www.web.archive.org

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[On the rescue of a young girl who fell into a river and was rescued via helicopter]

For all the bashing women give men, when you get right down to it, these extraordinary feats are simply beyond the capabilities of women. That image of capable, dutiful men placing themselves at considerable risk to lift a helpless girl out of a perilous place is a perfect metaphor for civilization itself. It puts feminism, women’s lib and notions of gender equality in their proper perspective.

The Singularity of Evil

Beyond the Moral Event Horizon, where Evil grows so strong that it defies comprehension.

canino1997 #sexist #psycho web.archive.org

(On the case of Brandon Clark, who murdered 17 year old internet celebrity Bianca Devins, photographed her nearly-decapitated corpse and uploaded the photo to 4chan)

I did send her mom my condolences together with a cum tribute to the bitch getting rekt. She died coz she was a thot and I hope that she takes this as a lesson on how hard she failed at parenting.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

I saw a news story the other day asking why men were getting most of the jobs in the economic recovery, which has been slow and meager in any event. Evidently, when men no longer have significantly higher unemployment than women, it is a national tragedy. Throughout the recession, and even today, men have had higher unemployment, but now they have reached near parity with women.

The culprit? According to Daily Kos, public sector layoffs. Due to decreases in public revenue, government had little choice but to cut these positions to avoid default. The lower public revenue was a direct result of men’s inability to pay tax, which goes to show that women, even when working, rely heavily on men. This brings up the question of why, when men were disproportionately suffering in the recession, feminists were crowing about their supremacy and men’s misfortune. There can only be a few answers to this:

Ingratitude

When men support women in any way, rather than appreciate it, feminists tend to feel this support is a privilege they deserve simply for being women. We often call this the “entitlement mentality.” This sense of entitlement, however, is rarely paired with any efforts to make it convenient for men to support women, or any reciprocity whatsoever.

Hatred and lack of empathy

Seeing men suffer seems to give a great number of feminists pleasure. They write articles about how pathetic men are, proclaim themselves more “evolved” and better suited to the modern world, and generally abuse the unfortunate — when they are men. However, when the tables turn ever so slightly, immediately one can hear wailing, tales of woe and proclamations of victimhood.

Short-sighted stupidity

You’d think that feminists would take a look at the reality of the situation, wherein the huge majority of the funds directed their way are a result of wealth creation, an overwhelmingly male endeavor. From Norm Brinker’s founding of the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation to the millions of men slaving away as private sector workers and businessmen to pay taxes, the money feminists feel they are entitled to comes from men far more often than not. However, rather than try to preserve and foster that income stream, they do everything in their power to destroy it by denying men opportunities, kicking them when they are down, refusing to give them any breaks, demanding they be handicapped in schools, the workplace and business, etc.

The reaction to the mancession and recovery proves feminists to be moral cretins with a third-rate understanding of consequences and the most basic economic principles. If anything should entirely discredit them, this ugly reaction to national hardship is it. Not only are they incapable of sound judgment and bereft of decency, they cannot even take the necessary steps to take care of themselves.

So why, again, do feminists have any authority in any institution at all? Their net effect is damaging, not only to men but to themselves and decent women as well. It’s time to put a stop to the pandering, and to deal with feminists as the dysfunctional, self-destructive borderline cases they are.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

Laura Park, an assistant professor of psychology at SUNY Buffalo, is on the verge of publishing the results from a series of research projects that explored the connection between romance and women’s interest (or lack thereof) in math and science. In one study, she showed young men and women romantic images, and then surveyed their interest in STEM subjects and degrees. After viewing the images, the men were unmoved, but the women expressed less interest in math and science.

In another study, she found that when women indulged in romantic fancies, they felt happier and more attractive, but shunned their math studies[.]

...

Naturally, this must be a very bad thing, because it is an obstacle to the ever-elusive goal of equality.

So who’s responsible? As usual, it is society, what with those pernicious romantic “scripts” that infect young women from a young age[.]

...

Park speculates that there are two potential solutions: one that simply reduces the possibilities for romance (sex-segregated education), or another that attempts to portray science as romantic. The first solution might actually work — if the will existed to enforce it. However, most young women are sufficiently interested in romance (with men) that they will avoid the largely lesbian women’s schools, and would probably avoid college altogether if it didn’t provide at least the hope of some romantic interludes.

As for the second idea, any attempts to portray science and female scientists as attractive would simply degenerate into a war between various feminist factions over what exactly constitutes “attractive.”

Of course, the most humane and reasonable course of action would be to simply allow young men and women to follow their nature, and stop trying to shove them into roles they do not want. But our official ideology of absolute qualitative equality has gone so far that our social engineers really don’t care what people want any longer — all that matters is that we are indistinguishable on statistical charts.

Larry Klayman #fundie web.archive.org

We can't wait 6 months to oust Obama from office

The United States, Europe and the rest of the world is in violent upheaval. At home, fraudulently elected illegitimate President Barack Hussein Obama, along with with his black-Muslim friends like so-called Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Black Lives Matter allies, have finally succeeded in igniting a race war.

To add insult to very serious injury, President Obama refuses to use his powers as the commander in chief to destroy ISIS and other Muslim terrorists in a decisive way. The reason is obvious, and it’s time for people to just start saying it: The “Muslim King” does not want to go hard against his Islamic brothers and frankly, in my view, sympathizes with their quest to have allah reign supreme to further a worldwide caliphate. To add insult to injury, Obama has, through unconstitutional executive orders, opened the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants who in many states like California can even obtain driver’s licenses, allowing them to register to vote.

Thus, the Muslim King has subverted the electoral process in favor of his creed as the overwhelming majority of illegals will vote Democrat, that is, for the Wicked Witch of the Left, Hillary Clinton, in November’s presidential election. And, they will also vote for leftist Democrats and others for Congress. This will further the will of the Muslim King after his term ends – assuming he does not declare a state of emergency over the crises he has created and attempt to remain in power.

The last seven and one half years have also seen a never-ending spate of scandals in and around the Obama administration, ranging from Fast and Furious-gate, to IRS-gate, to Benghazi-gate, and now the cover-up of the crimes committed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her private email server. In this regard, it has been disclosed that Obama himself received highly classified emails from the Wicked Witch of the Left on her unprotected private email server, which was then easily hacked by the nation’s enemies, Russia and China in particular. Obama is thus complicit in this breach of American national security, notwithstanding the other traitorous acts he has committed – including but not limited to the sham nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which existentially endangers with another Holocaust not just Israel but the United States and the rest of the non-Muslim Western world.

Clearly, if there ever were a case for impeachment and conviction of a president, the Muslim King has exceeded “all expectations.” By Obama’s criminally minded standards, President Richard Nixon’s Watergate caper was, in the commander in chief’s own ironic words, simply a junior varsity effort at corruption.

The Hussein Obama is simply the most compromised, corrupt and evil president in American history. While there have been other presidents who committed crimes – and in one of my cases in the 1990s Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Slick Willy Clinton had also done so in illegally releasing the Privacy Act protected White House file of a woman he sexually harassed in the Oval Office, one Kathleen Willey, my former client – neither he nor any other president has actually been removed from the presidency through constitutional impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and then conviction before the U.S. Senate, as is required for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thus, while President Nixon, once caught in his caper, had the “patriotism” to eventually resign, he, like former President Andrew Johnson, who was also simply impeached but not convicted, no American leader has ever been constitutionally forced from office.

The Founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution were inspired by God, but they were not God. The likes of the Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were not infallible, however great they were. Unfortunately, they did not devise a viable constitutional method to remove from office a corrupt, criminal, traitorous and destructive president like the Muslim King.

So, today what can we do about President Barack Hussein Obama, a man who at every turn favors only his fellow blacks and Muslims over the rest of us, particularly whites, Christians and Jews? And, it is simply not “favoritism” that I am talking about; it’s dangerous persecution to the point that we all are at fatal risk given the racial war and the Islamic terrorism Obama has furthered with his leftist, black-Muslim comrades. Indeed, the Muslim King, in my view, is far worse and more dangerous that another king, King George III, who provoked the Declaration of Independence and the first American Revolution in and around 1776.

Couple this with the fact that much like the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was “rigged” by the Washington establishment of both political parties – FBI Director James Comey is a Republican – and the subversion of our ability to have fair presidential and congressional elections given that millions of illegal aliens are capable of fraudulently voting, what would our Founding Fathers do today differently than in 1776?

So, I pose this question: How can the Muslim King be legally removed from office before he does even more irreparable damage in the next six months of his presidency? What would our Founding Fathers have done under these dire circumstances? I do not think that We the People can just sit back and hope for the best, particularly in light of the heinous terrorist attacks of the last weeks, the latest in Nice, France, and the race war Obama and his friends have caused to explode in Dallas and around the nation. Our lives and the lives of our loved ones are in mortal danger!

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

Things are definitely changing. Young men are not the blinded fools they were just a couple decades ago. The triumph of feminism has blown away the old hypocrisies and, ironically, left women more on their own than ever. It’s encouraging to see young men’s growing awareness, but it would be even better if young women finally saw what a disaster feminism is turning out to be for them, personally.

I think they will. We may yet see young women cursing the feminists who yanked them out of their homes and away from their children and put them to work in the salt mines of corporate and government bureaucracy.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. #conspiracy web.archive.org

Deadly Immunity

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.

"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in 25 years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children." More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis -- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the 20-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that 6-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored Hilleman's warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received 11 vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of 22 immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?"

But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months were being injected with a total of 187 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 40 percent greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. Under the expanded schedule of vaccinations, multiple shots were often administered on a single day: At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, children routinely received three innoculations that delivered 99 times the approved limit of mercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, "I think if we really have an influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next 20 years, because we always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials."

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he "would make money" if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for me," he insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works."

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's health, proud of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists."

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. "We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge."

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink data-sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used to study vaccine safety, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be-published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa Legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism," state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation, told the magazine Byronchild earlier this year. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen." It's hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

W. F. Price #fundie web.archive.org

The biggest problem with the men’s rights movement is its failure to see the big picture. For some reason, people think they can separate feminism and gender issues from a larger philosophical problem. This is wishful thinking. It can’t be done.

There’s a reason the feminists latched onto Marxist philosophy like a child to his mother’s teat. It provided them with a philosophical framework – a faith, really – that allowed them to deny the realities of human nature by assigning inequalities to political struggles. There are some truths in Marxism. Political and economic inequalities are real, and often stand in stark contrast to natural inequalities, hence the use of the concept of natural law to strike down privileges of birth and other “accidental” advantages enjoyed by some over others.

Today, however, people fail to see the original intent of these movements. In fact, they have an often inverted notion of them. For example, the idea that a woman should be privileged over a man in hiring preference is more akin to the old notion of nobility by birth than it is to the Founding Fathers’ concept of equality.

In fact, the notion that men and women are equal would have been very strange to even the most radical of Enlightenment thinkers. Yet by mysterious twists of fate (and possibly liberal English resistance to French Republicanism), the feminists have coopted the ideology.

So what we are left with today is a twisted interpretation of what was a flawed philosophy to begin with. Now that Enlightenment and Marxist notions of inequality as a more or less purely political, cultural construct, have been discredited, we are left with an increasingly dysfunctional guiding faith in a fallen god.

