www.web.archive.org

🌿Witchy Kay🌿 #fundie #sexist #wingnut #dunning-kruger #pratt web.archive.org

You can still get an ectopic pregnancy removed. You can still get care for miscarriage. No you're not going to be investigated for miscarrying. No, you cannot be prosecuted for your abortion.

If any of these things change, I'll be hitting those street right alongside you.

I'm so tired of this political discourse BS of you're either all in something or you're a grifter. I don't support killing humans. Just dont do it. Not a vibe. Stop. So naturally I oppose abortion cuz it kills humans. It's really that simple. Not some internalized misogyny. Not me secretly being a conservative and just trying to play everyone. Not me tying to push a religious ideology on others. Just my foundation for my stance on issues. So yes, I can oppose abortion and also want to protect pregnant people from the assholes in our government that will use the opposition to abortion as a weapon to attack women, roll back actual rights, fight against things that bring down abortion rates and pass ignorant laws that will victimize pregnant people and get them killed.

formerfundie/exaltgod #homophobia #wingnut #god-complex web.archive.org

(for anyone wondering, exaltgod was an infamous fundie on deviantart, this is from her old tumblr before it got taken down in 2018, in this tumblr she claimed that she was no longer christian and became a neo-nazi that hated all religions)

anonymous: Do you know why homosexuals have higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts? Probably because of people like you lol. You're a dumbass. They are feeling sadness because they aren't accepted. Once again, I'll say this: you are obsessed with gay people. Who the hell deliberately finds pro lgbt posts just to reply with hate? Lol get yourself some help bro. Maybe take that stick out of your ass.

formerfundie: I honestly don’t mind if my hatred is contributing to higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse among homosexuals. I would consider that my civic duty. But have you ever considered that perhaps the reason fags are so insane is because homosexuality is itself a mental illness, a defect, and it’s not uncommon at all for people with one psychological problem to present with others as well?

You obviously have no concept of fun if you’ve never taken the time to deliberately reply to a stupid post. I mean what are you doing right now? You think I’m an idiot so you’re taking time out of your day to insult me. Which I don’t mind really, it’s fun. But you can’t condemn me without condemning yourself.

Oh, and one more thing bro, I’m a girl.

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.

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."

David Wright #kinkshaming #dunning-kruger #crackpot web.archive.org

What is love, actually? What is love being misunderstood as?
Love explained


Theory:
Love is an anti-sexual feeling
image

image
First of all, I know all of this by experience. I have been in love multiple times before, and I am as certain as one could ever be, that what I felt was love. It was amazing. It was an experience of quality, and definetely something that everyone deserves to feel and understand. ...Which they clearly don't.
Though I never succeeded at getting into a relationship, I have been close, and I have felt what it would be like to have a girlfriend, without being in doubt about anything.

Okay let's begin...
Love is the most effective feeling against sexual thoughts. The idea of thinking sexual thoughts have never been more distant, and for once, revealingly demotivating, than that very moment of quality when you're in love. On top of that, being in love also makes you feel alive and very emotional, whether it's the happy kind, or the sad kind where you're missing that person.

Love is basically two things:
• Emotional and
• Anti-sexual

Couples who are having sex is just as misunderstood about love as couples who claim to not feel emotional about their relationship. I'm having a hard time respecting people who can't see the logic in this, who choose to have sex with that very special "loving" partner that they claim to love. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T...
If you haven't felt this kind of emotional and anti-sexual feeling before, then you are unexperienced with romantic love, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a girlfriend/boyfriend.
If you haven't felt this kind of emotional and anti-sexual feeling before, then you are unexperienced with romantic love, and then you probably haven't found that one and only person yet. But don't worry... once that happens, you'll know EXACTLY what I mean.


But how come our relationship seems to work out so well, when we're having sex?
Because you're confused about whether you're having a nonromantic sexual relationship, or a romantic nonsexual relationship. I'll get to that later... But keep in mind that you two WANTED eachother. You are simply partners. I prefer to call that "natural attraction". However, the day you realise what it would be like to have a LOVER then you will not want to think about having a simple partner anymore. Until then, please don't abuse the word "love" again. It's a strong word that one should simply not condescend with something as silly as sex.
image

image
Okay, so let's bring up some facts:

• You can have a romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You cannot have a romantic sexual relationship*

* Such a thing does not exist. Romance is non-sexual. Sex is non-romantic. These two things does not work out together at any time. When you “crush on” someone, your brain sees the non-sexual beauty on someone. Both the inner non-sexual beauty (approachability, intelligence, interest in you, personality, etc.) and the outer non-sexual beauty (look, voice, clothing, and all those things). Basically, every positive thing that you can find on someone that does not include anything sexual. Love is like a magic thing that can vanish ALL sexual feelings and temptations, and replace them with all the non-sexual qualities of that one special person that you’re having a crush on.


The more in love you are with someone, the more inappropriate it feels to think of them in a sexual way. When you’re truly in love, you might even forget that sex is a thing that exists in this world, temporarily! Love is simply the most powerful feeling in the world, and the more you feel it, the more distant the idea of sex becomes. This is why I think EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this world NEEDS to read, and think about this quote: “Love is an anti-sexual feeling” before even talking about, and using the word “love”.

Also, make sure you don't misunderstand my point! If you want to have a child, and reproduce, go ahead and do it! Just make sure my message is clear, and you're doing what you have to do for the right reason ☺
This has nothing to do with religion. I am 100% atheist, and this is nothing but pure knowledge that comes from years of experience with being in love, and being part of the loving nature in mankind.

