last resort. If this is successful we will be able to finally secure a homeland for our children, and a nation where we can free from persecution, united in brotherhood.


Here is pictures of the Sakhalin Land and it's geographically, a place where our people can feel at home. Where we can build in peace.

http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/4/48/Moneron.jpg/800px-Moneron.jpg
http://russiatrek.org/images/photo/sakhalin-oblast-nature.jpg
http://s2.postimg.org/vx0rjnvrt/image.jpg

I propose this plan because many of you do not know the beliefs of the youth. They are very Liberal oriented, they are brainwashed. If we do not initiate proposals and plans like these our people will face certain destruction.

Erik Rush #fundie wnd.com

Among the more shrill allegations voiced by constituent subgroups of the political left is that the opposition (Republicans, conservatives and Christians) would gladly kill them in a great purge if only they had the practical capacity to do so. During the 2004 campaign season, iconic pop singer and self-described “fag hag” Cher (urbandictionary.com: A woman who enjoys hanging out with gay men) publicly proclaimed that George W. Bush would ship homosexuals off in cattle cars to death camps were he re-elected.

I suppose Cher reasoned (if indeed she does reason) that doing this had somehow slipped Bush’s mind during his first term.

I’ve heard the same charge leveled with regard to ethnic minorities, that right-wingers would just love to re-institute slavery or segregation; in their perfect world, they could simply wipe out those nasty darker-skinned people altogether. Naturally, this presupposes that all right-wingers are white.

Those on the left routinely typify their opponents as intolerant, hateful and potentially violent. This has increased in volume and frequency under the Obama administration, which codified these mischaracterizations into Department of Homeland Security policy; DHS has designated pro-lifers, patriots, constitutionalists, Christians, amnesty opponents, gun enthusiasts, military veterans and other groups as potential terrorist threats.

In keeping with their hypocrisy and incongruity, leftists conveniently omit the fact that they have carried out more terrorism, pogroms, mass murders and genocide than any political group in history. As regular readers will be aware, projection of their antisocial character defects onto opponents is a hallmark of the left’s methodology.

Their objective is to convince as much of the citizenry as possible that their warnings are at least somewhat plausible. This way, when DHS Storm Troopers arrive in the wee hours to collect their neighbors, they will accept the cover story without protest: The detainees were involved in a terrorist plot to carry out large scale “hate crimes” against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, or some species of endangered grouse.

What we are in fact seeing is the political left, through deception, incrementalism and outright violation of the Constitution, insidiously maneuvering rational, law-abiding Americans into a position so untenable that at some elusive but inevitable point, violent civil disobedience – vigilantism – may be the only practicable response.

There are a few very sobering commentaries published recently that address the de facto criminalization of Christianity in the wake of Canada having legalized “gay marriage” in 2005. One is Lea Z. Singh’s “Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Christians in Canada,” written for Crisis Magazine.

Previously, I identified an analogue between the process of abortion having become legal in the U.S. and the push for legalization of same-sex-unions. It’s a bait-and-switch, with the practice bearing little resemblance to the theory.

As Singh and other commentators have explained, the same tactic was used to secure “marriage equality” for homosexuals in Canada. Opponents of legalizing same-sex unions were given frequent and impassioned assurances that their religious liberties would continue to be protected. Singh writes: “The preamble to Canada’s Civil Marriage Act states that ‘everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion,’ and ‘nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion. …’”

This did not hold true, however, as the Canadian government, dominated by radical leftists, took it as license to legislate social norms. It is now illegal to express opinions on gender identity or preference that deviate from the new pro-homosexual, anti-Christian orthodoxy.

According to Ms. Singh, “It is not premature to speak of open discrimination against Christians in Canada.”

Canadian homofascists – with the imprimatur of the government – have established the baseless and biologically fallacious equivalency between interracial and same-sex relationships as conventional wisdom. Thus, “Christians who believe in traditional marriage are the modern-day equivalent of racists,” says Singh, “and warrant identical exclusion.”

This means that if you’re a Christian, or do not otherwise embrace the sodomite movement, it is legal and encouraged to deny you a job, a promotion, housing and engage in your being systematically disenfranchised.

Bear in mind that all of this is taking place in a country wherein 52 percent of the population opposed the “legalization” of same-sex “marriage” to start with.

Shortly, Singh writes, all public schools in Ontario will implement a new, mandated curriculum beginning in the third grade. This course of study introduces children to the perverse, patently idiotic concept that gender itself is a matter of choice, that “transgender desires are just as perfectly normal as homosexual leanings.”

