Show post

Geneviev #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Creationism in Public Schools

The US Supreme Court has not allowed creation science to be taught in public schools since 1968, when it invalidated an Arkansas law that didn't allow evolution to be taught in schools (Epperson v. Arkansas). The Supreme Court continued to encourage evolution instead of creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which it held teaching of creation science along with evolution to be unconstitutional. However, many scientists believe that there is more scientific evidence for creation.

Christian groups have attempted to bring creation science back into public schools since it was banned. South Carolina's House Bill 3826, while unsuccessful, proposed teaching creation science in schools. However, none of these attempts have been successful.

What do you think, NSG? Should public schools be allowed to teach creation science? Should they teach evolution and creation science? Or is creation science unconstitutional?

I think creation and evolution should both be taught equally so students in public schools can choose for themselves what they believe. Although it would be unconstitutional if only the Christian perspective is taught, other religions could also be taught.

Show post

Mystic Warriors #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Should There Be A Right To Fornicate?

I dont think so. Little good has come from it, all the worlds ills can be traced back to this action. Obviously this is deeply ingrained, but it's about time we as a people moved on from it.

Show post

Racist Commonwelath of East Virginia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Should we euthanize orphans?

I was watching CNN the other day and they were doing a segment on animal euthanasia in Japan. They are so flooded over there that they decided that if animals aren’t adopted they should be put in a metal box and gassed. I was thinking, here in the US we have a broken welfare system and dozens of kids in care who nobody wants to adopt, most will probably turn into criminals and end up in prison or death row. Maybe it would be better if we euthanized the orphans nobody wants, we’ll be saving them from a horrible life and society from juvenile delinquents and future crimes. With the money we save with euthanasia, we could spend it on those families that do adopt making sure they are financially supported and that the adopted kids have access to good schools, sports and psychological care maybe even college.

[later]
@Third Asopia

To be honest I am not in favour. Why euthanise an orphan when he has a bright future in front of him? I know his parents died, but he still has a future. Everyone does. Unless you are at the last stages, then yes, because you have completed the most important parts of life. But, an orphan? Who's probably young? Come on. There's something better than euthanasia.

Well, most orphans get bounced around from home to home so they’re constantly being psychologically traumatized. Orphanages are hell holes. Unadopted orphans are like an anchor weighing down the welfare system, if we can cut them loose we can save money to spend supporting successful adoptions. Many uncared for orphans will end up in prison. Instead, why not save everyone trouble and euthanize a small number to benefit the rest? It’s nice to believe that everyone has a bright future but that’s not true. Let’s support the ones that are likely to succeed and rather than torturing those that won’t by throwing them from home to home or dumping them in orphanages that are more like prisons than homes, we should have the option of euthanizing them humanely.

[Submitter's note: Thread got euthanised within a day]

Show post

Cranborne #sexist forum.nationstates.net

On The Distribution of Spouses
I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

(Submitter's note: He also uses the Croatian flag...)

Show post

Freedom4Merica #fundie forum.nationstates.net

First, your WikiPedia arcticle means absolutely nothing. Remember when like Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then wait, suddenly they are a major ally of ours in the pacific. How did that's happen? Maybe because relationships and countries change.
Secondly, are you out of your mind? Please explain to me how Western Civilizarion and America was not based on Judeo Christian values. Obviously most of the founders were diest, but that does not mean that they were not majorly influenced by Judeo Christian values because it isn't obvious that they were. Here's a brief list of some of the values, please explain to me how the Consitution was not based off of these principles:
Dignity of Human Life
Traditional Family Values
Right to a God-Centered Education
A National Work Ethic
Common Decency
The Abrahamic Covenant: If people or a nation follows the Bible, they will be blessed by God
Personal Accountability
Freedoms coming from God and not government

Show post

The Parkus Empire #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(full exchange posted here quoted is the other poster)

Marriage makes someone your family. All the griping about how gays need marriage without even knowing what is, smdh

wut?

I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important


Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Show post

The Ozark Frontier #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I imagine places such as the Middle East and the more rural parts of South America will one day be known as the "last bastions of religion". In other words, it's purpose has been served, and more and more people are waking up to reality.

It’s Porpoise has hardly been served. Belive me, People cannot survive a Meaningless life like what Atheism Offers. Because in an Atheist Society, Your tiny, miniscule, Worthless. No one would care if you were to Kill yourself. Such a Sad Existence has no place in Life.

Show post

Russian Federation white ethnostate #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(a few months old but the way it goes from zero to fundie to creepy has me wanting to submit it)

Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.

Show post

Calexicai #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Traditionalist Elites mobilise against technology

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15986616.Time_to_ban_phones_in_schools__Cross_party_MSPs_call_for_Holyrood_investigation/

Discuss. Is this the new world order trying to take away children's liberties after all Macron is a globalist according to infowars right? Conspiracy but remember never stop questioning!

Do the elite have a plan to destroy the modern world and take us back to the stone age? The modern world encourages individualism

Show post

FreedLymonia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I do not hate freedom. But I hate selfish sociopaths who who use "freedom" as a shield to hide behind while caring not in the slightest for anyone else's freedom or the other needs of society.

And projection it is. I care for others, look at any the averages, right wingers donate more than liberals. And you say not caring for anyone else’s freedom? On what they are free unlike In a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact. It’s not charitable to reach into some one else’s wallet man, dig into your own. Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.

a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact.

Which I do not advocate (in character or in reality), nor does any but a few fringe lunatics with zero relevance in real life.
Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.

[eyerolling smiley]

cough fascist Blackshirt thugs aka antifa cough not to mention corbyn having a literal communist and attending communist meetings... well to be fair europe is unimportant anyways
Show post

The Parkus Empire #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I'm not a bigot, I can tolerate Muslims dissenting from me, no problem. Muslims agreeing with me, however, would force me into an existential crisis

Why exactly?

Because I would lose all faith in my own narrow-mindedness. And if I'm not narrow-minded, what does that make me? A freethinker. And freethinkers reject revelation, which would mean I'm living a lie.

Show post

Feylands #sexist forum.nationstates.net

This is a consequence of the pill. Western men wanted to have sex with no consequences, and now our tribe(s) are dying a slow death because those get into the water and cause men to stop being able of making as many babies as before. :(

They also have the consequence of making girls getting into puberty earlier and making men more feminine as well, in a time when bad people from distant lands who like really young girls are marching on our streets and we need exactly the opposite - men who can act like protectors and not some self-absorbed "ze's". >:( It's Western Rome 2.0. :(

Show post

The Theocracy of Faustian Satanic Empire #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Who is among the New World Order ?

I've been wondering who is among the New World Order ? I figure they must be rich guys and probably Satanist. Satanist because there loyalty towards Satan get the best of everything. But anyway, 2who do you think they are ?
Most people make fun of conspiracy theories. I don't. I mean, when you figure the Illuminati and other secret organizations, they have real pull in this world. So, what conspiracy theory do you believe but others think is absurd ?
I wish I knew so I could join them. Being in a secret society would be fun, I think.

Show post

Taviana SSR #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)

Shows once more how fascism is still strong in capitalist Germany. The government is more interested in smearing the legacy of the antifascist GDR than lerning from the terrors of fascism. Capitalism gives birth to fascism, as seen by the neofascist racist party of AfD being 3rd in polls.

I hope The Left, DKP and MLPD gain majority in elections.

Show post

Guelder #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)

I also support banning Arabic numerals

... First, Arabic numerals are better suited for math and already used worldwide. Second, it isn't even Arabic. Third, proper Latin numerals can't exactly describe numbers bigger than one million. Or the number zero. Fourth, do you seriously want to do 45,278,629 multiplied by 964 with Latin numerals?

There's practicality and common sense involved in this equation.

I understand your point, but in my opinion, Arabic does not belong to Europe and America, and about the fourth point: No, i only want the current 123-numbers used in the western world, thus in Europe and America

@Gigaverse

So, yeah. Good luck being backwater economies. You're gonna desperately need to cling to it.

Oh, by the way. "In your opinion" is not a good indicator of objectivity.


I see liberal tears
@Risottia
And how are you going to count them?

I don't count it, i just know that liberals don't like conservatives, and every time they hear a conservative speaking they burst their tears out :p
@Petrolheadia

I didn't, I simply made fun of you.