Is the key to cling to the old idols, hanging on with eyes tightly shut against the mounting body of evidence that we were wrong, or to accept that we made some mistakes along the way and move on? To me, the latter seems far more reasonable.

But in order to move on, we have to reject all that follows from the errors — not just those things that we personally dislike. So if it turns out that, say, men and women are not by nature equal, then we can’t say we want equality on our terms. Instead, we have to make an effort to learn the truth, and then we can go about accommodating it.

So the real problem is not merely feminism, but the original error, which includes a great deal more than that.

Therefore, if you oppose feminism and its associated evils, the most effective way to fight it is to debunk the false philosophy that supports it. And this means we cannot indulge men who adhere to the same principles, whether they are on “our side” or not.

What it really comes down to is truth vs. error, but because “equality” is such a powerful concept today, it must be attacked head on and by name before people can begin to perceive the error. Hence my recent articles on the subject.

BuckF1tches #sexist web.archive.org

Women really know how to bring out the best/worst in all of us.

I'd blame this on women before I blamed it on video games.

(Comment on an article about the arrest of Andrew Rosenblum of Gamelife, by the way. Remember it?)

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

A grandmother from Kent, Washington (a Seattle suburb) has been arrested for forcing children in her care to drink urine and engage in sexual acts with their siblings. Rose Marie Johnson, according to several children and witnesses, has been putting little kids through hell for years. She first came to the attention of social services when a boy accused her of improprieties in 2008, but investigators did not take him seriously.

When we hear about witch burnings in the bad old days, they are usually presented in the context of innocent women irrationally accused by superstitious Christians. If the behavior of women today is any indication, they are capable of doing awful things to people, including children, and were probably all the more likely to get away with it when there was less communication and people had a greater ability to avoid state intrusion.

So when one hears about persecution of innocent women in pre-modern Europe, it should be kept in mind that although some certainly didn’t deserve their fate and were set up for one reason or the other (e.g. Jeanne d’Arc), a lot of them probably had it coming. In fact, today they get away with this stuff with little more than a slap on the wrist, because their victims are just children, after all, and women are higher value human beings in our feminist regime.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

Here in the US and other Anglo cultures there’s a strange kind of cultural assumption that it’s a good thing for fathers to treat their sons like shit, e.g. the “toxic fathers” zed has written about. I’ve lived in both France and China, and the more typical scenario there is for the father to dote on his boy. In fact, the term “fils a papa” (daddy’s boy) is more common in France than “mama’s boy.”

Hence you see the phenomenon of Anglo men allowing women to treat them like garbage, while French or Chinese men have a sense of privilege. Who the father favors makes an immense difference, and Anglo men have been favoring daughters for some time now. Personally, I think there are elements of incest involved, and our civilization is essentially cursing itself through this grievous crime. As we did with slavery, we will pay for it, eventually. Our men already are paying, actually, but women will get the bill, too, in time.

Rabbi David Eidensohn #fundie web.archive.org

The female contains the most sensitive spiritual energy, and wherever she is, flies are attracted along with good forces. The Jewish concept of modesty is necessary to avoid deleterious relationships that come from unwise revelation of the self in the cosmic or social fabric. A woman dancing free in public school and then college is so exposed that her femininity may be damaged. The Jewish home is just the opposite of the secular gender experience. Nobody goes near my daughters until I have thoroughly checked them out. When they see a boy, it is for real. The idea of unleashing transcendence with a dozen people is simply unwise. I have friends whose daughters went here and there, and cannot marry. The parents tear their hair, the girl attends weddings and bravely smiles, and the clock ticks louder and louder.

Yes, there are gender roles. Those who practice Jewish gender roles are saved from the hate that is manifested in secular society between men and women, and it is hate. Studies show that colleges are so full of feminism or hate for men, that men are no longer treated properly on campus, and are gradually refusing to attend college. Of course, they are refusing increasingly to marry. The only solution is to describe gender roles, and to promote modesty, rather than what goes on today, which leads only to anger.

Tom Heneghan, International Intelligence Expert #conspiracy web.archive.org

NAZI-Communist Bitch George Soros Has Now Crossed the Line
by Tom Heneghan, International Intelligence Expert

UNITED States of America – It can now be reported that North Korea has been the headquarters for the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve and the Central Bank of Japan (BoJ) ponzi scheme with NAZI-Communist Jew George Soros’ hedge fund as the major enabler.
Hungarian NAZI Jew Soros has conspired with the BoJ, U.S. Citibank and the Saudi Royal Family to attack the Russian ruble as to create cross-collateralized, undermargined foreign currency derivatives to support U.S. and Japanese equity crisis.
Soros has no cash now given his losses in the gold market but uses crooked offshore entities that allow him to use liabilities aka bank I.O.U.s as assets.
Soros directly conspired with the Obama Administration and the Saudi Royal Family aka closet Zionists to attack the price of oil and overnight futures markets as to further depreciate the Russian ruble on behalf of the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve and the Central Bank of Japan’s ponzi scheme.
The criminal Obama Administration and the current compromised and blackmailed Japanese government has allowed Soros, on behalf of Ukrainian NAZIS, to use the pension funds of both American and Japanese citizens as collateral in this latest financial looting operation.
At this hour, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) has had enough!
P.S. It is important to remember that NAZI-Communist Jew Soros, along with the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate, helped financed, along with the Japanese mafia Yakuza, the North Korean nuclear facilities that were then used as a cover to disguise the financial criminality that took place on behalf of the Japanese mafia, the Central Bank of Japan and the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate.
n closing, as we approach WWIII, it is important to note that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has and always will be a devout Orthodox Christian who opposes abortion and homosexuality and tyranny.
Putin knows very well that current alleged fraudulent pResident (the False One) Barack Hussein Obama is a note homosexual and bisexual who received oral sex while doing cocaine in a limousine from Larry Sinclair of Chicago, Illinois.
Vladimir Putin also know through his Intelligence sources, including French Intelligence, that former U.S. illegal White House occupant George W. BushFRAUD was also a rabid homosexual and bisexual who continues sex on a regular basis with his former college roommate and ‘Skull and Bones’ member Victor Ashe and had at least 38 visits in the White House from body builder and his homosexual lover Jeff Gannon.
And last but not least, is former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton (elected twice without opposition and conspired in the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. who would have beaten her hands down in 2000 Senatorial race) remains a Satanic, 5th degree lesbian witch, who is actually related to 5th degree NAZI bitch Barbara Bush.

Robert Stacy McCain #homophobia #dunning-kruger #fundie web.archive.org

Concurring in the 2002 case of Ex Parte H.H., a custody dispute involving a lesbian mother, Moore demonstrated that homosexuality had no protected status in the Anglo-American common-law tradition, that indeed such behavior had been proscribed for centuries as "a crime against nature," and that Alabama courts had consistently condemned homosexual acts as "illegal under the laws of this state and immoral in the eyes of most of its citizens."

Stephenson Billings #fundie web.archive.org

So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist’s next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus’s very Heavenly Agents of Love.

Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

Will Atheistic Science Annihilate Love and Prayer?

As secret atheist scientists in government pursue their goals of undermining Jesus in America, it only stands to reason that they would take their battle to the skies. The aerial dogfight is likely a vicious one. Who knows what advances they have made since the days of DDT and Agent Orange. Yet fight on they do, every single day! Our heavens are coated in a thick aerosol haze of spiritual hate and this nation’s faith is sinking.

In our lifetime, the United States has been bombarded by supposedly “natural” disasters and terrorist attacks. Religion is at an all time low, while sodomy and perversion are at epic heights. Clearly the overlap of these symptoms with the widespread usage of chemtrails is more than just a coincidence. Clearly the astonishing rise of militant atheism in America must factor in. So what is the ultimate answer to the mystery of the chemtrails? Have Heaven’s angels forsaken us for such an offensive maneuver? Or are they actually losing, dying off in plumes of jetliner butchery? Surely America’s atheists in the great halls of government are asking these very same questions.

whitefist #racist web.archive.org

(This was originally a thread for "recovering marijuana addicts" that at some point turned into a racist flame war. "whitefist" is replying to "Secret Asian Man" and "Chief Bearheart")


to the jap and the injun:

secret asian notaman,listen to me you stupid jap,Columbus was here first,not the chinese,if he wasn't then we would'nt have a Christopher Columbus Day, we would have Some Chink Day. Here's a little FYI, I'm not from the south,I live in Maine,but even if I was I would still be smarter than your down syndrome lookin' ass. Maybe in this little fantasy world you live in, gaysians also invented the automobile,air travel,in door lighting,lawn mowers,refrigerators,washer and dryer,ammunition,the atom bomb,etc,and have big dicks. But this is reality my slanty-eyed friend, and in reality the white man invented all those thing and practically everthing else.What did you invent,fireworks and really bad sports,like sumo wrestling.Yeah,nothing like a couple of morbidly obese japs trying to hump eachother. Chief Bearfart, don't worry about immigration, we'll just have to take our land,oops,I mean "your" land, back from those spicks. We took it with force once, we'll do it again, this time with automatic weapons. This will always be the white man's land and don't you forget it. By the way,you say we are feebled bodied people,I'll bet all the peyote in your wigwam that I could whoop your buffalo hide covered ass with one hand tied behind my back. WHITE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paden Reilly #fundie web.archive.org

...•A third group is Evolutionists, day after day children go to school and learn that the Bible is a lie. Because of this philosophy many young ones repel against there parents and other elders, paint graffiti, do drugs, and commit suicide.

This is the origin myth of Atheism, most likely one of the most dangerous religions around. Atheism is more violent than Islam, more Godless than Satanism, and more obscure than Buddhism. These psycho meglomaniacs are responsible for the 46,000,000+ abortions in America.

There is not one drop of evidence to support such a fairy tail and the evidence that were created by an all powerful being (namely God) is overwhelming!

Kill Femnists #fundie web.archive.org

The feminists who act rude to you at the University of Toronto should be shot to death and the remaining survivors tied to a tree with their throats slit with a dull knife.

You have nothing to lose. Go into the nearest Sociology or Womens Studies classroom next week, and fire bullets into the Professor's head and spray bullets all over the room until all the feminists are dead.

...

If a female student or professor acts lewd in the classroom and disrespects you at the University of Toronto. You can rent a machine gun at Jarvis.

Walk into the classroom and fire a bullet in the feminist professor's head and proceed to spray bullets all over the classroom until all the slutty women are killed.

If you need any guns to kill any feminists at the University of Toronto next week, there is a gang at Jarvis who is renting guns for $40 a day.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[Remember when MRA's actually tried to maintain the pretense that they don't want to be paterfamilias? FSTDT remembers]

On our recent post concerning abortion, one of the commenters brought up one of the most common feminist arguments, which goes something like this:

Men oppose abortion, birth control, etc., because they really want control over women.

The same idea is applied to domestic violence, divorce, child custody, and just about everything else that might be disputed between a man and woman. Every time there is something that men and women don’t see eye to eye on, it’s an issue of the patriarchy wanting control.

This idea is very clearly reflected in domestic violence theory, perhaps best exemplified by the “power and control wheel” dreamed up in the fevered imagination of the creators of the Duluth Model domestic abuse program. Leaving aside the fact that many of the supposed controlling behaviors detailed on the wheel are probably more commonly practiced by wives than husbands, such as playing “mind games” and using the children to get what one wants, there is a catch in that denying being abusive makes one an abuser. So, according to the Duluth Model, if your wife calls you an abuser, you can deny it all you want, but that just confirms your status as an abuser, which subjects you to state control.