And Canadian parents dare not oppose this, because it would make them quite literally subject to prosecution. As an effect of the Civil Marriage Act, the very concept of what constitutes a “parent” changed, so many parental rights were summarily negated.

Since the passage of the law, hate-crime tribunals began prosecuting Canadian Christians for publicly articulating biblical values. Homosexual activists have spies in churches, monitoring sermons for biblical passages considered to be “hate speech.” Pastors have been jailed, businesses fined out of business and individuals driven into bankruptcy.

So, how might American Christians react to such developments here? The reason I ask is because the wheels are already in motion. The satanic minions in our government absolutely must bring about these societal transformations in order to “kill off” God and establish the State as the ultimate arbiter of morality. Rending the family unit asunder will ensure that the State becomes the individual’s sole guide, instructor and authority from cradle to grave.

I’m not inclined to think that We the People will respond as submissively as Canadians did to a similar scenario transpiring here. In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Senator Rand Paul and the Leadership Institute #fundie secure.giveworks.net

Join Sen. Rand Paul - Sign the National Petition to Save Our Students!

Petition in Support of Freeing Our Nation's Universities from Liberal Extremists

Whereas, liberal radicals have controlled our nation's universities for more than a generation;

Whereas, these institutions of higher learning have become little more than left-wing indoctrination centers dedicated to brainwashing the next generation of America's leaders;

Whereas, the conservative movement owes it to our young people to fight to liberate our colleges and universities from this liberal oppression;

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that I do hereby support Senator Rand Paul and the Leadership Institute's fight to save our students through a massive program of organization, training, and support. No more retreating. It's time to liberate our college campuses!

Howell-Detroit #fundie topix.com

What is it with liberals, you ask? Every radical vegetarian from Mt. Shasta to Sedona that thinks that it's immoral to DRINK MILK CAUSE IT"S STEALING FROM THE COW (?!) and IMMORAL TO EAT HONEY 'cause it's stealing from the bees will be 100% in favor of gay marriage. These people are anarchists, bent on destroying society so that their buddies like Tim Robbins and Ed Asner can run the place. These same people will clear the house and open all the windows when one of those new little curly fluorescent light bulbs breaks,('cause they don't want to get contaminated by that tiny little mercury exposure from the mercury gas in the bulb), they'll run from the little bulb in an eniviro-bio fit, yet they will call you a Christian wing-nut job when you say that it is probably bad to take that same amount of mercury and just inject it directly into a four-year-old girl as part of a vaccine. But they skid in their own sh1t opening windows and heading out the front door when they break a little compact fluorescent bulb. But your little four-year-old gets every bit of that dose injected into her, and that's what Jenny McCarthy is campaigning about. Anarchists. The Hollywood crowd. Academics. Evolutionists. Atheists. Radical liberals.

Justin #racist realjewnews.com

The Supreme Court has been violating the Laws of God for 50+ years, even the Goyim shills on the court stand behind these decisions.

I can also say that many liberal heterodox “churches” (Episcopalians, Anglicans, and other mainline Protestants to name a few), have sanctioned this ungodly behaviour.

People will tell you that Jews are a moral people, but then if they are why do they vote for every godless initiative of the liberals (both Republicans and Democrats are liberals in reality), its because they follow orders from their “god” Lucifer.

Lucifer hates everything Christian and the Jews wreck havoc upon the world, as the Devil’s children (Saint John 8:44). Revelation 2:9-3:9, Revelation 21:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Saint John’s Universal Letters, Saint Peter’s epistles, and many other Scriptural passages point out the depravity of the Jew and the Pagan.

The government are a bunch of godless hypocrites who say they stand for “separation of church and state,” but will gladly erect synagogues and pagan temples in defiance of God and stand should to shoulder with enemies who mock Him.

JackHectorman #fundie republicanoperative.com

... think about this: We Conservatives are 10 times tougher than these mentally-pink-panty wearing liberals, moderates, and RINOs, and we can survive better in severe hard times than they can, and besides that Spartan times produces a Spartan citizenry ...the same hot boiling sun that melts the butter also hardens the clay (soft warm butter is a good metaphore for liberals/moderates/RINOs don't ya think ? ), and steel is made inside a hot furnace not inside Disney World.
I'm not a kamikaze, but if worse come to worse, we Conservatives can play ( and WIN ) the "Wreck The Country" game better than these American Liberal-Socialists-Commies ( And RINOs) can play it. I will not play the old game of "Chicken" if I can get out of it...you know where they get their cars up to about 80 miles per hour and head straight into each other to see who will turn aside first, but if I find myself in a situation where I must play that game then the other driver will turn aside first or we will find out what happens when two cars going 80 miles per hour crash into each other. The moral of that story is this: If it ever does work out where the soft weak girlie-men Socialists - Commie - Liberals get really hungry as in no food the last week while they are living in unheated houses in the dead of winter, etc ...it will be THEY not we Conservatives who "turn aside first."