That's for me the same, because that's what Liberals do

@Petrolheadia
I could rebuke your thought-out arguments, but you have none.

That's your opinion, i see here only liberal tears because a conservative is speaking

@Petrolheadia

And that's your opinion.

I'm speaking the truth, Liberals just can't get into arguments, Conservatives can get into arguments. If a Conservative confronts a Liberal with the truth, they'll cry like babies

@Petrolheadia

First, I'm not crying, second, it's just your opinion.

Okay, you're not crying, good job, but you now don't want a argument anymore with a conservative

@Petrolheadia


That's your opinion, because I want this argument to last as long as it can.

I'm having a lot of fun doing it.


I'm also having fun to argument with a liberal, because liberals don't want to know the truth and are brainwashed

@Petrolheadia

Indeed. I put my brain into my Electrolux for every night, for 90°C and maximum RPM, and it's squeky-clean now.

What did you just say?
Show post

The New Communist Order #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Would Slavery Exist in the Ideal Minarchical Society?

Minarchism is a form of Libertarianism, with the philosophy that the ideal government would exist to provide only a few necessary services to the people. It often limits the State to three institutions, that could not be handled properly by the free market, the military, the police, and the courts. The actions that these three institutions would provide would be to protect citizens from aggression, and protect their property laws and natural rights. Now, I go back and forth between whether or not slavery would exist in this ideal Minarchical society, as the government would ideally protect citizens' natural rights to life, liberty and, property, and therefore, society would not allow slavery. Yet, this line of thinking becomes problematic, because who/what would decide who is a citizen and who is not? I go back and forth in my mind and was wondering what you guys think? Ultimately, I believe slavery would exist as there is no definite way to define who or what would be a citizen in this society, yet my mind is open and my opinion is subject to change on this topic.

Show post

Seradahn #racist forum.nationstates.net

The War On Whites

Can we please talk about this? Every single day we are being demonized something we didn't even do. Every day we are told that we are violent "Nazis" for wanting to preserve our race. Meanwhile some black dude can scream "Black power" and he'll have a crowd join him. The same goes for any other race except whites. Not every single white person is a racist, quite the opposite. Can we stop saying only whites can be racist? It's complete bullshit and they don't realize that it could be considered racist saying that. Meanwhile we have movements like Black Lives Matter that has created anti-white violence and have become the black Shutzstaffel. It's like saying all black people are violent thugs. Yes, we do have a history of expanding empires to foreign lands and sometimes treated the natives like crap, but we aren't alone. Africans and Native Americans had been doing that for centuries before branched out. I mean the Japanese invaded the Chinese, murder and raped its people, but nobody bats an eyelid. We've done nothing wrong, so cut it out.

Show post

Telconi #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I think the difference is a matter of degree. You say you're very pro 2nd Amendment, and yet you're willing to tolerate a candidate that pushes for an 'assault weapon' ban.

"We need to get the military style assault weapons off of our streets" is right next to "We need to exterminate the Jews" in my handbook of 'Absolutely unacceptable beliefs

Show post

Kaitland #racist forum.nationstates.net

Everything is wrong with miscegenation. It destroys the physical appearance of a race

[So there we were, the Black race and the White race, and from one moment to another, wouldn't you know, BOOM!

image

Our physical appearance got destroyed by miscegenation. Horrible. Just horrible.]

Yes. Horrible. I don't care how pretty she is.
Ancestral genome has been completely destroyed. And she is the personification of that destruction. She is called a hybrid.

Show post

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Creationism v. evolution debate.]

Preventing children from being drug users because they don't see themselves as accountable to God is better than crappy freedom.

[How does not having faith in God automatically translates to being a druggie? What the hell?]

Not automatically. Only if the children actually are taking it seriously.

Show post

Kautharr #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[In a thread about Colombia legalizing same sex marriage.]

terrible news
Latin America was meant to be very Catholic as well, what a shame.

[Kautharr used homophobia.

But nothing happened.]

I don't care if you call me a homophobe or any other regressive leftist buzzword, I'm proud to be a homophobe and idrc if you call me one.

Show post

Valcouria #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[On Colombia legalizing same-sex marriage]

Meh, South America was swallowed by the pink tide 30 years ago, so something as offensive to tradition and morality as this is not surprising, no more so than finding worms writhing on pavement after a rainstorm.

My own stance will never change on the matter, however, no matter how many nations stoop to accommodating sexual deviancy like this.

Show post

Kauthar #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Sounds like someone is a bit mad. How about you shut the fuck up about how entitled you are, and Christians have never been a protected group in the US. And for the record, no one gives a shit about sodomite marriage, it's degeneracy and is such a small issue only soccer moms, lesbians and leftists care about.

Show post

Constantinopolis #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."

Show post

Grand Calvert #fundie forum.nationstates.net


God deserves the glory because He created us, and the air we breath and food we eat that maintains our lives. He deserves our praise. Humans who are selfish do not deserve the glory because all of their achievements were accomplished with something that they would not have without God.

[God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.

Show post

Constantinopolis #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Correct. This is what I am saying.

And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?

Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.

Show post

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.]

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol

And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now

Show post

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Show post

Lordareon #fundie forum.nationstates.net


10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Show post

Imperium Sidhicum #racist forum.nationstates.net

This Trudeau guy seems to have the right idea, given how it's single young men who usually become a problem. Considering how the majority of the migrants are single young men, barring them from entering Europe and deporting the ones already here would also solve the uncontrolled immigration problem to a large degree and restrict immigration to fathers with families, women and children, who are more likely to be in legitimate need for asylum and less likely to cause trouble.

---

Interestingly, there seems to be a co-relation between an excessive population of young men and civil wars, political instability and general violence and lawlesness. Considering how these places also tend to have a sexually-repressive religion, cultural norms that forbid sex outside marriage, condemn prostitution and other forms of sexual release, have high unemployment and low education levels, require men to pay a large bride-price in order to get married (which many cannot afford for the aforementioned reasons of unemployment and poor literacy), and there's a general shortage of females of marriable age anyway, no wonder there's a plentitude of sexually-frustrated horny young men with raging hormones looking for ways to vent their frustration.

Unsurprisingly, many of them who come to Europe with it's population of spineless emasculated men who are too accustomed to rely on authorities for justice and too pussy-whipped and beaten down to defend their women find Europeans and especially their womenfolk easy prey for their destructive urges, which is further aggravated by the inaction of authorities.

Show post

Sahrani South #fundie forum.nationstates.net

One of my friends came forward and told me he was an atheist. I asked him why he was an atheist and he said, "I prayed to God for help, but he never helped me." That's no reason to disbelieve in God. Do you atheists seriously think he will help you with everything. Creator put you on earth to fix your mistakes. He won't solve the problems you caused. And stop blaming him for taking away people you care about. It's not his fault you failed or lost someone.

Those who disbelieve in God are what I call 'clouded minds'. You don't realise you are one until you are freed from corruption. I know from experience. I was once a disbeliever and then came to realise that people are not educated on who God actually is and how religion and science can coexist.

Atheism should be banned because it is very wrong. I seriously think these atheists should read the Bible! I hate it when some kids these days say that they are atheist, it is absolutely WRONG.

Every Christian knows Atheists have no morals because they think they can ignore God’s Holy Bible. Some of them even deny the existence of Hell! They murder, steal and rape all the time as if there is no tomorrow. It is no coincidence that most criminals are Atheists. It is time to stop all this! It is a known fact that Atheists like nothing more but killing unborn children (abortion) and defenseless elders (euthanasia).

Christians know that life begins BEFORE conception: Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Only Christians realize that murder is bad: Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”

There can be only one conclusion! Atheism has to be outlawed, just like the Bible tells us: 2nd Chronicles 15:13 “That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”.

Show post

Mortuus Luciferus #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I oppose LGBT rights and lgbt "marriage" because 1) it's a threat to western culture and tradition and 2) it's not marriage

[Since when is tradition good? There used to be a tradition of having soldiers scorch the earth or people burning witches. We don't do those things anymore.]

Thanks to socialism and "progressivism".

Show post

Durstan #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Why do you guys support homosexualism???