The New York Model for Batter Programs takes control a step farther, and imposes indoctrination sessions on those referred to the program. Additionally, it is a punitive rather than rehabilitative program, but cloaks this to some degree through a stated mission to change society. It is not only men that are subject to control through this particular program (and not all men ordered to attend are convicts, nor are all who have been convicted guilty), but all of society, which is clearly seen by directors as diseased and in need of change. To accomplish its goal, the NYMBP enlists the assistance of courts, the police, judges, social workers and others involved in coercive occupations. Clearly, this goes beyond the control that even the most criminally deranged husband could hope to impose on a wife.

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty clear that feminists are obsessed with the idea of control, and they’ve made great strides in controlling men. Simply living under the same roof with a woman puts a man at the mercy of an army of agents of the state, and with a simple phone call a woman can put him under scrutiny that could last for years and have consequences for his entire life. This goes far beyond anything men have ever practiced under so-called patriarchal society, which for all its faults never was comfortable with interfering in domestic matters. For example, in older American or European society, could a husband ever have called the police to force his wife into an indoctrination center? He would have met with laughter or disbelief. In fact, even if a wife had beaten or cuckolded her husband, this would have been considered outside the bounds of the state’s role. Only murder, wounding or possibly grand theft would have prompted any intervention on the part of the husband. In fact, as today, wives frequently absconded with the children, and men were left to their own devices to find them. Patriarchal “control” over women was mild indeed.

Contrast that to today’s reality, where if a man absconds without his children there are numerous state and federal agencies dedicated to tracking him down and forcing him to pay her. Lord help the man if he tries to take his children — he’ll be hunted down like a rabid dog.

The reluctance to actually control women carries over into even the most fervent supporters of what feminists would call the patriarchy. Anti-abortion activists kill an abortionist every few years, but has there ever been a case of one killing a woman who aborted her own child? Perhaps it is this aversion to controlling women that gives feminists such a sense of entitlement and contempt for men. They know in their heart of hearts that these so-called patriarchal men are actually simply their agents in controlling other men, and use them accordingly, hence the dark, hidden alliance between feminists and social conservatives that has emerged to clamp down on men from time to time.

The control impulse feminists ascribe to men is, like so many of their other issues, an example of projection. There is nothing feminists want more than to control every single aspect of their relationships and society. This is not a very masculine tendency, as men prefer a more dynamic rather than static environment. Men’s natural genius is is suppressed by heavy-handed control, which leads to stagnation, apathy and inaction. The economic failure of Communist societies demonstrates what happens to men under oppressive, controlling regimes: they tend to become depressed and sluggish, and engage in dissipation rather than constructive pursuits.

The patriarchal control impulse is a pure fabrication, and more accurately describes feminist psychology than masculine behavior. Men are generally less obsessed by control than women, and they don’t even come close to feminists, who would reverse Pinocchio and turn us all into puppets if they had their way.

...

[Bonus quote from the comments, hoo boy did this age poorly when he dropped the mask a few years down the line]

Yeah, it’s crazy how they imagine this control when it doesn’t exist.

I’m not controlling of women at all. The last thing I want to do is spend all my time riding herd on women. I simply don’t want the job. This has a lot to do with why my marriage failed — I just got tired of having to deal with things for my wife, who expected me to “take charge” in each and every situation, which is a hell of a lot of work for a husband. Me, I’d rather women handled things themselves most of the time, but I guess that’s expecting too much.

Pretty Thin #fundie web.archive.org

(Pro-Ana means pro-anorexia)

Stay Beautiful

Let's face it... Being Ana takes it's toll on our bodies, inside and out. So here are some helpful tips on keeping up lookin' good on the outside.

At a certain weight, which is different for everyone, you will lose your period. This is a good thing because it means that you’re losing weight. Still, it would be wise if you’d take calcium supplements, if you don’t already. Don’t let your mother find out about your lost period because she will most likely take you to the doctor. Never under any circumstances tell a doctor that you’ve lost your period. They will have you in an eating disorder clinic faster than you can say "What the hell?". Before you go to the doctor’s, make sure that you have a date to tell them in case they ask about your last period, and make sure the date is believable.
As you lose weight, your skin will become dry and sallow and it will heal slowly. Make sure that you use LOTS of lotion where it is needed and take a multivitamin. If you lose enough weight, your body will develop lanugo, which is a very fine downy hair that covers your body. It can easily be removed with a mild depilatory followed by hydrocortisone cream.
Your hair and nails will suffer do to lack of suffiecient protein. Use volumizing shampoo and lots of conditioner to keep hair full and shiny. If you lose enough, eventually your hair will fall out. Sad, but true. Try to keep from pulling at the roots of your hair. Always put hair in loose ponytails instead of tight ones. Also, keep your nails polished. Low circulation to your fingertips make your nails turn blue and that’s a thing doctors look for.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

The very rapid transformation of schools from environments dominated by men and boys to majority-female institutions has left many scratching their heads. Why are boys, despite higher test scores and better performance at the highest levels of the sciences and arts, more likely to fail, drop out or avoid school altogether? In feminist quarters there is a sense of triumph about the situation, but many mothers and concerned women cannot figure out what might be the problem. Men, unfortunately, seem largely to have given up trying or stopped caring about this serious problem — serious because male rejection of the institutions that provide a path to upward mobility will undoubtedly have destabilizing effects in the future.

Of course, I am among those who agree that higher education is oversold, and not really necessary for many of the people who attend. Perhaps up to half of the young men and women in college would do just as well – if not better – by choosing a trade. There is no reason a two-year degree following high school cannot provide the training necessary to enter the job market, and if high school itself did a better job of teaching the classics we would have graduates with a perfectly acceptable liberal arts education, with no need to take university classes to round them out.

However, what is really killing boys in school is not that it is forced on them so much as it is the culture surrounding school — higher education in particular. As we all know, school is largely about socializing children and youths so that they get along tolerably well. In a mixed gender environment, socializing is naturally very different from what it is in a gender segregated environment, and controlling one’s conduct becomes more of a priority. When boys and girls are in close proximity, boys must adjust their behavior in a number of ways. First, they must learn to be physically gentle, which is more difficult for young children than it may seem to us. Next, they must learn to be gentle in words and speech, and finally they must learn to repress their sexuality. To maintain harmony in mixed gender environments, all three are necessary, and they take a higher priority than actual hard learning.

So it appears that instead of the “three Rs,” we now have docility, flattery and restraint, none of which plays to male strengths. A number of boys, whether they are intelligent or not, will have a very difficult time following the new code of educational institutions, because it is not in their nature to repress their bodies or minds. Girls, on the other hand, are much better at acting nice and behaving “properly.” Unfortunately, this carries over into higher education, and has begun to pervade society as a whole.

In higher education, the stifling gag of political correctness evolved directly out of this enforced socialization that begins in grade school. The male student is exected to sit there and listen obediently while men in general are trashed and women portrayed as victims of nasty boys at every turn in life. If the male student speaks out or objects – even if on logically reasonable grounds – he is targeted as an example of what is wrong with men, and will be punished for doing so through lower grades. There is no defense for the male student against such actions. A boy whose inquisitive, honest male nature cannot be repressed may find school to be a very hostile place. He had best just learn to keep his mouth shut and soldier on without grumbling about the situation (yes, even grumbling will draw the jaundiced eye of a feminist professor).

Now, what we find in higher education is an environment dominated by a feminine sense of propriety to which men must learn to suborn their nature or, failing that, leave. Those young men who do well are in the minority, and only represent one side of a spectrum of male behavior, just as women who do well in math and science only represent one side of a spectrum of female accomplishment. The majority of young men find the environment of higher education to be unbearable, and so they avoid it.

What this all really comes down to is that men are by their nature radically honest — we don’t understand why we can’t tell a woman that she ought to lose a few pounds or ask her her age, we just know through social conditioning that we “can’t do that.” Unfortunately, searching for the truth in higher education has taken the back seat to the concerns of sensitivity and ego-boosting. Men are forced to flatter and stroke all around them or, if they can’t, to shut up. For many young men, this is nearly impossible, and for most it is too much to ask. Those who will do best are men with a natural ability to prevaricate and flatter, while those who may “get by” are those who are naturally quiet, although this problem must take quite a toll on the quiet boys, who must endure the entire charade in mute frustration.

The solution is a return to gender-segregated places in schools where boys can be their true selves. Remove the enforced repression and replace it with discipline, and boys will thrive. It cannot be emphasized enough that discipline is fundamentally different from repression. Discipline is what gets one through the tough job, and is readily understood when explained to boys of a certain level of intellectual maturity. Repression only gives boys and men a confused sense of hopelessness and alienates them. Learning can and should allow the full spectrum of male expression, but we may simply have to accept that this cannot be achieved in mixed-sex environments.

The above problem extends far beyond the realm of education, but to keep this post from getting too long I’ll save that discussion for another time.

W. F. Price #fundie web.archive.org

[As a change of pace, let's remember the simple days of conservatives taking potshots at Obama for doing fairly standard presidential things]

Obama was in Seattle yesterday, and in the afternoon, while sitting at my desk, there were a couple violent thuds that sounded and felt as though someone hit my house’s foundation with a sledgehammer. Coincidentally, my cat was trying to get in the house by jumping at the door and making noise right when the shock wave struck, and my first thought was “what the hell’s wrong with that cat?” Of course, it didn’t take long for me to realize that my cat doesn’t have the mass to shake the house like that, so I thought it might be the neighbor’s workers banging a pipe or something. But no, there were no workers outside.

At this point I was a bit worried, and thought someone might have set off a bomb in the vicinity. I checked the TV and radio, and no alerts, so it wasn’t that, and eventually I just accepted that it must be some mystery, or possibly a large meteor.

Well, it’s no longer a mystery. Evidently, some tour plane was tooling around in our precious president’s airspace, and they scrambled a couple of supersonic jets to Boeing Field, which is less than two miles from my place as the crow flies. They must have really been cooking, because the sonic booms were quite violent.

I wasn’t the only one bothered by the blasts:

Residents in Seattle, Washington, were shaken Tuesday afternoon by what sounded like explosions after two F-15s were dispatched in response to a report of a small plane that entered restricted airspace where President Barack Obama was campaigning for Sen. Patty Murray.

The rumblings — caused by sonic booms from the jets — rattled buildings, windows and nerves in the Puget Sound region, according to CNN affiliate KIRO. Viewers of the affiliate from as far away as Tacoma — about 40 miles south of Seattle — reported hearing the booms.

Dozens of residents called the city’s 911 system, causing it to shut down in some areas for about an hour due to the flood of calls, Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO.

When I lived in Beijing, Clinton visited at one point, and the security was both overwhelming and offensive. Chinese military squads were stationed along the route home, because I lived close to the Airport Expressway. I had the rather unpleasant experience of having to travel around PLA grenadier squads on the way back to my humble abode.