There is a huge Old Guard of true Bible believing Christian Family Men in America that are making a sincere effort to be good Christian husbands and fathers and to raise their children in the fear of the Lord and teach them to do what is right and they are in the three main Tribes of America: the White European Americans, Black Americans, and Hispanic Americans, and we number in the tens of millions. The Sovereign God will not forsake His people, His Church, in hard times (if hard times does come) and we Christians can endure hard times better than these soft snot-nosed Liberal - Socialists - Commies can endure hard times **BigGrin**.

Some commenters #racist amren.com

Re: Democrats Don’t Want to Nominate a Candidate Who Looks like Bernie or Joe

(guest)

"Blacks prefer black candidates; Hispanics prefer Hispanic candidates; whites prefer non-white candidates."

No wonder White democrats are such miserable people. They adhere to a political cult where they must hate themselves and worship their non-white enemies.

(THE WAY)

Whites who prefer non-White candidates have a sickness in their soul and in their minds. Very, very sick people. Self-preservation is the primary instinct because if one does not want to preserve oneself or one's own kind, one is by definition, insane or brainwashed or both.

A hardline black Republican is more aligned with your interests than a white liberal Democrat

A White liberal can still produce White children. A hardline black Republican can never produce white children. I think in terms of long range good for Whites, not in terms of a few years.

Genocide of Wolves by mixing with dogs. Europeans concerned about this but not about Whites being genocided by mixing with non-Whites. C'mon White humans get your priorities straight and learn from nature.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190523104940.htm

(Widenose Privilege)

The spring of white hope seems endless. It's being wasted on trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Show of hands of those of you that think the great technological advancements of the future will be thought of and spearheaded by 'people of color'.

Ha. I'm not holding my breath either. We are here for them. They are here for themselves.

(SAVE WHITE SETTLER U.S.A.)

It's the Latinos in California government that are ruining California.
Latinos ONLY care about Latinos. Once Latinos are in charge, your city/state will be RUINED
Now that Latinos are in charge of California, ESPECIALLY the police force, they cover up crimes of Latinos.
Have you ever noticed that not many Latino crimes are reported?? Latinos cover up this information.

(Nevada Smith)

"Blacks prefer black candidates; Hispanics prefer Hispanic candidates...." That fact seems to be lost on Democrat. open borders advocates. Hispanics are not liberal, not conservative, not Democrat, not Republican, not Asian, not black, not white, but Hispanic. Hispanic interests are not the same as anyone else. The conflict between Little Nancy and AOC should be a wakeup call to Democrats where their party is heading. I'll bet after the 2020 election, Little Nancy will find she will be dealing with people that make AOC look like a moderate.

(Missy)

...Black and Latino Dems—who, together, are about a third of the primary electorate—prefer candidates of their own race by a substantial margin...

Hey look, reality is staring you in the face. Diversity doesn't work because normal people prefer their own race. Not any fancy mechanism here, just simply part of animal behavior, in-group selection is necessary for survival.

(Question Diversity)

Black and Latino Dems—who, together, are about a third of the primary electorate—prefer candidates of their own race

As of right now, black voters who intend to vote in Democrat primaries are heavily behind Joe Biden. Mainly because he's perceived as "the big man" and "it's his turn."

(Rich at Large)

The AR caption says it all: blacks are for blacks, browns are for browns, yellows are for yellows, reds are for reds, and liberal whites are for all of the above but not for whites. Somewhere in the mix is the tiny Jewish population that can move between being perceived as white and not.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

An atheist asked, "What would a world with no God look like Ray?"

If there was no God above,
There would be no kindness, peace, and love,
There would be no fresh air for us to inhale,
No right, no wrong, no success or fail,
There'd be no rainbow spanning the skies,
There'd be no such thing as truth or lies,
There would be no brilliant sun to give us light,
No eyes designed to give us sight,
There'd be no such things as space or time,
No art, no music, no poems to rhyme,
No rain, no snow, no ocean, no birds,
No cats, no dogs, or buffalo herds
There would be no such thing as radiant color,
You would have no father and no mother,
You would have no joy, nor songs to sing,
If there was no God...there'd be nothing.