[Homosexualism? What are you selling? The term is homosexuality. And to answer your question, it's because it's bigoted, silly and utterly backwards to say that two people of same gender who love each other can't get married the same way a straight couple can.]

Are you saying that submitting to the will of God is backwards? Sorry, but people of the same gender can't ever have a real marriage or love.

Show post

Italian-Australia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(the topic is a non-religious woman wants to get a different councilor because the one the court ordered her to go to decided to open every session with a prayer)

Right, the fucking line has been crossed. This woman disobeyed a court order, she can rot in a cell for all I care. All you have served to do is reinforced the fact that atheists are evil, untrustworthy and unable to change. Fuck atheists and fuck the U.S Constitution. Go ahead and make your disparaging comments about me, because I'm not going to look at them. Australia for life!

Show post

Stellonia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Just because Wikipedia says it does not mean it is so. If you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as the timeline starting several billion years ago, you will see that it is partial towards the unscientific theories known as the Big Bang and neo-Darwinism.

[I am sure yu can show how it is unscientific. What is neo-Darwinism, is it like neo-Eisteinism? I am also sure you can show evidence beyond the bible that those scientific theories are indeed not true.]

Neo-Darwinism is another term for macro-evolution, a theory that claims that dinosaurs, humans, eggplants, and bacteria all share a common ancestor.

Also, how can the entire mass of the universe fit into a volume the size of a speck of dust on my keyboard?

Show post

Archegnum #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

[And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.]

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

Show post

Valcouria #fundie forum.nationstates.net

The only thing I'm personally picking up from this debacle is that now, one cannot be a devout Christian and hold a government position any longer. Because its absolute folly to think that someone who is devoutly religious is going to just drop their beliefs on a whim to do something that they find morally abhorrent and disgusting. For example, were I in an elected position as well, I would also be unable/unwilling to violate my deeply-held beliefs that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, and would not accept or recognize any variation on that God-given sacrament.

It is rather despicable that people that hold such convictions are essentially being bullied into either resigning from public office or forsaking their beliefs...sort of reminds me of the Persecutions of Decius, in a way. You either show your commitment to the pagan gods and the government, or else you face scorn, contempt, and (back then...and possibly in the near-future) martyrdom.

[Translation: Stop telling me I have to be equal to everyone else! Oppression!]


Christians (including myself) generally believe that they are ordained for better in the first place, the ones that will be accepted into Heaven while the heretic, heathen, and morally bankrupt rot in a hot place.

Show post

Oceanic People #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(thread topic: is morality possible without god?)

The answer is NO if you believe the traditions an dogma of the Church. On the other hand if you believe 'god' is any power and/or authority that a person submits to, then yes, morality IS possible without 'God'. This is why Atheists who are NOT sociopaths are just cowards.

Show post

The Autarkist Social Republic #fundie forum.nationstates.net

For a long time...I too used to have sinful thoughts about other men. I even was involved in a relationship with another man. I thought I loved. We kissed. We laughed. We held hands. We thought we loved each other. When my mother found out, she was outraged by this sin. So, because she loved and respected me so much, she decided to get me help so I could be cured of my sin. Now I am good in the eyes of God. Sure, I still have some sinful thoughts about other men. I'll never act on my sinful urges ever again. I made a promise to mother.

You made a promise to your mother to hide your sexual orientation and be something that you're not. Why do you think that this is a good thing?

Well, I always think of it this way: a prisoner goes to prison to be reformed. The justice system sends people to jail so they can learn a lesson. After the lesson is learned, and the prisoner is reformed...he may be released so he may spread the words of good and righteousness.

Show post

POTP #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Whelp... What's next on the list? Let me look... Ah, here it is!
Gay "marriage" - check
Polygamy - next
Incest - getting there
Pedophilia - not yet but it's gonna happen sometime in the near future
Bestiality - long ways off but it'll happen

Un-Supreme Court is not final authority on marriage. God Almighty is. He clearly defined marriage as an institution between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Satan and his minions have their victory for now. But the Kingdom is not theirs. The Lake of Fire is where they'll be residing for the rest of eternity.
I pray for this country. I pray for the religious that will inevitably be persecuted as result of this unholy decision. I pray for our children. I pray for the supporters of this decision. I pray for all "gays". I pray for ALL mankind. Lord Jesus come soon! We are ready! Save us from our sins!
Amen

[Pffftt.

I'm sorry, let me just- I need a second.

This is a fucking hilarious piece of satire, good sir. You've created the perfect stereotype of your typical, bigoted, god-fearing idiot.

At least, I dearly hope you're joking.]

Everything is satire with you people. You can't wrap your mind around the fact that SOMEONE might just happen to disagree with you. That's what all you liberals are like. I will be praying for you sir.

Show post

The Highlander Enclaves #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(on removing the Confederate battle flag from in front of the SC capitol)

[And hence, free speech is not being infringed upon. The Swastika is heritage. It would be disgusting if it were flown over the German capitol.]

Of course it would. The Swastika is as symbol used in false religions in Asia. It was also used by a movement claiming to be Christian, but they killed innocents...

[False religions... heh... gonna file that under 'no room to talk'[

The word of Christ is known by over a 7th of the world's population as the only truth.

Show post

Lordareon #fundie forum.nationstates.net


But the underlining cause is homosexuality itself homosexuality is not a permanent state were thos who are homosexuals are born that way no it mainly stems for the persons upbringing such as sexual abuse as a child etc can lead to homosexuality we must not treat homosexuality as a ethnic grouping it must be handled as a disorder not a state of being we must cure not ignore.

evendence.

Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD, Director of Comprehensive Counseling Services at a sate psychiatric research center, wrote in a Jan. 24, 2014 letter to the World heath organization:

"There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder.

Every child has a healthy need to identify positively with the parent of the same sex, have same-sex friendships, a positive body image and a confident sexual identity. Homosexual feelings can occur when these needs are not met appropriately.

The adolescent's unmet needs become entangled with emerging sexual feelings and produce same-sex attraction.

Therapy consists in helping male clients to understand the emotional causes of their attraction and to strengthen their masculine identity. It has been our clinical experience that as these men become more conformable and confident with their manhood, same-sex attractions resolve or decrease significantly in many patients."

Show post

Foederatio Hesperiae #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Yes, women should be submissive. God made Adam to tend to His garden and the beasts, and He created Eve from Adam to tend to Adam. Eve, through her treachery, caused them both to be expelled from the garden, and it is her punishment to be subservient to Adam.

Show post

Chaopeter824 #fundie forum.nationstates.net

{title of post: women should be subservient]

because Christ is the head of the church and the bride is the body of the church. It says so in the New Testament. I don't know how it works but it is known to me that it says about this subject in this way in the New Testament. One can't have the head without the body . Onec One can't have the body without the head. Decapitation, the guillotine.

Show post

Mysterious Stranger #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(on whether priests should legally have to report crimes they were told about in confessionals. Emphasis mine)

If you make priests mandated reporters like that, you'll ensure that, on the same day, everyone stops confessing their crimes to priests. And we lose one of the only forces in our entire society capable of pulling some people back from committing future crimes. I know I used to cut myself for years, and because mandated reporter laws meant that I would literally be arrested, forced to go to a mental hospital, or forced to take psychoactive drugs against my will, (all of which have happened to my friends), if I told my guidance counselor, any of my teachers, a therapist, or pretty much any trustworthy adult or authority figure about it, I just didn't talk to anybody who might have actually been helpful during that whole time period. You know who I did talk to? Lots of people on omegle. Because they couldn't track me down and literally ruin my life. People on omegle didn't have a lot of helpful things to say. I stitched my own leg closed once rather than go to the hospital. That shit hurts. I also could easily have died, because I don't know what the fuck I'm doing when it comes to stitching flesh.

Show post

Sunkistodia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[In a "heterosexual rights" thread where most disagreed with the OP. Emphasis his]

The way that people reacted to this thread being posted is evidence in and of itself that heterosexuals are discriminated against.

Everyone is discriminated against by someone. Everyone. And by saying that heterosexuals aren't discriminated against, proves that they are. Because face it, denying that someone is discriminated against, when in fact, they are clearly discriminated against, IS DISCRIMINATION.