Our leaders now make visits as though we are in a state of war, and I resent that. If they are so beloved, why do they need to make such a show of overwhelming force wherever they go? Nothing says “Imperial” like a Presidential entourage that includes a full military component and makes its subjects feel as though they are at war when the “great leader” deigns to pay us a visit.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I’d feel better if our President were traveling from town to town by Cessna than the current situation, where we are subjected to war exercises of the Imperial Fleet. Frankly, I could give a damn about politicians, and if Obama wants to blast my town with his entourage, I’d like to humbly request that he doesn’t visit again.

Lauren #fundie web.archive.org

My name is Lauren DeCarlo. I am 26 years old. I just wanted to thank for everything you have done. Thank you so much for helping me actually learn how read the Bible. I use to have religion, which did nothing for me, and I literally believed you had to be mostly a good person and have faith in order to get to heaven, and it lead me feeling empty and alone. Then when I came to your site, I realized I was utterly wrong. I found your site when I was in High School and oddly had/have a neck problem just like yourself and my experience with the pain in my neck truly humbled me along with your amazing site, showing how short life is and we all can get sick. Found a certain truth that just because I was young, it doesn't matter, when your time is up, it's up. It got me questioning life after death. I put in a Bible quote and your site came up. I believed the the first time I read your article on: How To Be Born Again and by the grace of God I believed and He lead me to your website. I use to be self-righteous and thought I was mostly good when I of course wasn't. Only Jesus is good, and only His righteousness can get you into Heaven by His precious innocent blood. Thank you for being Gods messenger and your honesty. I love your website, and love you very much for creating it; you are truly blessed. You are a truth teller in a world so false.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart! An email is not enough but I'm glad you made a way for believers to email you. Thank you times infinity.

Love,
Lauren

Robert Oscar Lopez #homophobia web.archive.org

As it turns out, gay boys don't usually kill themselves simply because people reject them for being gay. The vast majority of people really don't care what anybody does in their private sex life, which is why Dayna Morales, the tragic lesbian waitress in New Jersey, had to fabricate the tale of homophobic patrons stiffing her on a tip.

Homophobia is far less powerful than the reigning callousness and indifference of society to what's going on with other people, really. So gay boys are far more likely to kill themselves, not because people care about their gayness and hate them for it, but rather, because most people don't care about their gayness at all, other than horny gay men who are much older than they and fuck them up the ass when they aren't ready to deal with the emotional mine field of homosexuality.

All these naive programs placed boys in contact with adult gay men based on the assumption that the gay adults wouldn't end up using such arrangements to corner boys and sodomize them. That assumption was criminally negligent.

Tim Sanders #fundie web.archive.org

The 88 Skins wish to officially endorse Multinomah County's (Portland Oregon) issuing of Homo-faggot-queer-asspacker-buttstud-Marriage licenses.

It's wonderful that the county has taken such a strong stand for diversity. And if various mentally unstable and homicidally inclined individuals become incited by the Fag freak show to take a stand, we certainly won't be depressed. Considering all the death and bomb threats received, it is possible that some hardcore Christians might perform his own .308 voter recall campaign.

We can only pray for the best.

If our prayers are answered and bodies do hit the ground, gay marriages will have been proven a great idea!

As terrible Tommie sex: worse is better.

In the unhappy case that a random sniper psycho doesn't snap and make County Commie's pay, gay marriages can still benefit the white cause.

Multinomah county is building a database of the names and addresses of the most perverted freaks in Portland Oregon. This will make it easy to round them all up, when the time is just right and have some fun.

First we will tattoo pink triangles on the faggots then pack 'em tight into cattle cars...they always liked to get packed tight...We next transport the happy couples to a fabulous vacation resort to celebrate their wedded bliss. Uncle Adolph's gay pride center and Nazi Concentration Camp.

Rabbi David Eidensohn #fundie web.archive.org

Men and women must dress separately and live separately, to keep from prostitution. The bible would not approve of women in the army, and the taxpayers who pay for the expenses of training only to see a woman relieved of duty before battle because she is pregnant don't approve, either. The entire area of men and women working together all day in offices is a situation that can only lead to trouble, and it does. The feminist surge to be like men, dress like them and go where they go has destroyed family. The recent mayoral inauguration in New York City featured a past mayor with his paramour and the new mayor with his daughter. There were no wives. Most Americans, 51%, are not married, and of first marriages, half end in divorce. Men are marrying later than ever, and women who work and marry later in life have difficulty having children, because fertility problems begin with age 27 and intensify very much in the late thirties. Thus, the mixture of men and women destroys society and women. When New York City first integrated its police force, in every case where a lovely young thing cruised with a man, the man divorced his wife and maintained a relationship with his partner. This report is hard to believe, but it isn't unlikely. The only way to protect family is to keep men away from women. It is precisely the complete abandon of biblical barriers between men and women that has turned male/female sexuality into a trial and difficulty for so many couples, and has turned many people to despair, homosexuality and even autoeroticism, masturbation for men and vibrators for women. The despair of normal gender relationships drives people to pornography and pedophilia, as well as other perversion.

Today, with the chaos of sexuality, there are men who want to be woman. They dress as women and insist on using the lady's restroom. Some have surgery whereby they remove the male organ and cut a hole for the female cavity. Such people sin when they wear the clothes of women, and certainly if they do so to attract men.

As sad and as evil these deeds are, people don't look for them. Society by breaking the family is responsible. A society where people in the fifties know they may be fired when their global company downsizes is a society of fear and instability. Family cannot function in fear. A society that pressures a woman to go to college, establish herself professionally, and only then think about her womanly needs, is a society where many women do not marry, and those who do often marry too late for children. Every woman, from the time she is old enough to think about life, realizes that she is running the gamut. Her fears and anger are multiplied by the social freedom given to men to take a woman, use her, and spit her out. This leads to gender hate, and raising children who are not men and not women.

A society that refuses to accept that a woman is different than a man, and a man is different than a woman, that a boy is different than a girl, and a girl is different than a boy produces men and women who are confused and perverse. Our American society is the first society in history to truly violate the bonds of gender, and we are the first generation in history to have so many pupils in public school from fine Caucasian homes coming to school and mass murdering, that our schools are patrolled as if they were airplanes.

Robert Oscar Lopez #homophobia web.archive.org

Wow. Didn't I tell you that promoting "awareness" of homosexuality to teenage boys would lead to loads and loads of statutory rape? Well, this case detailed in the Delaware News Journal shows that the most recent pederasty scandal strikes very, very close to the presidency -- it involves a prosecutor working in the Attorney General's office headed by Joe Biden's son Beau Biden.

The media app in question, it has been established was Grindr. I've written a number of times about why these social media apps are deadly for gay men and they should avoid them at all costs. The push to introduce teenage boys to homosexuality through diversity educational programs and creation of "Gay Straight Alliance" clubs means that millions of bi-curious adolescents are going to be wandering early into the sexual marketplace, often posing as young adults when they are really minors.

This gay attorney should have known better, though.

Berit Kjos, David L. Brown, and Brett Peterson #fundie web.archive.org

The last line, the Pokemon mantra, fuels the craving for more occult cards, games, toys, gadgets, and comic books. There's no end to the supply, for where the Pokemon world ends, there beckons an ever-growing empire of new, more thrilling, occult, and violent products. Each can transport the child into a fantasy world that eventually seems far more normal and exciting than the real world. Here, evil looks good and good is dismissed as boring. Family, relationships, and responsibilities diminish in the wake of the social and media pressures to master the powers unleashed by the massive global entertainment industry.

No wonder children caught up in the Pokemon craze beg for more games and gadgets. The Japanese makers count on it. Since the means often justify the economic ends in the entertainment industry, the Pokemon website is full of tips, explanations, and ads that encourage the urge to splurge - and to express the darker side of human nature. Ponder their influence: [proceeds to list, as a scare tactic fake advice supposedly listed by the Pokemon website]...

Strange as it may sound to American ears, demonic possession is no longer confined to distant lands. Today, government schools from coast to coast are teaching students the skills once reserved for the tribal witchdoctor or shaman in distant lands. Children everywhere are learning the pagan formulas for invoking "angelic" or demonic spirits through multicultural education, popular books, movies, and television. It's not surprising that deadly explosions of untamed violence suddenly erupt from "normal" teens across our land.

Occult role-playing games teach the same dangerous lessons. They also add a sense of personal power and authority through personal identification with godlike superheroes. Though the demonic realm hasn't changed, today's technology, media, and multicultural climate makes it easier to access, and harder than ever to resist its appeal.

-----------------------------------------------

Could Pok_mon influence the children who play it? I pray that it does not happen, but I wonder how long it will be before a grade school child, tries to do what is written on the Weepingbell - Razor Leaf Pok_mon card. It says, "It spits out poisonpowder to immobilize the enemy, and then finishes the enemy with a spray of acid." Does this line up with what the Bible has to say about how to handle our enemies in Romans 12:14-22? I Think not! It is clear that Pok_mon leads the player's imagination down the wrong path. The Bible says that we are to abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good (Romans 12:9). Poisoning, paralyzing, etc. your enemies is clearly evil and no one should occupy their minds with such thoughts, game or no game. Our every thought is to be screened to be sure Christ approves of it (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). If it does not line up, it is to be rejected.

-----------------------------------------------

In Japan, Shinto is one of the oldest belief systems and was developed out of worshiping the earth, such as sun, water, rocks, trees and even sounds (jiggly puff, a cute Pokemon sings a song and the sounds puts all who hear her into a trance – this is a common type of teaching in Shinto and is very evident in Pokemon)!

Shinto teaches that all such natural features were felt to have a god behind their power. Many Shinto beliefs were incorporated into Japanese Buddhist practices after its introduction in the 6th century. Just as they believe in evolution and re-incarnation, these ideas are manifest in Pokemon.

These pictures are typical examples of the dark side of Pokemon. Haunter, an evolved spirit can hypnotize and has ‘dream eater’ power (powered by the purple Pokemon energy cards which is the psychic energy). This power lets him drain the energy from his opponents.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[The Iraq war was a mistake, but the "someone think of the poor wife beaters" approach just turned me a little neocon]

Perhaps feminism, which has led directly to a great deal of state violence against men in America, has been recognized as a useful tool in pursuing these aims. If feminists are perfectly comfortable with violent arrests of fathers and husbands to enforce feminist dictates here at home, just think of how easy it would be to recruit their efforts to convince people to snuff out foreigners’ lives. As Jonah argues, these jihadis must be a bunch of wife-beating sickos, so why not drop some JDAMs and cruise missiles on their misogynistic heads?

Nothing could better demonstrate feminist triumph than the mutilated corpses of patriarchal Muslims, right? Perhaps having female American soldiers sexually humiliate them a la Abu Ghraib would be the icing on the cake.

...

As an American, I’d be somewhat relieved if the feminists were to divert their efforts to foreign wars. But that’s a selfish sentiment, and this is an international issue. As I know from very personal experience, the effects of feminist policy transcend national boundaries. This is an international issue that affects all of us, and we have to address it as such.

So, while it isn’t surprising to see war hawks donning the mantle of feminism, it is important that men worldwide oppose any efforts to use force against sovereign states in the name of feminism. To do so would be to acquiesce to force being used against us in our own homes, as it is.

Every bomb dropped and every bullet fired in the name of feminism is one more indictment against the totalitarian, supremacist ideology. Every death caused by feminist imperialism is a war crime against free people.