pcorder #fundie imdb.com

I have pictures to back up my facts and eyewitness accounts as to what I said.. We in the South, eye witnessed many things that happened that were covered up by the liberal media. The liberal media would not show much of what went on-- on many of these civil rights marches across the south because it would have upset their agenda. Why do you think the wiretaps and bugged recordings by Robert Kennedy of Martin Luther King have been classified or destroyed so the general public can not hear these recordings? I agree with you that the North is FULL of hypocritical white liberals. They want to cover up the historical facts about the North's complicity in slavery. The fact that a slave cost, sometimes a $1000 or more is well documented. I will admit there were slave owners who flogged their slaves, there are people everywhere who misuse things that they own. However, those that did, were hurting themselves, spiritually and financially because a beaten slave's value was greatly diminished. I am a Confederate descendant and I will tell you, I believe slavery was one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the North, which made huge sums importing slaves and the South that bought them. I admit much of the South's economy was based on slavery. However, most Southerners did not own slaves and fought the war between the states as much for states rights as anything. The original thirteen colonies believed in a loose coalition of colonies and believed each colony had to right secede. Many southerners were very independent by nature and were indignant at the thought of someone invading their territory with an army.

Thomas Clough #fundie weirdrepublic.com

The raging infant at the core of Tyler Clementi’s personality could not do anything but rage at the unfairness of not being able to enjoy both his religious mother’s unqualified love and the masochistic ecstasy of submitting to anal penetration by a disheveled older guy who still didn’t know Tyler’s full name, even after reaming Tyler’s anus on three occasions in Room 30. Tyler hated having to choose between Jerusalem and Sodom, between Saint Jane and the Marquis de Sade.

In his final hours Tyler Clementi chose to take revenge on those who were less than accepting of his minority sexual appetites: his mother, whose values had shaped his punishing conscience and Dharun Ravi whose only role in Tyler’s death drama was to heighten Tyler’s awareness of just how alien his appetites were to the 97% of humanity who are not homosexual.

Tyler’s self-scripted death drama was childishly simple, but airtight. Within the hermetically-sealed chambers of liberal group-think everyone would simply assume that just because Tyler’s self-imposed death came soon after Ravi’s Twitter bits that Ravi was responsible for Tyler’s death. The liberals would predictably fall prey to every idiot’s first fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning: the fallacious belief that just because one event follows another, the second event must have been the consequence of the first. And that’s what happened. The well-heeled gay radicals tasted blood in the water and the eager-to-please left-leaning prosecutors were eager to gratify their feeding frenzy. Their scapegoat would be Dharun Ravi.

Sentencing is scheduled for May 21st, 2012. If Dharun Ravi gets prison time, then we should all fear for our liberty.

Unknown author #fundie leagueofthesouth.com

Most Southerners by now have seen the constant media coverage of the “Syrian Refugee Crisis,” where tidal waves of undocumented, Muslim immigrants have waltzed through the very heartland of white, Christian Europe. The liberal media have aided these people at every turn, making claims that these are just innocent refugees, trying to get clear of the fighting.

Yet, there remain several curious facts about these “refugees”:

First: 75% of them are young men, in their 20s and 30s, with very few women and children to speak of. Odd, right? You’d think if these were heads of households fleeing a scene of destruction, that they’d take their families with them. Yet most don’t have families with them.

Second: they don’t simply walk next door, across the Turkish border where there is no fighting, and hunker down. No, they walk all the way across Turkey and Anatolia, until they cross Europe’s Southern borders.

Once they cross those borders, do they stop there, where there’s also zero fighting, like real refugees would? No sir!

Even though by that time, they’ve been free of fighting for thousands of miles, they trek further, all the way up to Germany, the UK, or even Sweden.

Puzzling, right? Well, not if you happen to know the true explanation as to why hundreds of thousands of third world Muslims are trekking to just those three countries … Free Goodies

The real reason that this Islamic army is descending upon the hapless, white populaces of Christian Europe is quite simple. Merkel’s government in Berlin has offered very lucrative, financial benefits to any third-worlder who bothers to cross their border! Does that sound familiar? It should! For that’s precisely what Washington, DC, in all its corruption, is offering to hordes of Latinos. Simply cross the South’s border and voila: free healthcare, tuition, social security, voting status, drivers’ licenses, and other enormously lucrative benefits to each and every one … all at YOUR expense!

The hard truth is that both of these scenes, in Europe, and here in the South, on many occasions aren’t cases of “refugees” seeking shelter, or immigrants looking for an honest life. No, these are armies of invaders, because, make no mistake, these are invasions, plain and simple.

The radical, leftist governments of Western Europe and Washington DC are both acting against their own white populations, to ethnically replace them with third world populations willing to work for next to nothing. These governments care neither about their oaths of office nor the safety and well-being of their people.