Show post

holylight1 #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[on the declining numbers of Christians in America.]

I'm atheist myself but I don't know if this is a good or bad thing for America.

It depends would you like America to be an Islamic State with Sharia?

Show post

Domitia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

It's really sort of a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, any sort of decline in Christianity is inherently a bad thing, but on the other hand, the decline of mainline Protestantism is to be expected (this has been happening for decades). I think that American Christianity has been more American than Christian for quite some time. I mean, the fact that so many people are more concerned with so-called "marriage equality" than religious freedom is telling.

So the main question is, what's the best scenario for the re-evangelization of America? Is it better to let Atheism take over, then swoop in once people have realized they made the wrong choice, or is it more important to let the majority of American Christians think of themselves as Christians despite their beliefs being closer to moral therapeutic Deism? Personally, I think it'd be healthier to start with square one, than to have to re-educate people who already think of themselves as Christian. It boils down to what's easier: converting a Pagan to Christianity, or convincing a heretical Christian that his views are contrary to orthodox Christianity?

Either way, Christianity has survived as a persecuted minority religion before, so it's safe to assume that it'll survive in the future as well.

P.S. I'm not necessarily saying that Christianity is currently being persecuted in the US (it'd be foolish to claim that it isn't happening elsewhere, given how many Christians have died at the hands of ISIS). If I were trying to say that Christians were currently being persecuted, I'd have said something like "Just like in the past, Christianity has survived persecution, thus it will endure this current persecution as well". Though, like many traditionalist religious people, I'm concerned that when it comes to gay rights versus religious rights, the religious are going to lose. You might say that's a good thing, but I clearly disagree. While you're probably going to think I'm wrong to be against gay marriage, I at least think I'm consistent in that I also criticize American Christianity for allowing no-fault divorce and contraception. I think it's silly that many conservatives are claiming to defend traditional marriage by opposing same-sex marriage, but are totally fine with divorce (which also goes against traditional marriage).

Concerning future persecution of Christianity, it only seems natural. As Western society continues to distance itself from its Christian roots, Christian values will become more out of sync with secular values. Eventually, the religious will be forced to suffer quietly, while "enlightened" Progressivists have their say as to the future of the human race. Have you heard of those Atheist folks that want to make passing your religion onto your children illegal? For many Atheists they dream of a future where religion is either non-existent, or neutered. Would they go so far as to ban religion? Probably not. But things like making proselytizing illegal aren't that far-fetched. Am I wrong to feel concerned when society is moving in a direction I think is wrong? Wouldn't you be concerned too if, say, America were instead in another religious revival?

Show post

Bachmann America #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(during a tangent about genocide of native Americans in the 1800s, unrelated to the main discussion)

We taught the Native Americans Christian values and saved them from their separation from God. We also gave them vast tracts of free land where they could govern themselves. How is that "genocide"?

Show post

Jumalarik #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(On the Canadian supreme court ruling that catholic prayer in city council meetings is unconstitutional)

I agree with this, the Prayer should be Christian, not Catholic.
There is nothing wrong with religious government, what is bad is a government that is particularly supportive of a certain denomination of Christianity. :P

Uh. Plenty wrong with it in a secular nation.

Who said we need secular nations?

Show post

Jamzmania #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is no different than saying that the word wood is "the hard fibrous material that forms the main substance of the trunk or branches of a tree or shrub." Are we shaming rocks because we won't call them wood?

A pathetic attempt at false equivalence, not only trying to anthromorphize non-sapient objects but implying that the only allowed marriages are between man and woman is a scientific fact.

Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition. Ala rock is not wood.

Show post

Chistian Democrats #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, widely seen as anti-gay)

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Show post

Quintium #fundie forum.nationstates.net

The future belongs to whoever pops out the most children. It's simple as that. It's not a matter of values, cultures or politics, or of complicated theological debate. This is a matter of having kids. And if you look at the United States, the conservatives are winning. People who belong to relatively conservative faiths (like conservative Christians, Mormons, Muslims and Orthodox Jews) are popping out between two and four children per woman in the United States. People who are atheist or belong to a progressive religion have ceased to hit the 1.5 mark now.

The future, boys and girls, is conservative, in religion as in society.

***

It seems to have been established that there is a strong correlation between the political views of parents and the political views of their children. This is not believed to be fully genetic, although genetic predisposition has been shown in recent years to have a significant though not decisive effect on the general political direction that a person will take. Instead, it is believed to be mainly cultural, and to have to do with the process of socialization. This counts even more if you take the stereotypical view of religious American parents being very vocal and strong about their political beliefs.

And in any case, consider the state of the world, because in a 'globalized' world whatever trend is set in the world in general will affect every individual nation. In the last twenty years, the percentage of atheists or agnostics in the world has decreased. More people, relatively speaking, are now religious. This effect is especially common among African Christians, Asian Christians, more conservative Hindus, American Mormons, and nearly all Muslim groups in the world. These are the people you'll see more and more in corporations, in diplomacy, in politics and in trade. Twenty years down the line, they will decide - much more than they do now - on matters of life and death, war and peace, poverty and prosperity. They are your future and mine.

Show post

United Russian Soviet States #fundie forum.nationstates.net

It is very unfortunate that Christianity is declining in America. Young people are being indoctrinated in anti-Christian views. If this trend doesn't stop, America may become like the USSR. I am glad to be Christian. Young white people appear to be the most affected by this indoctrination.

Show post

Master Shake #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

(Discussion on how many jews the holocaust killed)

The majority of Jews in prewar Europe resided in eastern Europe. The largest Jewish communities in this area were in Poland, with about 3,000,000 Jews (9.5%); the European part of the Soviet Union, with 2,525,000 (3.4%); and Romania, with 756,000 (4.2%). The Jewish population in the three Baltic states totaled 255,000: 95,600 in Latvia, 155,000 in Lithuania, and 4,560 in Estonia. Here, Jews comprised 4.9%, 7.6%, and 0.4% of each country's population, respectively, and 5% of the region's total population.

In prewar central Europe, the largest Jewish community was in Germany, with about 500,000 members (0.75% of the total German population). This was followed by Hungary with 445,000 (5.1%), Czechoslovakia with 357,000 (2.4%), and Austria with 191,000, most of whom resided in the capital city of Vienna (2.8%).

In western Europe the largest Jewish communities were in Great Britain, with 300,000 Jews (0.65%); France, with 250,000 (0.6%); and the Netherlands, with 156,000 (1.8%). Additionally, 60,000 Jews (0.7%) lived in Belgium, 4,000 (0.02%) in Spain, and 1,200 (0.02%) in Portugal. Close to 16,000 Jews lived in Scandinavia, including 6,700 (0.11%) in Sweden, 5,700 (0.15%) in Denmark, 1,800 (0.05%) in Finland, and 1,400 (0.05%) in Norway. In southern Europe, Greece had the largest Jewish population, with about 73,000 Jews (1.2%).

There were also significant Jewish communities in Yugoslavia (68,000, or 0.49%), Italy (48,000, or 0.11%), and Bulgaria (48,500, or 0.8%). 200 Jews (0.02%) lived in Albania.

Do the math. Even if Hitler killed every single one of these Jewish people. It would barely be over 6.5 million. Also you act like the Nazi's killed every single Jewish person in the USSR. We are talking about 2.5 million people. It wasn't like the soviets paused the war and said "Here take all these people because Uncle Joe is anti-Semitic." Fun fact Stalin wasn't even anti Semitic until the late 40s. There was never one pogrom or purge targeting the Jews during his reign.

Submitter's note: add them up, like he didn't

Show post

Quintium #fundie forum.nationstates.net

The United States is not at all right-wing on the world stage. The United States is, by now, idealistic and centre-left on the world stage, sending massive amounts of foreign aid (money, food, hospitals, schools, vehicles, vaccines) all over the world and being susceptible to calls for help from rebels that American politicians naively think want to remove dictators from power. If you want right-wing countries on the world stage, try India (which constantly threatens Pakistan with war over the border situation and Pakistani-funded terrorism), China (which is holding on rather bitterly to its western reaches, especially the lands of the Tibetans and the Uyghurs), Russia (which makes no secret of standing for the interests of ethnic Russians first and foremost) or Brazil (which, also, stands for its own interests).