It would be a searing indictment against us as a people were we to justify state aggression on the pretext of interfering with the private, family lives of a sovereign people. We should reject such efforts forcefully, so as to avoid justifying the same action against us.

crusadercat #fundie web.archive.org

Another dangerous source is books. Especially such works as Harry Potter. Do you know that the names and spells in those stories are real? I started reading one of those books, I knew it was wrong and tried to rationalize the content by saying "it's just a struggle between good an evil". Eventually I gave up and treated the book for what it really was, witchcraft. (Ex. 22:18, 1 Sam. 15:23)

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

"[Women] are “at increased risk of gender-based violence, especially domestic violence and rape but also forced marriage at earlier ages” due to their increased dependence on men for protection and support…"

So now when men provide women with protection and support they are suspected rapists, child molesters and batterers? Are these strange, foreign women more trustworthy than Haitian girls’ fathers, brothers and grandfathers? I try to refrain from inserting my opinion when I am writing these news pieces, but Ms. Enarson is making one of the most offensive insinuations possible with the above statement, and she is dead wrong. It is matriarchal societies where women cannot rely on men for support in which women face the most danger.

[Comment by same fundie, also when you suddenly adopt an extremely Rousseauan anarchist view on human nature because the alternative means acknowledge some men do bad things sometimes]

Geez, Ella, you just make my point:

" The police are in disarray, the gaols are broken and empty, there is no law and one way to reassert power, to demonstrate control, is to violate another persons body."

Is that your personal take on it? You really think that men are just waiting for chaos so they can go on a rape spree?

You simply make it clear why I am putting so much work into this site. You feminists need to be fought as hard as the tyrants of the last century, because you have a twisted, destructive and supremacist ideology — an ideology of death.

It is time for another Amazonomachy.

Sorcha Faal #god-complex #wingnut #conspiracy web.archive.org

Trump Clone War Socialist British Massacre Victory Joined By Doomsday Plane Flight When Empire Strikes Back

A disquieting new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today noting President Putin wishing Prime Minister Boris Johnson “good health and success” after this British populist leader led his conservative forces yesterday to their historic “bloodbath massacre defeat” of socialist-globalist Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his demented leftist followers—a battlefield victory so profound it sent a “catastrophic warning” clear across the Atlantic Ocean to leftist Democrats in America on the grim fate that awaits them in the 2020 election, states it was more than fitting that top socialist Democrat Party presidential candidate Joe Biden was in California yesterday viewing this bloodbath massacre defeat, where he declared Prime Minister Johnson is President Donald Trump’s “clone”, at the same exact time obsessed Star Wars fans in California with sleeping bags and a portable movie projector have started camping outside Hollywood's Chinese Theatre, more than a week before the next installment of this movie blockbuster begins playing—the comparisons of which between this futuristic science fiction movie franchise depicting freedom loving peoples rebelling against an evil space empire and present day reality are becoming harder to ignore—most particularly because this socialist-globalist election battlefield massacre masterminded by Trump-clone Boris Johnson occurred on the 11th anniversary date of 13 December 2008 when top climate change religious figure Al Gore warned the North Pole would be completely melted and free of ice by 2013—an important fact to note as within hours of Prime Minister Johnson achieving his historic victory yesterday, the “evil empire” European Union threatened to slam the United States with crippling climate change tariffs—a threat quickly responded to by President Trump ordering his nation’s feared Doomsday plane to begin nuclear war exercise flights—a Doomsday plane sure to be placed under the command of the new Space Force military command the US Congress just gave money and authority to Trump to create this week—which comes during the same week veteran NASA astronaut Michael Collins posted a shocking Tweet hinting at alien life and its being reported the US Navy is covering up new technology—advanced space technology further alluded to this past week by retired US Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast stating that “fantastic technology exists that could transport a human anywhere on earth within an hour”—which one knows would be developed at the highly secretive Area 51 base where its been revealed all of its visitors now have to wear “Foogles” to severely limit their vision when moving about. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[Most of the quote is vulgar-libertarian pablum, emphasis added where Price contradicts everything he and his faction have said about women working and "hypergamy"]

There are a lot of problems with the bill, with one of the most important ones being that so-called qualifications don’t always reflect how well someone does a job, or how valuable they are as an employee. Business is about making money, and employers generally don’t care about sex as long as the profits roll in. If women really were only making 77 cents for every dollar men made and still performing the same, nobody would hire men, because they wouldn’t want to take on the extra expense.

This oft-cited statistic is fiction; when personal choices are taken into account, women and men make about the same, as one would expect. However, if the Paycheck Fairness Act is passed, women will make more than men for equivalent work, because the government will introduce a significant penalty for not paying women the same whether they produce as much or not. Women will be even more privileged as employees than they already are with affirmative action and the EEOC. They will also have another powerful tool for suing companies, and as the history of harassment lawsuits demonstrates, they will use it regularly, often at the urging of aggressive trial lawyers.

Under the new bill, HR departments will be tasked with ensuring that men who perform well do not get raises. Companies will lose ambitious, talented male workers who give up in frustration as they realize that they will never rise above a certain pay level because there’s a woman with higher “qualifications” (e.g. a master’s degree) who doesn’t make more than him.

Eventually, that’s the way these government controls will ultimately fail. Men will vote with their feet. They will leave large companies to start their own businesses or work in a field women are not interested in. Women’s wages will not increase, because companies that are bound by bad law to lower efficiency and productivity will not make enough to give them raises. Tax revenue will then decline. In the end, everyone will lose.

Finally, the idea that men don’t want women to make money is ridiculous. Most married women work, and their husbands are happy when they make more money. Can you imagine a guy telling his wife’s boss not to give her a raise? The only problem men have with these “equal pay” laws is that they end up paying for it in the office, and it artificially lowers their wages. There’s already anecdotal evidence that software companies deliberately pay women more than men to prevent lawsuits, and because money does not come from a bottomless well this means other people are getting paid less.

Sometimes it’s better to leave the state out of certain matters, because it tends to create more problems than it solves. Sometimes, it simply creates a problem where none existed in the first place. This is the sum of the Paycheck Fairness Act: just another set of problems for America’s businesses and workers.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

I’ve seen a lot of people in the manosphere blame women’s suffrage for many of the excesses of feminism. “If only women hadn’t been granted the franchise,” they say, “we could have avoided all of these problems.” Sure, that’s probably true, but in a one person one vote system like Democracy, politicians will always have an incentive to extend the franchise, as we are seeing today with the Democrats’ push to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

There’s a simple explanation for it:

Say you’re a politician who wants to keep his job, and you have an opportunity to gain a lot of grateful, supportive voters who will keep you in office. If you’re ambitious like most politicians, you’ll do what you can to make that a reality. When that chunk of potential supporters actually exceeds 50% of the adult population, as women do, you’ve got an enormous incentive to be the guy who gave them the vote. This would give you great job stability.

Maybe some male voters would drop their support for a candidate based on that issue, but knowing men most would not, and even if a politician lost a large proportion of his male supporters, he could still come out ahead with significant female support, which would be all but guaranteed if he were the one who gave them the vote.

As one can deduce from simple arithmetic, the more voters one stands to gain, the stronger the incentive. I’m not sure what percentage a given population of non-voters has to reach to provide a strong enough incentive for a politician to defy his constituents on their behalf, but it’s probably far lower than 50%. I’d guess it’s around 15-20%, which suggests that if illegal aliens came to be that large a proportion of the national population, there would be overwhelming pressure to give them the vote. Whatever the number is, I think this would be the sort of thing on which a statistician could base a revealing study.

So why weren’t women given the vote immediately after Democracy was implemented in the US? First, most of them didn’t ask for it or care much about it. Female literacy wasn’t all that high in the early 19th century. Then, there’s the fact that traditions – even newly established ones – are more firmly followed in young, vigorous nations. Finally, in pre-industrial America men and women had essentially the same interests, so for most of the country the idea that there was a conflict of interest between the sexes was simply an alien notion, and therefore men and women in a given family would vote the same anyway.

The latter is highlighted by one of the first states to attempt to legalize women’s suffrage: Utah. Because polygamy was still common in Utah in the mid 19th century, giving women the vote would substantially increase Mormon clout relative to non-Mormon neighbors. The Mormons did in fact give their women the vote, and they promptly voted in favor of polygamy and other Mormon norms, which ultimately triggered the federal suppression of traditional Mormonism and the delay in granting women suffrage in other parts of the US.

As we can see from the above, there will always be an incentive for some people to grant universal suffrage, and all it takes is one change to the law for it to become permanent. Therefore, if a country bases its political process on the one person one vote standard, women’s suffrage is all but a certainty.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

However, it seems that this is a problem that goes beyond the formal business world, and has pervaded society in general to the extent that many – perhaps most – people think the government (i.e. taxpayers) should bear the costs of their life choices.

The example most in the news today is the demands for subsidized abortion and birth control that have become a feature of the presidential campaign. You’d think that our country’s women’s top priority is getting the government to subsidize their sexual choices, whatever they may be.

Following what I was getting at yesterday, sex has always incurred some expense. Like it or not, men pay for sex (or its results) in one way or another. Traditionally, you’d pay by getting married and taking the woman on as your responsibility, or you’d pay a fee for a one-off (prostitution). If you took it without paying for it, as in adultery, rape or fornication, it was a crime, or something like that. If we were honest with ourselves, we’d have to admit that it still is a quasi crime; as the old system has been replaced with something significantly more confusing, sex crime laws have become far broader in scope and can be applied to any number of situations (such as prostitution) that used to be considered beyond the purview of the law.

Additionally, despite false promises of free sex from the 60s and 70s, when feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free when we had “equality,” it turned out that sex still had a lot of associated costs. Pregnancy, of course, is one of the biggest. At first, we socialized that, but then welfare reform threw the costs entirely onto fathers (not mothers, mind you). Combined with welfare reform, we had VAWA, which significantly increased the costs of marriage and cohabitation by legally handicapping men in relationships with women. So great strides have been made in restoring a heavy cost to sex, but this hasn’t been enough, because women have grown accustomed to sexual license with whomsoever they please, and the men they generally like either a) don’t have the money, or b) are desirable enough to not have to pay.

Although the latter is a bit counterintuitive (wouldn’t women desire men who pay for them?), it’s a function of female sexual psychology. Women generally use sex to ensnare the man they want (and they typically have high expectations), and then they begin to draw resources from him. It works in simple societies where people hold each other to account, but in more cosmopolitan settings it breaks down for a couple reasons. First, there are more than enough women to go around, so it’s easy to drop one and pick up another, and secondly there are other means for women to gain resources, such as jobs and welfare, and as long as those resources exist men who have no trouble procuring sex see no reason to provide for women, even if they have the means. And who can blame them? Although it’s a social catastrophe, it’s a perfectly reasonable attitude from a personal perspective, because, after all, the individual man didn’t create this mess in the first place.

Here’s a scenario:

A handsome young investment banker making six figures can go out to a bar and take his pick. Let’s call him Mark. Mark picks up a young woman named Amanda, she goes home with him, they have sex, and he enters her number into his phone, leaving her only a promise to call again. Perhaps he intends to do so, and perhaps not. Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street. Not only does it provide her with birth control, but it will treat STDs and abort unwanted children resulting from her nightly excursions.

Sounds fine, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition. Her sexual care at Planned Parenthood is also funded largely by taxpayers. Her life, including her sex life, is paid for by the average working Joe, but she isn’t sleeping with Joe — oh no: she’s sleeping with Mark, a guy who easily could afford to feed, clothe and insure her, but who doesn’t have to because of Joe. Although it isn’t really his fault, Mark is a freeloader.