They care only about bending over backwards to give away Western, Christian civilization to those who had nothing to do with building it!

The most disturbing aspect is that other than a few heroic political leaders, few others (with power) have the will to do what must be done to stop it.

Wait though! If you were thinking, “Well, at least we’re not getting flooded with Muslims like poor Europe is. It’s a good thing that wouldn’t happen here in Dixie…,” then I’m afraid I have some very bad news for you, friend.

President Obama is not content to merely destroy half the Middle East with pointless wars paid for with borrowed Chinese money—no. He’s now hell-bent on shipping hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslims into the very heart of Dixie.

It’s true; the plans have already been revealed to bring thousands into the upstate region of South Carolina. Others are planned to be shipped into various parts of Tennessee and elsewhere.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do you think that bringing in several hundred thousand new human souls into our Southland is a good idea, when we don’t even have enough jobs for our own people?

Do you think that bringing in several hundred thousand Muslims into our Bible Belt is a good idea?

Can’t you just picture it: minarets, instead of steeples, springing up in the deep South, as you and your loved ones awaken to hear a Muslim call to prayer from the local mosque … just down the street from you?

Does this sound like a great future?

The Federal Government says it is, and they say you’re gonna like it, that you have no other choice.

Upon this point though, the League of the South disagrees with Washington in spades, and we’ve been doing something about it.

Several years ago, when treacherous corporations (and sadly, some liberal churches) conspired to bring Muslims to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the League of the South stood alone, fighting back and condemning this unspeakable attack on the Christian, white South.

There were so many third world Islamic peoples brought into the quaint, picturesque town of Murfreesboro, that they even built a large mosque in the city.

We were not amused.

We organized a rally and called out the traitorous politicians who supported the ethnic replacement of their own Christian, Southern populace with third world, Islamic workers. We held up signs that said, “No Jihad in Tennessee,” because we knew the truth: sooner or later, when enough Muslims are allowed into a community, a radical, violent element will follow it. Always.

Sadly, we were vindicated in July 2015, when Mohammad Abdulazeez went on a shooting rampage, killing five servicemen in Chattanooga, Tennessee. While this killing shocked many in Tennessee, it did not shock us. How many more Southerners will have to die before we take back our Southern lands from those who insist upon replacing us?

The Federal Government calls Islam a “religion of peace;” the League of the South calls it a hateful, dangerous abomination that belongs nowhere in our Southland!

The Federal Government calls their act of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims “an act of love.” The League of the South calls it an act of war on our Christian people!

The Federal Government says that Muslims will “culturally enrich” the South. The League of the South has seen about as much “cultural enrichment” that Muslims have forced upon other nations as we can stand!

We at the League of the South call upon Southerners to admit some very uncomfortable truths:

The truth is that this is no longer “the land of the free,” and Southerners won’t be free while under Washington DC’s occupation.

The truth is that DC is forcing the South (against its will) to take in these third world Islamic elements and at our people’s expense.

The truth is that Dixie’s sons and daughters have loved a country (the US), that has not and does not love them back.

The truth is that white Southerners are being ethnically replaced by millions of second and third world immigrants, who are driving down our wages, taking our jobs, and even committing violent acts against our own people. Enough is enough!

We declare that the South has already been overrun by too many foreign invaders as it is, and we don’t want or need any more of them!

We declare that if the South was a free and independent country, we could control and secure our own borders, here and now!

We declare that the South is our homeland, and no one else’s, because our people landed here and built this civilization from nothing.

We declare that since we built it, we should take true ownership of it by deciding who comes here and who doesn’t. Sounds great, right?

The problem is that as long as we remain shackled to a liberal, progressive country, headquartered by radicals in Washington, DC, we will never be allowed to decide our own immigration, border, or citizenship policies.

Washington will decide all those things for us, and you can bet your last dollar that they’ll continue to force these alien invaders upon us until you and your loved ones have been made minorities in the lands your fathers built. Does that sound like “freedom” to you? It sure doesn’t to us, either!

The only way to stop DC from replacing us in our own lands is to secede from this oppressive, liberal construct and assert our independence as a sovereign, Southern country in the 21st century.

It can be done, and unless you want to see minarets adorned with crescent moons in your town … it must be done. Our Southern children and grandchildren have no future if they remain shackled to the United States.

We are making our voices heard and reminding our people that they are not alone. We are here fighting for them and their futures, but we need your help!

The Southern people would be much freer, safer, and happier in a country of our own. This is our dream, and we are fighting every day to make it a reality.

Do you share this dream with us? If so, then will you fight for it with us? Join us today! We’re the folks you’ve been looking for!