What we see happening in the world today is a shift in power from the centre-left idealists who want to meddle with the idea that it'll make the world a better place (Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) to the nations that think the world would be a better place if every nation looked out primarily for its own interests (China, Russia, Brazil, India).

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

in response to a poster saying that The Holocaust was ideologically driven, not economical, and borne out of German racialism.

That's too simplistic. It fits in with the narrative we're taught at school - that Hitler and his ilk were the Great Satan of the twentieth century. Actually, the story is a bit more nuanced. Hitler believed that almost every race in the world could and should improve itself to the best of its abilities. In fact, he supposedly remarked that China's history was more dignified and deserving of respect than Europe's. At first, the Nazis did not seek to exterminate the Jews - instead, they sought an orderly expulsion. But as the war started sucking up too many resources and stories came out about high-ranking Jews in Allied nations stirring up hatred of Germany and aiding the Communists, the authorities decided that they needed a brutal, quick final solution.

In fact, the Nazis were not the only ones who believed in such theories. In the last months of the war, General Patton grew convinced that the Germans were respectable people and not the true enemy, and that a lot of people in Washington (most notably Morgenthau, a Jew who tried to push for effective democide against millions of Germans) were preventing him from taking Berlin and large parts of Eastern Europe because they wanted Germany to suffer. At the end of his life, Patton seems to have hated the Jews as much as Hitler did before the start of World War II. And then there's Churchill, who believed that a specific but powerful group of Jews had orchestrated the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia in a frontal attack on civilization.

There are a lot of things wrong with what the Nazis did, and the world would have been better off without them. But don't get too simplistic about them.

Show post

Amerieka #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(Gay rights discussion)

There is a right way to fit lego pieces. One can fight for the right to join two pieces from the back or from the front and it may seem like the politically correct thing to say or fight. We can even pass laws to say we recognize that lego bricks can be joined front to front and back to back, and that everyone who says no are bigots who have a narrow view of how lego pieces should be stuck. We can even hide behind free speech, by arguing for lego pieces to be joined however they like, and saying that pro-conventional lego builders are silencing the voice of liberal lego builders and that they should shut up (denying pro-conventional lego builders the right of free speech in the process).

But the reality is that there is only one way to naturally put lego pieces together. Sure, pass your laws, silence the naysayers, tell tales of happiness, and all that... but lego pieces were never made that way.

Show post

Tea party separation of america #fundie forum.nationstates.net

The US is a christian nation, therefore the definition of marriage should be defined by the christian church.

[[...]

The United States can't use the Christian definition because that would require respecting an establishment of religion, which is banned by the First Amendment.]

The 1st amendment is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.

Show post

Christian State of Mississippi #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Of course it's not. Freedom and Liberty is literally at stake here! the POTUS Obama has hijacked this great country to turn us into an islamic hellhole. Just wait until the ISIS hoards illegally immigrate into the country and start putting sharia law all over the place. Obama is gonna allow this to happen. But he will be subtle about it.

[Well aren't you a credit to the American education system.

Just one problem Sherlock: Obama's a Christian. Fairly devout too.]

Christian in name, but Muslim in secret. If you wanna be a politician in America, you got to be Christian or else. But it depends whether one is faithful to Christ or not. Obama is different. He's a Kenyan Muslim. Not a Christianized African American.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

As you all know, I believe this to be an invasion. The Africans and Middle Easterners who come to Europe through the Meditteranean - most are uneducated, young men of the Sunni faith - have nothing to offer us and serve only to destabilize Europe.

Now, if I am to believe people here I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but today I learned that the Islamic State (which now controls several coastal towns in Libya) has actually been making plans to send 500,000 migrants to Europe at once and to hide among them large numbers of fighters who, in the ensuing chaos, would be able to escape the authorities and wreak havoc in major Italian cities. The Italian government is now putting even more paramilitary police and soldiers in the big cities and near major tourist sites. So, evidently there is a big problem here, and there are relatively strong militant groups conspiring to use these migrants as a means to destabilize Europe and smuggle in hundreds or even thousands of fighters who aim to kill an awful lot of people.

Therefore, I will repeat what I have been saying for years: this is an invasion, and we should treat it like one. Deport the migrants back to Africa immediately and shoot any and all human traffickers you find. That is the only way to avoid the full economic, political, cultural and military collapse of Europe.

Show post

Quintium #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Ah strict interpretive fundamentalism. It ruins all.]

It doesn't ruin anything. Fundamentalism means just that - the fundamentals of the religion. It's the religion, but without the human arrogance. It's the religion as it is, not as individual people want it to be. Fundamentalist Islam is the real Islam, and all moderation in Islam - or any religion, for that matter - comes at the expense of the theology of the religion itself. Moderation always means you ignore the fundamentals of the religion, which is why I do not understand how anyone who adheres to any religion can be 'moderate' and still claim to adhere to the original religion whose rules they violate. I know Christians who watch pornography, and that's just as strange as Muslim men who take Jews or Christians for friends or refuse to spend money or risk their lives fighting for Allah.

Show post

Nebalon #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Um, how is having to allow gay marriages tyranny? Because it sounds like you have a very warped view of what tyranny is...]

First of all its not marriage, the definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Secondly, forcing these state judges to do something that's not right is a form of tyranny, which is something gays are getting used to doing. It's absurd that 1 percent of the population is getting so much attention and making such a mess out of society, but it is appropriate for these government officials to be standing up to it

[Your definitions are all fucked up.

Secondly, the state can do what it wants; religion doesn't have any play in how different communities that are non-religious have equal rights as the religious.

The State can "force" these judges to do it because these judges are not the fucking law, the Federal Government is.

Are we done with this strawman argument or are you going to keep pumping up misinformed bullshit?]


It's unconstitutional to change marriage definitions, as it fringes on the rights of actual married people, religious institutions, and already exists precedents. When the supreme Court rules against fake marriages, read what they write and perhaps you'll understand. And if they don't rule against them, the resulting protest of millions of people will teach THEM how America feels.

Show post

Azov Battalion #racist forum.nationstates.net

(abortion debate. long story)

[I assume you think that you should also be forced to watch a slaughterhouse video before eating meat? Or a video of child slavery before buying chocolate or coffee? Or a video of war conflict before buying a diamond?]


I don't mind those videos of slaughterhouses, they don't really bother me.

Child slavery....meh....they're not usually white so it doesn't bother me.

Also those wars and conflicts are usually in Africa.....doesn't bother me either.

Show post

Killidash #fundie forum.nationstates.net


I love how evolutionists never, ever look at their theories flaws, and ruthlessly attack all alternate viewpoints. Intelligent design is a reality, in my opinion, and it is backed by a substantial amount of proof.

I'd check out the book "Evolutions Achilles heels", so that you can at least grasp where I'm coming from.

[and i love how god intelligently designed a bug specifically to eat human brains and how sometimes babies are born without brains. actually, the abortion debate would probably be a lot easier for you if god didn't make it so that there are so many dead at birth babies. maybe he should have designed them better? i dunno. i guess he works in mysterious ways, and the mysterious way just so happens to be brainless babies. bit of an own goal there for team god.]

These things are caused by the fall of man. Originally, all was perfect. These things entered the world though sin.

Show post

New Italian Republic #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Okay reading the ballots there are a lot of idiots here
Same sex marriage= Same sex Intercourse and that (BLEH) = No reproduction rate = DEATH OF HUMANITY
Lord save me and the 14 people that actually have common sense

this is what i feel the people who passed this law keep doing:

image

Show post

Quintium #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Law, journalism, psychology, communications, etc. are not useless.]

I'd argue that journalism (the best journalists are those not trained academically), psychology (if you want to make an actual difference in the world, you need psychiatry) and communications (like journalism, it's a field of doubtful practical advantage) are fairly useless, along with sociology (social and economic Marxism), cultural anthropology (cultural relativism studies), philosophy (Neo-Marxist studies), free time management (it's an actual field of study here, but the people who study it are typically unemployable), history (it's a hobby, not a profession, unless it's combined with archaeology), modern second languages (hardly useful to study a language that tens of millions of people in the world already speak), European Studies (although I will say that it's a good way to get into the right parasitic networks in Brussels) and criminology (a field of study that manages to present itself as being practical, but turns out to be even more ivory-tower-theoretical than sociology).