Joe, for his part, makes do with monthly trysts with a mid-level prostitute, which he can barely afford after taxes and child support. Joe, who is an HVAC repairman, is paying for all the Amandas in his state, his ex-wife Lisa, and his hooker, who is named Elena.

Interestingly enough, Joe and Amanda have met. Joe was called in to fix the AC in her nonprofit’s office on a sweltering summer day. Because the AC was broken and the atmosphere was stifling, Amanda had unbuttoned the top part of her blouse, and poor Joe couldn’t help but look at her breasts. Amanda was furious, and called his supervisor, who apologized profusely, and when Joe got back from the job he caught hell. Fortunately, he wasn’t fired, but it sure was humiliating. Not as bad as having to deal with his ex-wife’s lawyer, but close…

I suppose we could say “life’s unfair,” and that would be entirely true. But should we make it that unfair? Should we set things up so that Joe has to support Amanda as much as Mark?

According to our nation’s single women, the answer is a resounding “YES!” Married women, however, have a significantly different take on it, for obvious reasons.

I’m not sure single women are consciously aware of how selfish they are being. I think they fully intend to find some man to support them, and think the only way they can do that is to have unfettered sex with all the Marks of the world they can get their hands on in the hopes that one of them will some day give in and marry her. The problem is that it’s a trend that reinforces itself; the more Amandas we have giving it away for free the less likely any given Mark will be to actually support any of them. The competition will escalate, desirable men will become even more reluctant to give women any financial support, and the screeching for more entitlements for single women will grow louder and louder.

It is exactly this trend that has led to the bizarre, unprecedented fixation on women’s sexual entitlements in our current election cycle. When you socialize the costs of a private activity – and sex is about as private as it gets – you create an unnatural imbalance that rewards the few at the expense of the many. You also run the risk of inflating costs to unsustainable levels, and I think that’s something young women ought to think hard about. But they won’t.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

It seems to me that human resources has become one of those gender-specific jobs, like logger or cocktail waitress. In my experience, HR is overwhelmingly female, and these are the people who have the power to hire or fire you.

In my limited experience working with female supervisors, I have found them to be less forgiving and less considerate, possibly because they think that men only respond well to abusive slave-driver types. I have also noticed that they are far less likely to directly warn workers or inform them in plain terms that they are dissatisfied. This tends to make male workers feel that their authority is capricious and cruel, and that they can be terminated for anything at any time.

The end result is that men – and particularly men of a certain type – are being pushed out of certain occupations and organizations, and find themselves driven to more exclusively male lines of work, such as construction, driving and law enforcement, and this may explain why men’s unemployment is so much higher than women’s in the current recession. In fact, I would say that the increasing domination of the corporate world by women in middle management – especially HR – has greatly restricted occupational options for younger men, even as senior male managers go out of their way to foster and accommodate women.

What I’d like to know if this corresponds with greater productivity. I suspect that it does not, but I’d have to see the numbers.

One theory I have heard is that senior male managers use females in middle management to keep workers in line and more easily fire people, because they have less of a sense of responsibility for those who work under them. This leads to a more humble and frightened work force, and despite warm and fuzzy talk about wanting “satisfied” workers, perhaps corporate bosses (almost all male) actually want the people working for them to live in fear. A scared and humble work force will go the extra mile to avoid being fired, and will work for less compensation.

I am curious as to whether readers have observed the same. Has the introduction of women into management fundamentally changed the way we work? If so, has their arrival been accompanied by fear and insecurity in the workplace, or has it been positive on the balance? We ought to have these discussions, because women are not going to leave the workforce any time soon, and perhaps it’s time to figure out how we might mitigate some of the negative effects.

Given that there has been a lot of speculation recently about how women will dominate the economy (or what’s left of it) in the future, these are perfectly reasonable concerns for men.

Survivalist News Network #conspiracy web.archive.org

WASHINGTON— As reported yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin triumphantly outmaneuvered Barrack Obama in a cosmic chess match with global nibiru-nowerepercussions. For decades, the White House used the threat of nuclear war as leverage to forestall Russia’s plan to warn the world about Nibiru. According to our sources, Russian leaders from Gorbachev to Putin had buckled under pressure and ceded to Washington’s demands, because, unlike their American counterparts, Russian leaders disdained the notion of nuclear war and believed that Russia and the United States–along with other major world powers–could work together to preserve the human race.

On Monday, Washington’s house of cards collapsed; Putin learned that Washington’s threat had been a thirty-year-long bluff. He retaliated by turning the table on President Obama, insisting that if Obama did not provide the world with full disclosure about Nibiru within two weeks, he would take center stage and make the announcement himself.

Washington insiders report that Putin’s unexpected defiance has caused a whirlwind of panic at the Oval Office. Allegedly, Obama’s closest advisers are split over how maxresdefaultbest to handle the crisis, with dissenting factions distancing themselves from the president’s position; Obama, our source reveals, aims to play the waiting game and allow Putin to make the next move. He believes that Putin is now bluffing and has no intention on confirming Nibiru’s existence.

“The White House is all about gamesmanship,” our Washington source said. “Obama wholeheartedly feels that Putin, angry because his government fell for a thirty year bluff, is now performing a retaliatory bluff. Look at it this way: If Nibiru never happens, would you want to be known as the president who panicked the world?”

White House dispute over Nibiru disclosure and its NASA co-conspirators have struggled to maintain a thirty year veil of secrecy for fear of social and economic collapse. Ever since Ronald Reagan signed secret executive order prohibiting discussion of Nibiru, American leaders feared that disclosure would almost immediately result in a worldwide breakdown of social services, with anarchy sweeping across the globe. With less than six months remaining in office, and with Nibiru not expected to arrive until mid-to-end 2017, President Obama has the luxury of playing the waiting game; Vladimir Putin does not.

Nevertheless, Putin’s shocking announcement sent ripples of fear through the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Discord between Obama and his most trusted political allies threatens to blow the door open on the Nibiru cover-up. Following Obama’s decision to “wait and see what Putin does,” Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice held a “closed-door” meeting with General Mark Milley, Commanding General, United States Forces Army Command and long time opponent of Obama’s military strategies. Although the precise nature of that meeting remains a tightly guarded secret, our Washington source mentions a “coup” to seize initiative and launch a surgical strike against Kremlin leadership before it has an opportunity to publicly divulge scientific knowledge of Nibiru.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter held a chilling meeting with Chief of Staff Mark Welsh. Together, they discussed the possibility of launching a full scale nuclear strike against the Russian Federation. Carter was quoted as saying, “If Nibiru is going to wipe out most of the world, won’t what’s left of it be a better place without Russia in it. Maybe we shouldn’t have been bluffing all these years.”

Elsewhere in Washington, Dr. John Holdren, the president’s scientific adviser, admonished Department of Homeland Security Czar Jeh Johnson and Vise President Biden for suggesting the United States launch its entire nuclear arsenal against the Nibiru system to destroy it or divert its trajectory, a proven impossibility according to renowned astronomer Paul Cox and discredited NASA scientist Dr. Ronald Shimschuck.

These absurd scenarios prove the White House is a tumultuous mess. Its leaders are grasping at straws, clamoring for solutions.

Right now, the ball, as they say, is truly in Putin’s court.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

Since I first discovered my desire for women, I have always taken this attraction for granted and held it to be an inseparable part of my straight, male identity. It has been just over twenty years since I began to lay awake in bed, imagining the female form and feeling a need for its presence. Although I knew that my need for women would eventually lessen, I expected it to last for the rest of my life. I saw it in my grandfather in his old age, after all, and expected it would be the same for me. I thought of it as an essential element of my masculinity — a part of my being that I’d both exult in and suffer for throughout my life.

However, essential or not, I thought of desire as external; separate from thoughts, emotions opinions and sense of self. I considered it involuntary, like the beating of my heart or the drawing in of breath.

Lately, I’ve begun to realize that the desire I’ve always counted on is a far more complex thing than a mere physiological process. It seems men aren’t the purely physical creatures I assumed, and that longing and need encompass far more than the switching on of a sexual response.

I often see explanations in popular culture for why men find themselves increasingly uninterested in American women. Some of these are quite compelling, such as the lack of femininity, the ever more aggressive and assertive nature of young American women, and the sense of entitlement that they display as though it were an expensive piece of jewelry. The raw, predatory sexuality encouraged on television shows for women has a distinctly unattractive quality; aside from certain anatomical features and minor differences in dress, these women display all of the characteristics of offensively forward and brash men. The hard look in the eyes, the strut and the lack of regard for others are now the mark of the superior woman. For many men, to desire these characteristics would require a change in sexuality — something homosexuals persuasively insist is impossible.

I see this as just another example of the shifting definitions of masculinity and femininity as society emerges from the Industrial Age. Recently, I reread Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and found myself amused by his devotional descriptions of the heroine, Lucy Manette, who epitomizes beauty, femininity and goodness. She is one of the least realistic characters in fiction, yet obviously was an ideal that Victorian Englishmen could relate to. This little doll with blonde curls, devoted to her husband and full of only loving and nurturing sentiments, was pure, unrestrained male fantasy. That impossible ideal lasted through the better part of the 20th century, but has clearly given way to something far different. Some blame feminism for the destruction of the concept of the exalted woman, but in fact it still exists! The exalted status remains, but the statue on the pedestal is no longer shaped and defined by the imagination and ideals of men.

The new woman on a pedestal reflects the conceits and fancies of adolescent female minds. She is their idea of beauty, power and freedom. Children occasionally appear as emotional props, and are conveniently cared for by nannies or others when the time comes for a night out on the town. Men slavishly follow and desire her, and she changes them as freely as though they were an article of clothing. On television shows such as CSI, she shows direspect to the dead, displaying her utter contempt for even the concept of dignity or decency. She takes her sexual and aesthetic advice from homosexual men, who have little use for the qualities that straight men admire and love in women.

This redefinition of the ideal woman has left a beast that possesses all the physical attributes that men desire in a woman, yet behaves, speaks and moves in a manner that most men find repulsive. Rather than a companion, she is an adversary. She offers not comfort, but contempt. This mutation from icon of male desire into receptacle of indulgence was the culmination of years of human self-deification: deification of our own desires, and deification of their objects.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

A girlfriend or wife doesn’t have to have the looks of Giselle Bundchen, the homemaking skills of Martha Stewart or the bedroom skills of a professional call girl to make a man happy. All of these would be nice bonuses, but they are not nearly as important as the ability to make a man feel relaxed, content and appreciated. A woman who is mediocre in all of the former attributes can easily make up for it by being a sweet, pleasant person who takes the edge off at home. Men are surprisingly easygoing that way, but for some reason women can’t figure it out. Perhaps it isn’t in their nature. It may be that being pleasant goes against their instincts, and is impossible for them in our hyper-competitive society. Maybe seeing a man content and wanting for nothing is a disgusting sight to a woman, who prefers an ambitious, striving man. Or it could be that she feels as though his contentment suggests that he doesn’t appreciate her enough, and she has to agitate and badger him into making some display of devotion.

...

[When you contradict the rest of your ideology by admitting housework isn't a pressing matter that requires a partner to forego careerism]

What is most confounding about the refusal of American women to simply lighten up and stop going after their husbands is how they refuse to do so despite the fact that it would make their lives much easier. The chores issue is a perfect example. Rather than do battle with a man over how many hours are going into housework, why not just ease up on the housework themselves? Lots of women put in nearly twice as much work as necessary, and then expect husbands to do the same. Additionally, do women really need that brand new car? Do they need a mcmansion (with all the attendant extra housework) to be happy? The striving and consumerism in the US is driven mainly by women, who account for over 80% of discretionary spending, and it can turn them into very unpleasant people.

...

That ad is no exaggeration. Nor was Kate Gosselin’s treatment of her husband Jon. This is the norm in the US, and it’s driven in large part by our women’s status obsession (envy) and consumerism (greed). Perhaps the value placed on economic competition and consumerism is a major part of the problem with our women. Rather than domestic harmony and peace, that new car, new house or new shoes take priority. In days past, this kind of obsession with material wealth was frowned upon, so much so that those with money went out of their way not to make too much of a show of it (and in fact most wealthy people continue to do so), but today it’s about the only “virtue” we have left.

So, I’ll offer a theory as to why American women have become so downright unpleasant over the past few decades. Women’s liberation liberated them not only from restraints on fornication, hypergamy and other sexual impulses, but from the acquisitive and competitive impulses that were also kept in check by old-fashioned morality, and for women these may be stronger than lust. We have to recognize that Western capitalism and consumerism were largely driven by female spending, so perhaps this explains some of the support for feminism from above.

If women are constantly striving for more, bigger, better and shinier, they won’t have time to relax and enjoy life as it is. I suspect this plays a major role in the dissatisfaction wives feel, and explains why they cannot stop pushing their husbands harder and harder. It robs them of the ability to be pleasant, and suppresses their better nature, as they struggle and strive with the frenzied crowd for that next shiny bauble. Today, our women are truly possessed and ruled by the dark forces of greed and envy, which rob them and the men in their lives of peace and contentment.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

The popular “50 Shades of Grey” romance/porn novel has been making waves in the publishing industry as women from all walks of life find themselves aroused by its theme of utter surrender to a man. According to a Fox News article, feminists, too, approve of the book, which began as a fanfic spinoff from the Twilight series (naturally).

Given how the story is described, it looks like a rip-off of the Story of O that Heartiste enthusiastically recommends as the key to understanding women’s erotic desires:

The plot of “50 Shades of Grey” centers on a young and naïve college student named Anastasia Steele who is seduced by a rich and powerful entrepreneur named Christian Grey. Grey persuades Steele to sign a contract that allows him complete control over her life, in and out of the bedroom. Yet despite the fact that Steele becomes completely submissive to a very dominant man, feminists aren’t up in arms.

You know, I’m starting to wonder whether the models of domestic violence touted by feminists in which men seek utter control over women aren’t really a pornographic fantasy. I recently watched “Sleeping with the Enemy,” a film from the 90s starring Julia Roberts as a battered wife. Although the film wasn’t all that well done, there was definitely some erotic element to the dominance and control exerted by her psychopathic husband.

Contrary to what popular myths might lead one to believe, the book is more distressing to men than to women, but that makes perfect sense. Most men are disturbed by the idea of being objectified and dominated in the bedroom, and have a hard time relating to female sexuality.

While women are applauding the book, some men are expressing concern over whether women should be insulted by a plot dominated by a man who tells a woman when to sleep, eat, work out and even how to groom herself. Television host Dr. Drew Pinsky recently called the book a “rape fantasy” on his HLN show. Women writers laughed off Pinsky’s remarks, saying there is absolutely no reason for men to weigh in on this issue at all, and certainly no reason for them to use the term rape.

Perhaps what’s most demoralizing to men is that most of them have been instructed to behave in exactly the opposite manner from what turns so many women on. Additionally, most men simply aren’t all that dominant whether they restrain themselves or not. “Christian Grey” is a figment of the female imagination — guys like that hardly exist in real life. When they do turn up, other men take them down.

Nevertheless, the book and the discussions surrounding it show that the cat’s out of the bag. Men who have been fooled about women’s true nature for their entire lives, and who still try to fool themselves, are finding themselves demoralized by women’s enthusiastic endorsement of utter objectification and submission.

For more on the novel, check out Paul LaRosa’s take on it. Paul seemed a bit confused by its success, asking “Is it possible that so many women dream of becoming the submissive partner of a dominant male partner which, after all, is the central plot of the book?” He discovers that yes, in fact, this is what they dream of.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

I check into the MensRights Reddit fairly frequently to keep up to date on news items concerning mens issues, and every now and then someone comes up with something very interesting. Yesterday, someone posted a number of links concerning a long-running spate of poisonings in early 20th century Hungary, and I’m glad I checked today because feminists have invaded the Mensrights subreddit to vote down any posts they don’t approve of* and I probably would have missed this piece of history otherwise.

Some time during WWI, men in Nagyrev, a village south-east of Budapest, began dying in disproportionate numbers. The local midwife, a witch named Julia Fazekas, had arrived in 1911 with Susi Olah (presumably her lesbian lover), and was the only person in the area with any medical expertise. Fazekas was arrested on numerous occasions for illegally performing abortions, but sympathetic judges let her off the hook each time. The abortions may have been desired because the local women allegedly shacked up with allied POWs who were drafted into farm labor in the town while their husbands were away at war.

When the men came back from war and demanded their wives give up their lovers, some of the local women complained to Fazekas, who advised them that it would be a simple matter to poison the men with arsenic, which she extracted from fly paper. Soon thereafter, husbands, children and other inconvenient family members began dropping like the flies the arsenic was intended for. Because Fazekas’s cousin was the local clerk, the deaths were not recorded as suspicious, and the murders escaped notice for years.

Finally, a medical student found a corpse in the river, and upon testing it discovered high levels of the poison, which led to suspicion. Then, in 1929, an anonymous letter to a newspaper located in a nearby town revealed the mass poisonings, and eventually 26 women went to trial. When police initially went to investigate Fazekas, she committed suicide with her own poison, thereby foiling justice and escaping the noose.

Of the 26 women tried, eight were sentenced to death, but only two were eventually executed. Of the remainder, 12 were sentenced to prison.

The story is a good reminder that we face very ancient passions, and that the line between barbarism and civilization is very thin and easily crossed. It also clearly demonstrates that darkness can dwell in the hearts of women just as in men, and that their own aggression can be tied to sexuality as well. But perhaps what it illustrates best is how a malicious woman like proto-feminist Julia Fazekas can sow discord in a community with deadly results. Where in early 19th century Austro-Hungary such a woman was relegated to the backwaters of the empire, today one can find them in universities, major publications and political office doling out their own version of poison to the women of our society.

...

[Disingenuous pacifism seems to be a running trend with Pricey]

@Nico

“The second group of women are dance group members who share their understanding and compassion towards the husband murderers. In their view, this female conspiracy is an example of women taking charge and searching for a solution for abusive relationships and misery at a time when divorce or other solutions to ameliorate the situation were unavailable. The women express their appreciation towards the previous generation of women who taught their daughters’ intolerance for abusive relationships and the value of independence and empowerment, sentiments also echoed by a divorced yoga teacher interviewed.”

What can I say? Feminists condoning murder yet again – this time on film – and people still claim feminism is “nonviolent.”

Good find, Nico.

...

Well, yeah. It used to be common knowledge that witches were murderers and child killers. They obviously exist today, in a somewhat different form, but the beliefs and end goal are one and the same.

People think that these old stories were just pure fantasy, but that’s far from the case. Certain types of women have been murdering people from time immemorial, usually using potions concocted from various herbs and such (aborting fetuses was often effected by small doses of poisons, which would kill a cow in suitable doses), so why is it a big stretch of the imagination to link them to women who advocate for the same sort of thing these days?

Here’s an incident where a witch sacrificed a man just last year (and then claimed “rape” of course):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002025-504083.html

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

["Historical" note: this post is the closest you can get to an origin story for The Spearhead]

Now that gender equality in terms of income has been achieved in the younger generation, and educationally women currently surpass men, most of us ordinary men find ourselves staring irrelevance straight in the face. A friend of mine recently observed that women are “taking over” his department at his former company. Except in specialized occupations that require male minds or bodies, women do indeed appear to have the upper hand. However, I observed to my friend that the top remains largely male, while the middle is dominated by females. The bottom, like the top, is predominately male. Unfortunately for us men, there’s a lot more space at the bottom than at the top.

So what does that mean for men who are not among the fortunate few? Are we destined to be lowly peons shoveling muck out of gutters? For many of us, our fate could be worse than that. Gutter cleaning pays fairly well, at least according to the last bill I saw for that service. The future certainly does look grim, but could there be anything redeeming about our new status as disposable goods? Yes, there could, but only when we learn to accept and finally embrace it.

Bound by a sense of duty and responsibility to family, employer and country, men demanded certain guarantees in return. All these guarantees can be summed up in one word: fidelity. We expected not to be cheated, lied to or abandoned. Sadly, all these things have come to pass. Perhaps our own complacency is as much to blame for this as anything else, but our betrayal is a fait accompli. There was the inevitable denial, rage, and despair, but finally we find ourselves at the point of acceptance.

Accepting such a great loss of security, confidence and trust is a very difficult thing to do, but it is profoundly liberating. Whereas before one was shackled to deceit and resentment, now the fetters are broken, the cell door opens, and suddenly the world is revealed. Feelings of guilt, inadequacy, anger, envy and disappointment dissipate in the open air; ought gives way to is. When one arrives at this state of mind, all of the countless obligations, worries and responsibilities lose their sting. It becomes clear that reality – the way things are – is our only true master. We owe no debt to anything or anyone else.

So once a man throws off his countless restraints and goes all the way up the chain of command to take orders from the top, how does he deal with his only boss? Perhaps surprisingly, dealing with reality is very simple; it is only a matter of “can” and “cannot.” There is no want, should or ought with reality. All those are subjective, and have nothing to do with the sun setting or things falling when dropped. A man who has a good idea of what he can do has a great deal of choices and ability, because there are infinite things men can do. Of course, there are always consequences. For example, you can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but you cannot survive it. This is where judgment comes into play. However, although dealing with reality requires good judgment, letting other people do so for you requires absolute faith in their judgment AND their interest in your own welfare. That’s a risky bet.

Once a man is freed from the bondage of others’ expectations and desires, all that he does comes from his own heart. Any help or affection is freely given and not in any way coerced. His love and goodwill are pure and free from any taint of flattery. Likewise, any malicious acts are undertaken only by his own initiative. His heart and intentions are made clear through his actions. Because reality is truth, he embodies honesty.

These principles apply to all people, whether male or female, but the loss of direction among men in our civilization is a fairly recent development, and needs to be addressed. At this point, a politicized “men’s movement” might be counterproductive, because it would lead us down into the sewers of contemporary discourse. But a spiritual awakening, accompanied by a recognition that we have our own priorities, is sorely needed. Women rebelled against their social obligations and limitations and threw them off. Men, too, can do the same.