Show post

Quintium #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Risottia wrote:

As I said earlier, Jews are over-represented in politics. Some people - not most, but certainly a significant minority - feel that there was some form of intention by the Jews to destabilize and definitively destroy all the nations of Europe as a revenge for the Holocaust. Fortunately, though, people tend to blame their financial misfortunes on the more general 'bankers' without mentioning the extreme over-representation of Jewish individuals (Rothschild, Bernanke, Madoff, Goldman, Sachs and others come to mind) within financial institutions, and their social and cultural problems on the social democrats in their countries.

So the Elders of Zion conspiracy.


Nothing like that. This particular theory holds that there are many Jews who are angry at Europeans for the Holocaust, and have found themselves in positions of power after the war. The theory isn't entirely nonsensical, because there was one Jewish man by the name of Henry Morgenthau who almost succeeded in having the United States pass a plan to destroy all German industry, have tens of millions of Germans starved to death and turn Germany into a pastoral country. It was only when the media heard about it and there was public outrage (Patton said it could not reconcile it with his "Anglo-Saxon conscience" to punish German individuals for the crimes of the collective) that the plan was softened a bit. Even then, countless German families were thrown out of their homes and German factories were forbidden from producing almost anything that could possibly be used by an army for ten tot twenty years.

Anyway, this theory goes on to state that it wasn't just Morgenthau, and that people like Laurent Fabius (foreign minister of France), Jan Fischer (former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic), John Key (Prime Minister of New Zealand), Ed Miliband (leader of the Labour Party in Britain), David Miliband (former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Britain), Michael Howard (former leader of the Conservative Party), Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer and key proponent of deregulation in Britain), Leon Brittan (former Vice President of the European Commission for Britain), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons in Britain), Henry Kissinger (you know who that is), Daniel Cohn-Bendit (former leader of the Greens in the European Parliament, once admitted to having abused toddlers), Pierre Moscovici (former Minister of Finance in France, oversaw the near-collapse of France's economy under Hollande) and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former head of the International Monetary Fund) are still working in the best interests of their own ethnic community and personal friends and family members instead of the best interests of the nations they nominally serve.

Personally, I'm an adherent of a different theory, first uttered - I believe - by Winston Churchill in the early 1920s. It holds that there are three main types of Jews. The first type is the 'National Jew', who considers himself a citizen of the nation he lives in first and foremost. He can be a Briton and a Jew, just as someone else can be a Briton and a Christian. The second type is the 'Zionist Jew', who considers himself an ethnic Jew first and foremost and wants a homeland for himself. These Jews mainly live in Israel nowadays. Then there is the third category, and that's where a lot of these conspiracy theories come from. The third category are the, quote, "international and for the most part atheistic Jews". Because they have no national identity and no credible religious identity to speak of either, they latch onto either extreme materialism (bankers) or extreme ideologies (especially Communism throughout the twentieth century) and put the weight of their intellect and networks behind those new goals.
Essential for 'tolerance' is that you do not personally like what you tolerate - otherwise it would be called acceptance. Tolerance is a sign of a weak society - "I do not like what you do, but I feel emasculated and powerless and therefore I will let you do it."
Top

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

There is no place for the far right or neofascism in a progressive 21st century Europe.


Did we ever ask for this progressivism, though? Did we ask to have parts of our countries occupied by millions of people from what are literally the world's most superstitious, economically lethargic and socially conservative places in the world under the guise of tolerance and diversity? Did we ask to get neighbours who slaughter goats in their living rooms for the glory of a man who died in the year 632? Did we ask for shopping centres full of men without jobs who scream at our women and try to steal wallets and phones from our men? Did we ask for this ghastly social justice ideology that's festering in Europe now, with us being asked to start being more 'tolerant' to those who steal from us, harrass us and save no effort telling us what'll happen when they're in charge?

I'm done crawling, whether that's before Jews or Muslims or Gypsies or European Union bureaucrats.

Show post

The Old Nouveau Riche #racist forum.nationstates.net

[OP of the "Who is White?" thread]

What ethnicities and groups of people do you consider to belong to the White race? This will be an important consideration for the future leaders of the future resurgent National Socialist state in Europe.

I consider the white race to be made up of members of lightskinned ethnic groups that originate from Europe. However, there are some exceptions: the Lapps are Siberian/Tungusic migrants: the Finns are the descendants Mongolic tribes and Siberian/Tungusic groups that had migrated westward into modern day Finland and mixed throughout a long period of cohabitation: the Magyars/Huns, as the name suggests, are the descendants of a cohort the Turanic Huns of Central Asia which had migrated west to the Pannonian Plain and were later separated from the rest of the Huns; the Bulgars are the descendants of Mongolian central asian tribes; the Albanian Shqiptars are a mix of Turkic Azeris and the Turks themselves; and the Georgians and Armenians experience deep racial admixture throughout the entire populations of their respective ethnicities. Of course, the Jews and Gypsies are not White either.

I also believe that a considerable fraction of Spaniards and Italians are not white, due to heavy Mohametan/Arab admixture in the case of the Spaniards and heavy African admixture in the case of the Italians.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

Here's my evil, racist take on the matter. You can help some nations, but you cannot help others. Some people, whether it is by their limited intelligence or by the suffocating influence of their culture or religion, unable to build a productive society. A good example: in the early 1950s, South Korea and Uganda were equally poor. Since then, Uganda has received more aid from abroad than South Korea. But because (1) it is part of the Korean culture to want to work hard and build a functioning, orderly society and (2) the IQ of the average Korean is at least a good twenty-five points higher than the IQ of the average Ugandan, North Korea is much more developed than Uganda and South Korea is one of the most developed countries on earth.

As for the culture that is prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa, I don't expect much. All of the economic growth in that part of the world is either because of sheer population explosion or because of foreign aid and remissions from migrants living in Europe. And what little economic prosperity and social order there is now will most likely be shattered within one or two decades, in another round of bloodshed. Look at Nigeria, for example, the largest African country by population. People have had to temper their enormously optimistic beliefs about Nigeria because there's the religious unrest that no one but hardcore racists like myself would have been able to predict. Two groups of people fight in an African country, and the result is more political unrest and therefore another cycle of violence - who would have thought?

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

Vitaphone Racing wrote:
Their hatred of aboriginals and "boat people" is frankly astounding.


Why? Aboriginals are famous for spending tens of thousands of years on a beautiful, warm, fertile continent, burning nearly all the forests down and inventing the stick.
And now, there are literally ads running to tell Aboriginals not to drink petrol or sleep in the road.

Show post

Socialist Union of Earth #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[OP of the "In defense of Pol Pot" thread]

It seems like in the modern communist movement Pol Pot has become taboo, someone who must not be supported. However, I disagree. He took great efforts to rebuild the Cambodian nation from scratch under a socialist framework. The only reason he depopulated the cities is becauae Capitalism had so thoroughly corrupted Cambodia that it was necessary to reforge Cambodia from the ground up. Once a socialist foundation had been established, he would begin to remodernize the country but under a socialist, egalitarian manner.

Furthermore, the article below makes some excellent points about how Pol Pot's rule helped the millions of ordinary working Cambodians.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/

What is your opinion on this matter?

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

[In America, you find that this description is complete and utter humbug. We can live without Latinos killing Black People killing East Asians killing South Asians killing Arabs killing White people.]


A few things.

1. I mentioned cultures and beliefs, and I specifically and intentionally left out race. You are just trying to bait me here.
2. In the United States, the dominant culture is General American culture, derived from Anglo-Saxon culture with minor German influences although the political and demographic influence of Mexican and Central American culture is now growing.
3. In many parts of the United States, African-American subculture now differs enough from General American Culture to warrant riots between different communities. Their interests, values and beliefs have grown too far apart now, and they feel like they no longer owe allegiance to the United States or to the existing authorities.
4. The irony is that the United States has a history full of what I described here. First came the various Native American tribes, who had a habit of pushing each other around, expelling each other from prime hunting grounds and kicking each other to the ground every now and again. Then came the first Europeans, and generally they weren't too kind to the natives. Then came more Europeans, and before they could count to ten the Europeans were fighting each other. The Native Americans were pushed further and further west as European groups - who eventually united as one language and culture pushed out all other cultures and became dominant in the state - went for more and more prime hunting grounds and farming land.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
If they are fighting, I don't think it is because they inherently hate each other and want to kill each other, unless you are projecting yourself onto others.]