When men see that bondage is a state of mind – often an unconscious choice – they realize how easy it is to cast it aside. Our own bondage came from the guarantees that we demanded, which slowly created obligations that we came to see as inevitable. But now that the guarantees have been removed, we find that we are still in chains, and herein lies the great liberating opportunity afforded by injustice. Without the shock of betrayal and loss, we might have plodded along forever, devolving into something akin to oxen, fit only for heavy burdens and the whip. But that will not happen now. The deal we’ve got is clearly rotten, and there’s no good reason to haul that load.

The uplifting feeling one gets when laying down a heavy burden does much for the spirit. The bitterness over loss and betrayal is forgotten as the realization sets in that one’s life is in one’s own hands. What others want, think or expect becomes no more important than anything else, because all that matters is what IS and how one chooses to deal with it. When men know that, they know true freedom.

W. F. Price #fundie #sexist web.archive.org

We are supposedly living in an age of merit, where the best rise to the top through a selective process that rewards valuable traits. This so-called meritocracy is often used to explain away our growing economic inequality. Those who make it, you see, just have the right stuff. This idea of merit was largely invented and is fostered by elite institutions, which pride themselves on selecting for what they call merit. Perhaps it’s a relic of Calvinist predestination, in which a member of the “elect” is destined to be graced by God.

While it’s true that having talent, determination and grit still matters a great deal, we ought to take a closer look at the meritocratic process and what traits it professes to value. Additionally, the traits it fosters and its results are important indicators of what these people and institutions call “merit.”

So, what do we find? A notion of merit that has no room for the traditional virtues yet encourages what used to be known as sin. We find a glorification of pride, greed, lust and gluttony, among others.

Using the seven deadly sins as a standard, let’s examine our “meritocracy” and how it measures up:

Lust

Promiscuity, licentiousness and all manner of sexual practices are cherished and valued in our elite institutions of higher learning. Not only are they protected, but often celebrated by students and schools alike. Extramarital sex is seen as a “right,” while traditional marriage is frowned upon and ridiculed.
Gluttony

Gluttony is not strictly about overeating; it also applies to those who do not eat simply, who seek out strange foods, and who have elaborate rituals around eating. The urban trends of shopping at Whole Foods, eating out at chic restaurants frequently, and seeking out trendy foods fits right into the category of gluttony. Obsessive preoccupation with health food is another example, as is binging and purging. Eating disorders are, for the most part, examples of gluttony, and are common among the people of merit.
Greed

This one goes without saying. An important reason people strive to become members of the meritocratic elite is to make more money. They dream of fancy homes in upscale neighborhoods, isolated from the great unwashed. They want to take trips to Paris and Rome, own the newest, trendiest gadgets and wear the finest clothes.
Sloth

Most people who make it into meritocratic institutions are not layabouts, but they do often fail to put any significant work into developing their spiritual/humanitarian side. Instead of striving to become better people, they focus on networking with the powerful, and thereby betray a general lack of sincerity in their contrived humanitarianism. An example of this is the filler “humanitarian” work they do only to pad out their applications and resumés rather than for any real concern for people in need. On the academic side, they have begun to cheat with alarming frequency, which demonstrates a form of laziness.
Wrath

The rage many of our elites feel toward the common American people is all too obvious. Their searing contempt for what they call “ignorant” people, particularly the more humble, religious sort, can manifest itself in almost demonic denunciations and displays of ethnic and religious hatred. This is especially true of feminists, who have an inordinate fondness for hate porn, particularly when directed against those they perceive as part of the “patriarchy.”
Envy

Envy is often what is behind the desire to join the meritocracy in the first place. For many students and finished elites alike, the institutions themselves provide the tools and opportunities to seize that which they covet, and to profit from the losses of others.
Pride

Pride is the foremost of sins, and it is also the defining characteristic of the new elite. They take enormous pride in being elevated above their fellow countrymen, and wallow in this pride to no end. The American meritocracy is, above all, a collection of the very proud, secure in their superiority.

Of course, we can point out sin in all sorts of groups of people, but my little exercise here was intended to get people to think about what it means when we throw terms like “merit” around. There’s no doubt that people who make it to the top usually possess admirable qualities and talents, but when these are put to use in rotten ways, what they call merit is actually meretricious.

I could find it in myself to excuse some of the excesses of the elite if they compensated for them with good works, but because they have rejected what most of us see as virtuous, it’s difficult to find much redeeming about them at this point.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.

...

If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.

...

If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.

...

Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.

...

Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

For at least a decade now we’ve been seeing educators disingenuously “wondering” what’s going on with boys. I don’t believe teachers are confused in the least — they know exactly what’s going on. I’m certain of this because I have a fair number of educators in the family, and they know just what the “problem” is: boys are, in general, more difficult to teach.

Boys are rowdier, more prone to acting out, and don’t listen as carefully. Sometimes, they are aggravatingly unaware of their surroundings. My son, for example, will become interested in something, and suddenly the rest of the world doesn’t exist to him any longer.

Boys also lack the desire to please that seems to be innate in little girls. They don’t really care so much if the teacher is happy about what they are doing or saying.

But does this mean they are inferior students who “perform poorly?” No more than it means that an F-18 fighter, due the high skill required of its pilots, is an inferior airplane that performs poorly when compared to a cessna.

Despite the abysmal failure of public education in regards to boys, boys are still scoring higher on tests than girls. Even verbal tests in many cases. It’s just their grades that are lagging, and unfortunately that’s what keeps them out of college[.]

...

In other words, the teachers – overwhelmingly female – don’t like them. Nor, apparently, do a number of NY Times commenters, who say it’s just desserts for all that male oppression of the past. Yes, that’s right: little kids who were born a few years ago must pay for the imagined sins of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

...

Ah, feminists. So compassionate!

What this “boys crisis” really comes down to is a public schools crisis. Public schools may be a necessity, but they have some pretty severe flaws. As a socialized system, they do not reward teachers for being harder workers or even result-oriented. Teachers in my local public school district are in open rebellion against tests that would hold them accountable for their students performance.

What public school teachers prefer is an easy day with obedient, compliant students. Unfortunately for boys, they don’t typically fit into the obedient and compliant category. So, rather than try harder, the teacher simply marks them down and leaves it up to the boys or their parents to deal with it (parents, many of whom are single mothers, definitely share some of the responsibility).

In private schools it’s a different story. Sons of the wealthy have higher academic achievement than their female counterparts. This is because teachers at private schools are informed in no uncertain terms that students’ performance in their classes is directly relevant to their continued employment. Miraculously, rich people’s sons are better educated and perform better every step of the way than their daughters.

The problem isn’t that boys are poor students. It’s that they require more effort. However, the results speak for themselves. Despite the higher grades and academic achievement of girls in our society, boys still lead the way in productivity, innovation and achievement in every other measure.

So all this hand-wringing about boys’ performance is misplaced, and I think the rest of us are beginning to figure it out. It isn’t really that the boys are performing poorly; it’s the schools that are lousy, and grades reflect little more than how teachers “feel” about their students.

Robert Oscar Lopez #homophobia #conspiracy #fundie web.archive.org

As I have documented extensively, the most prominent gay rights organizations, notably GLAAD and HRC, have colluded with academic researchers to defame my character. GLAAD collaborated with graduate students at Stanford and sent emails defaming me as a bigot to the organizers of a conference, with the explicit goal of preventing me from presenting my research. HRC has compiled a list of "bad guys" tied to sociologist Mark Regnerus, a researcher whose work survived the most rigorous investigation made on any same-sex parenting study; unable through proxy attackers like blogger Scott Rosenzweig to prove that Mark Regnerus engaged in any mishandling of data, the HRC -- a group thoroughly tied up with electoral politics and specifically the Obama Administration -- has engaged in blatant defamation and intimidation to drive Regnerus's alternative data out of the conversation. This is combined with threats of lawsuits against the editor who published Regnerus's peer-reviewed article as well as intimidations against people like me, who have been falsely characterized by the HRC as involved with Regnerus's study merely because I published an article explaining that his data matched a lot of my on-the-ground observations with gay families. GLAAD and HRC may not even realize how criminal their intimidation tactics are -- they are, in effect, promoting academic fraud by propping up studies with serious flaws and threatening professional reprisals and economic consequences against academics who come forward with contrary data. The RICO act includes these passages as well, relating to fraud.

Matt Barber #homophobia web.archive.org

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.

"nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Yeah, so?

Of course, that's all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn't change reality, nor does it eliminate the study's disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation."

Robert Stacy McCain #homophobia #fundie #dunning-kruger web.archive.org

Moore's 7,000-word treatise came to mind last week when gay activists began targeting sponsors of Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative that amended the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Taking to the streets in furious indignation, activists created an "enemies list" of those who had contributed to support the measure, targeting them for boycotts and protests.

The elderly co-owner of a Mexican restaurant, who had given $100 to support the referendum, was driven to tears as she confronted "60 members of Los Angeles' LGBT community" who demanded an apology and an equal contribution to a proposed effort to repeal the referendum.

That incident reminded Diana West of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s, but it reminded me of Roy Moore, because of the angry insistence of gay activists that opponents of same-sex marriage are depriving them of their rights -- "rights" that Moore showed to be utterly alien to our nation's legal tradition.

Pastor Peter J. Peters #fundie web.archive.org

Is it not apparent that the Bible Scriptures advocate discrimination, intolerance and the DEATH PENALTY concerning homosexuality? Then is not the Title of this writing true? If the very title made you angry, then this author must ask you the same question the Apostle Paul once asked: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16 (KJV).

For those who hate the truth, anyone who proclaims it they will also hate and will consider such a one an enemy. They will accuse their enemy of HATE and INTOLERANCE when in fact, it is they who hate and cannot tolerate the truth. For such people no amount of reason, patience or love will make the truth palatable to them unless they first repent.

There are others who may not hate truth but are so far removed or confused concerning it, that when it's heard, it sounds RADICAL and EXTREME. Many in America's Judeo-Christian church world fall in this category. Because such people have been taught that being a radical or extremist is evil, they tend to reject any truth that, to them and their surroundings, seems radical or extreme.

Once this author spoke to a political science class at a University and was billed as a right wing extremist. So the question was asked of the students, "How many Christians are there in the audience?" About half the hands went up. Next it was asked, "How many radicals, extremists or intolerant people are in the audience?" and not one hand was raised. What a contradiction.

All the people who claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ also claimed not to be what He was. Frankly, He was willing to withstand public scorn and ridicule for truth (Matthew 27:40,41), offend people if necessary (Matthew 15:12) and even die for what He believed in. As for tolerance, he would not tolerate such people as the money changers and actually confronted them physically. (John 2:14,15) Obviously, He was a radical and an extremist to the virtuous, so-called Christian in the Jude-Christian churches, it all seems to unchristian.

The truth of the matter is, in one respect, homosexuals are far more virtuous than are the lukewarm, cowardly, goody two shoes, praise the Lord Judeo-Christians. Homosexuals are willing to:

* Promote their life style
* Endorse public scorn and rejection if necessary
* Rally to the aid of another homosexual
* Fight any who oppose their life style and
* As we shall see in this writing, are willing to prescribe the death penalty to those who oppose them.

Unlike the modern day, lukewarm Judeo-Christian, they are radicals and extremists. To Jesus they are far more acceptable than the lukewarm Judeo-Christian. "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Revelation 3:15,16 (NASV)

This writing will be opposed as much by those who call themselves Christians as by homosexuals. They will try to reason or explain away these Bible verses that discriminate against and prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals. So in this writing, their futile objections and explanations will be answered.