I doubt it. I think this applies to every place in the world at any time in history. There's an interesting field of study in archaeology that's based around figuring out how and when cultures supplanted and replaced each other based just on their pottery and their burials. This has been going on for literally tens of thousands of years, and it's typical human folly to think that it'll magically stop because "we're civilized now". It's not that people hate each other, it's that they're rivals, and eventually any culture that exists in an area will come to believe that the land is theirs. In the United States, you could say that, whenever you hear people in places like Ferguson speak of 'the community', you also hear them speak of the authorities and the rest of the United States as outsiders.

Finally, here's a nice song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

Now there's a word I don't get - 'xenophobia'. In all instances where people of vastly different cultures and religions have had to live close together, the ultimate result was bloodshed, with one group becoming dominant over the others through a combination of violence and demographic supplantment. On a small scale, think the 'Zones Urbaines Sensibles'. On a larger scale, think Africa. You can't have people with vastly different cultures and beliefs live together in peace for any extended amount of time. They'll fight, and I think it's only natural to not want that to happen to your nation.

Show post

Waideland #racist forum.nationstates.net

The funny thing is that Hispanics aren't much worse off than non-Hispanic whites. Considering that many of them show up on our doorstep with no English skills, often illiterate even in their own language, no math, no science, etc, they still have a lower unemployment, and higher median incomes than Blacks. Last time I looked at unemployment numbers, all non-Blacks were separated by about 1%, with Blacks falling several points behind everyone.

Because of this, I tend to agree Quintium. American Blacks are the permanent Democrat welfare class because of how their culture views this country. They've had more opportunities to pull themselves out of the cellar than any other non-white group, and yet every other ethnic group and subgroup surpasses them, including black immigrants. By the time Hispanics have increased their numbers to a point that they can completely overthrow whites in the voting booth, their wealth and education will have increased to the point that they are no longer dependent on the Democrat welfare state. If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.

Of course, that's assuming the country doesn't fall apart before then. In the short-term, providing education, medical care, as well as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance to the tens of millions of people flooding the country will fall mostly on the shrinking number of upper-middle class whites. The large influx of cheap labor will also continue to drive wage stagnation for the bottom half of the country, turning the current middle class into subsistence only households with little or no disposable income, which means even fewer middle class wallets to pay for it.

Wage stagnation is my biggest fear when it comes to the near and distant future. While inflation isn't obscenely high, it is there, and puts more and more pressure every year on those 20k-100k a year jobs that are hallmarks of the middle class. If 20 years from now, a loaf of bread is $5, and a gallon of gas is $10, someone making $20 an hour isn't going to be middle class anymore. Having millions of people show up willing to pour concrete, drive forklifts, and work sheet metal for minimum wage is going to make that even worse.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

[You presented basic facts in a biased light. The reason why so many Blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crimes is due to poverty, pure and simple. Being the poorest socio-economic group, this causes the rate to increase. The fact many in America have deluded themselves into thinking they have no prejudice, along with institutional racism does not help.]


And I would take this for a self-evident truth, were it not for the fact:

1. That rural whites do not display the same rates of crime that urban blacks display;
2. That, in fact, Asians in Asia - who, per capita, are significantly less wealthy than American blacks - do not display the same rates of crime;
3. That the nature of many of the crimes committed disproportionately by blacks is not economic but violent or sexual;
4. That crimes of that nature also occur extremely often in Africa itself, more so than in nearly any other part of the world including some parts of the world currently embroiled in civil wars.

Show post

Quintium #fundie forum.nationstates.net

That's what we all think. If we did not all think that our proposed policies would be beneficial to society, we would not hold them unless we were deliberately evil. As a conservative who used to be a progressive socialist, I can honestly say that I used to believe in what I believed because I thought it was the right way to go. I did not change my beliefs because my sense of morality changed - I changed them because I realised that progressive socialism would be paradise in the short term, but hell to pay in the long term. I'll give you some examples.

1. The welfare state. It looks fantastic when it's being introduced, and I used to be heavily in favour of expanding it, but:
1.1 When people start paying more than half of their income in taxes and mandatory premiums, a society's economic life stagnates and purchasing power drops, making most people poorer.
1.2 Unfortunately, a generous welfare state draws the wrong kind of immigration when that is allowed - the kind that costs money instead of adding to the welfare state.
1.3 The welfare state replaces the community with the state; you no longer look to your family or friends for help, you look to the state. This ends genuine solidarity and establishes entitlement.
1.4 In multinational states, where different ethnic or religious groups live, this sense of entitlement causes anger, hostility and rioting when some groups refuse to pay for other groups.

2. Migration. It looks fantastic in the short term, and in the past supporting it loudly really made me smug, but:
2.1 As I said, adding significantly different groups of people to one state - especially if that state is prominent in economic redistribution - leads to conflict rather than harmony.
2.2 Some forms of migration might be good for the economy, but - and if you are a socialist I don't see how you could disagree - that prosperity ends up mainly with large businesses, while ordinary people are driven out of work in places where migrants, legally or illegally, are able to work for less than the cost of living for the nationals of their host country. Not to mention, because you are not likely to be swayed by an argument related to the people already in the host country, that the migrants are often exploited and have to work under dangerous or degrading circumstances.
2.3 Migration, unfortunately, usually leads to supplantment rather than addition, because values that run contrary to each other can and will not co-exist. One must become dominant, and if migration is not kept under control then the values of the migrants will eventually become dominant. Just ask the Britons. Usually, migration occurs from places with much more corruption and much less wealth than the places these migrants end up in. That means: with every migrant you take in, your country moves one step further towards lethargy, corruption and the very infighting many migrants fled.

3. Sexual freedom. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
3.1 A nation needs a stable population. For that, it needs women to give birth to, on average, somewhere between 2.1 (wealthy first-world nations) and 3.3 children (third world nations, accounting for excess deaths and physical and mental handicaps preventing people from reproducing later) children. In order to do that, women - at least European women and women of European descent - generally need stability.
3.2 The sexual revolution that took place in the second half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, when everything sexual became acceptable, resulted also in: (1) women marrying at a higher average age, one at which they simply cannot have enough children, (2) women going to work, meaning they have smaller families, (3) more and more broken families coming to exist.

4. Religious tolerance. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
4.1 You must take into account that not everyone will tolerate you, and that those who you tolerate but who do not tolerate you might one day gain the upper hand over you;
4.2 That tolerance, in itself, does not negate the fact that people with significantly different beliefs and values will not be able to live in peace indefinitely, and that one group is bound to eventually gain enough strength either in numbers or in political or economic influence to banish the other group, and that those who are tolerant are also generally the weaker side in those schisms.

Thalbania wrote:
What do you consider your own primary value to be? How can we evaluate the better ones?


The reason I became a conservative was not initially moral, although I have learned to appreciate the moral side of the debate. I became a conservative because I realised the things conservatives want - stability, security, tradition and national sovereignty - are requirements for a functioning society. At a basic level, progressives are beneficial to a nation in the short term and superficially but create deep, dangerous schisms and demographic developments that will eventually break any nation up completely. At the same basic level, conservatives seem harsh and stubborn, but they have realised - rightly so, if you ask me - that you can't have a prosperous, safe and therefore happy society that produces great science and great works of art if you set that same society up for absolute disaster in the long term.

Show post

Greater Israelia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Fetus is a great term that the eugenicists and other fruitcakes made up to soften it up and garner more support. After all, liberals are all about changing the language. It's not sodomy, it's homosexuality. It's not disliking homosexuality for Biblical reasons, it's homo(human) phobia. It's not murder, it's abortion.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

A nation is a group of people and a state is the political and diplomatic fiction that rules that nation. You should make a strong distinction between the two and acknowledge that the nation is what has caused Germany to be so productive. Germany is not prosperous and powerful because it has a good state - it has a good state and is prosperous and powerful because it has the right nation. The Germans are a naturally productive nation. If you were to switch the population of Germany with that of Somalia, you would find that Somalia would become prosperous and powerful and Germany would collapse in a matter of weeks. I think you should step away from the purely economic argument and look at it from a more cultural perspective. Some cultures build, other cultures destroy. Some cultures encourage productivity and security of property, other cultures encourage lethargy and theft. Mass immigration, especially from outside Europe, will only hurt Europe tremendously in the long run.

Show post

Libertarian California #racist forum.nationstates.net

*In response saying that racism is not natural and that it is engineered and institutionalized by the ruling classes*

Really? After over 50 years since the end of segregation, our schools, churches, and neighborhoods remain just as segregated as they've always been, even though people now have more of a choice to live amongst other people.

Seems like people enjoy being segregated.

Show post

Imperium Sidhicum #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Pity they didn't have the balls to go all the way through with that assignment.

The moment some aspect of history becomes untouchable and unquestionable, it becomes a dogma, and teaching dogmatic science is no different from religious indoctrination, since it teaches to unquestioningly accept certain ideological tenets, the doubting of which is heresy.

Holocaust is just this kind of dogma, perhaps the most heavily politicized historical event and one of the most heavily politicized issues along with race and sexuality. Any kind of unbiased, objective research in Holocaust is practically impossible, since the researcher is expected simply to reaffirm previous finds, or is immediately denounced as a denier and Nazi sympathizer if his finds happen to contradict the officially approved version, much like there's hardly an objective research possible on race or sexuality where no political pressure would be involved.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

Only the western world, which accounts for only a small percentage of the world's population, expects this brown, mediocre world race to come into existence. Only the western world is supposed to be multiracial, and in the rest of the world there is absolutely no interest in the matter. The Chinese want Chinese citizens, the Japanese want Japanese citizens, and in African countries different tribes generally don't even mix. In the very best case, you'd have a few countries in Western Europe along with Britain, the United States and Canada populated with mediocre brown people.

Even in the western world, the uncomfortable truth for these people is that we're not mixing. If you look at the different groups in society, you'll find that they usually keep to themselves. Especially the whites, who - knowingly or not - are the prime target of those who dream of a brown race, are very unlikely to have children outside of their race. As I've said on several occasions, the threat to traditionally white countries is not race-mixing, because non-white children born to one white parent and one non-white parent are only a tiny percentage of all non-white children born.

There are already countries full of mixed brown people. You can look at most of Central and South America to get the picture, or you could look to many Caribbean islands. And yet in those places, racism is alive and kicking. The lighter ones rule, even if they're not entirely white, and the darker ones serve. That last bit reminds me of India, where you can tell people's caste by their physical appearance.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

You're mentioning countries that are racially and culturally homogenous, though, and adhere to 'high values'. In Norway, culture dictates that murder is always wrong. In Japan, culture dictates that to kill is a crime against honour, which is why Japan forces murderers into a psychologically destructive prison regime and executes them at random times. If you want another example of a country where not the lack of firearms but racial and cultural homogeneity lead to low homicide rates, that's Iceland. There are around 90,000 privately-owned firearms for 325,000 people in Iceland, and yet their homicide rates are among the world's lowest (save for some microstates and Japan).

In the United States, you'll find that it's not that easy. It's not rednecks with legal guns doing most of the killing, so taking their guns away would be fairly useless. Even if you take all civilian firearms, you'll find that homicide rates won't change much, as they haven't changed that much in places where firearms have been banned already. The United States is culturally and racially diverse, and you'll see that different cultures have different approaches to murder. African-Americans, for example, tend to be a lot more casual about violence in general and about murder, something which is exacerbated by the gangster culture that is omnipresent in their communities. As a result, African-Americans are the perpetrators in a majority of all homicides in the United States despite accounting for much less than one-fifth of the total population.

Basically, the only way to drastically lower homicide rates would be to export the current American population and import Iceland's, or Japan's, or Norway's. It's the attitude that kills, not the gun.

EDIT: Oh, and if you want the exact opposite of Iceland, try Kenya. That country has some very tough gun laws, and also one of the world's highest homicide rates.

Show post

-The West Coast- #racist forum.nationstates.net

Of course. Label me something offensive because of my opinion that the Native Americans chose to become egregious alcoholics and chose to live poverty-stricken lives after their lawful defeat in a time of war. We gave them every chance we could to make them good, hard working Americans and they chose not to be. We led the horse to water, but the majority chose to wallow in their self-pity and their anguish. I won't be blamed for their decisions, because I had nothing to do with what they decided to live like.

I'm neither a Nazi or a Confederate, so don't treat me like one.

Show post

Vashta Nerada #fundie forum.nationstates.net

No, I highly doubt you know how I think because we've never met or spoken on a personal level. I use common sense to understand the fact that homosexuality is wrong no matter how you look at it. Even if you look at it from a religious or atheist point of view, homosexuality is unnatural regardless of your stance. At least with heterosexuality, there is an outcome that results from opposite sex relationships that benefit society. There is no such benefit with homosexuality. So I don't an excuse to speak about homosexuality. No excuse is needed. If I see something is wrong, I'm going to speak up about it. The only defense you have is that there is a large, vocal minority people with a lot of money and thus a lot of political power, pushing the issue in society, and push people to accept something that most of the world believes is wrong.

Show post

Seaxeland #racist forum.nationstates.net

Oh yes, they're perfect immigrants. Except for the fact they have no respect for our culture, break our laws, refuse to learn our language, come over illegally, end up mules or pawns for the cartels. You know, all that stuff.

They don't ALL do that stuff, I know, but I have yet to meet one that hasn't done at least one of those things, intentionally or not. Besides, there's too many of them, they've already supplanted African Americans as the largest minority(assuming they're not the majority already), and if deporting a whole lot of them, especially the illegals, stops me from getting ads on TV and the Internet in Spanish, so be it.

Because quite frankly, I don't want to live in a neighborhood surrounded by Mexicans living off free government welfare and healthcare who won't even speak the God damn mother tongue of the country they immigrated to, most likely illegally. I also laugh when I see them proudly wave the Mexican flag. Oh yes, you're so proud of your country, that's why you fled it to live in the more prosperous and stable neighboring country right?

I'm not against Mexicans, or immigrants. I'm against overly fraudulent immigrants. This is America and the majority should be American, otherwise it wouldn't be America anymore, and unlike some people who seem to think it would somehow be a good thing, I don't want us to fly the way of the Roman Empire.

Show post

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

*During a thread on a possible collapse of the thirld world followed by huge immigration waves to Europe*

In that case, I'll go off killing them, and I believe I won't be the only one by a long shot. The moment they've breached the gates of Europe in large numbers - not counting the millions already here - there is no point in continuing life anymore, since it will end in violence, and there is at least some superficial hope in attacking them and trying to drive them back using brute force. If it would even delay the inevitable by a few years, it would be well worth killing people. Unlike many Europeans, I'm not willing to sacrifice myself and my family to help total strangers.

And this is why I don't want mass immigration to Europe. It's just a matter of bringing what is to come forward and making the inevitable crash a lot more painful for everyone involved, and I don't want that. We stand a real chance of survival, as Europeans, but we're throwing it away by inviting people over who, in this case, will side with those who would seek to raid this entire continent the moment our defenses fall. My prediction factors this in, and even before the mass movement of people from Africa and the dry parts of the Middle East to Europe starts there will be rioting and unrest due to the large and concentrated non-western (especially West African, North African and East African) population already present.

Show post

Imperial City-States #racist forum.nationstates.net


No I am by no means a racist i'm a realist. People deserve only what they work for. It is very clear by the state of their countries that few Afrikan's have the drive to work for a greater country ( with the exception of a few leaders ). If something acts like an animal do you treat it like one ?

Show post

Free Tristania #fundie forum.nationstates.net

*During a discussion about refugees from poor countries*

Is it our problem ? This is why I think that bleeding hearts should pay an additional 10 percent taxes. Hell they should even be mandated (on top of that) to pay for the accommodation, healthcare and anything else "refugees" may need and they should also personally share their house with these "refugees" who just happen to have "lost" their passports so their actual origins cannot be validated. We get a lot of that here - unfortunately.