Think of a girl or a boy that you really like. Maybe your crush, or your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Now imagine that their parents just died in a traffic collision, and now they're standing next to you crying. What would you do? Comfort them, right? This is where, my theory about love really becomes clear. The thought of doing anything sexual to them suddenly becomes very inappropriate. Inappropriate because giving comfort just really doesn't work out with sex, or have anything in common with anything sexual.
That feeling you get, when you decide to comfort someone, is exactly how love is supposed to feel. Love is like wanting to comfort someone all the time, even when they're not sad. Love is also the ability to feel "comfortful" torwards someone who isn't even sad. You can tell that two people really love eachother, when the 'comfortful chemistry' is between them as a standard, and no tragic experience is needed. These are difficult words, but actually, this is precisely what I mean. Sex is just an inappropriate thing when it comes to love. Period.
image

Another reason to say that love is an anti-sexual feeling
When you fantasize about someone in a sexual way, you're thinking of them as an object. A sexual object. You may not always think of them as an object, but once you're fantasizing about them in a sexual way, all you see is an object.


Now... love is the exact thing that makes us humans see the PERSON that hides behind a human's body. Love makes us feel the other person's identity, as if it was our own. Love makes us realise that behind another person's body, exists something far more amazing than just an object. If you're actually in love with someone else, then it also means that you will find it wrong to think of them as an object - at any given time.
In other words: You will not think of them in a sexual way, because the personality, and the identity that you see will keep disturbing your sexual thoughts. It is NOT possible to sexually fantasize about someone that you love unless you're really concentraded about not thinking about their personality, and identity. So yes... it IS possible to sexually fantasize about a loved one, but only if you're trying hard to not think about all the things that makes you love them. And honestly... as you get closer and closer to someone that you love, get to know them better and better, this whole idea of thinking sexual thoughts about them WILL become more and more distant. Because you will automatically find it wrong to think of them as an object for sex. THAT'S HOW LOVE WORKS! If you do not feel this way, then you do not feel love, simple as that.


Remember:
" People who find the love of their lives, and then later have sex with them, is like people who buy the most expensive meal in the world, and then soaking it with Heinz Ketchup. "
image

image

Theory: Love is an anti-sexual feeling
Theory proven and confirmed

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.

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.

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.

Matt Margolis #transphobia #conspiracy web.archive.org

The latest story comes out of California (no shock there), where teachers in the Buena Vista Middle School in Spreckels Union School District in California are accused of pressuring a female student to change her gender identity.

“It made me extremely angry, and now I’m taking action for that,” mother Jessica Konen told Fox & Friends on Tuesday. “I’m going to make sure that this doesn’t happen anymore.”

According to her complaint, two teachers and the school principal conspired to have the girl use her new gender identity and pronouns in school while using her true identity and pronouns in the mother’s presence. The child was also instructed to “not tell her mother about her new gender identity and expression.”

The lawsuit alleges that the school district has adopted and implemented a “Parental Secrecy Policy” under which “teachers and staff would keep certain information about students’ gender expression and identity secret from parents.”

Under the Parental Secrecy Policy, Buena Vista teachers and staff would keep secret from parents that their children had articulated confusion about their gender identity, evinced a desire to change their gender identity, or assumed or expressed a new gender identity, unless the student expressly authorized the parents to be informed. Despite keeping this information secret from parents, teachers and staff would enable students to change their gender identity and expression at school by, among other things: (a) counseling students regarding their confusion about their gender identity, desire to change their gender identity, and assertion of a new gender identity and expression; (b) addressing students by any new name matching their new gender identity that they wanted to be called; (c) addressing students by pronouns the students indicated they wished to be called by; (d) changing certain educational records to reflect the students’ new name and pronouns; and (e) allowing students to use unisex restrooms otherwise reserved for teachers

ancientmysteries.gayla-groom #crackpot web.archive.org

What Swallowed Jonah and Why?

[…]
The whale in the story was originally a big fish, becoming a whale in a 16th-century Bible mistranslation. Even so, scientists assert that there is no known sea creature that would swallow a man whole. Some whales eat plankton and would choke on a herring. Others, while capable of consuming something the size of a man, have shown no interest in doing so, and prefer to chew their food first. The big fishes under consideration all have deal-breaker problems, such as sharp turns in their gullets, or throats only four inches wide.

And let’s not forget: Jonah stays “in the belly of the fish” for three days and nights, praying about how sorry he is. What kind of fish would allow that? And how did all this happen?
[,,,]
I think it’s obvious, from a 21st-century perspective, that the fish/whale/sea monster that Jonah entered and stayed in for three days and nights was a vehicle that Yahweh sent to fetch him, just as the flying elephants and thunderbirds and dragons associated with sky gods were vehicles under their control. The sky vehicles are now called UFOs, and the sea monsters are now called USOs (Unidentified Submarine Objects).

As with UFOs, people have been having encounters with USO “sea monsters” in oceans, lakes, and rivers throughout the world for thousands of years.

I’m sure that being forced into whatever “swallowed” Jonah was a severe shock to his system, but the “great fish” was no more a fish than the Lernaean hydra was a many-headed water serpent (with “poisonous breath so virulent even her tracks were deadly”), no more than Indra’s flying Airavata was a three-headed elephant. Mythical animals often have the characteristics of vehicles (such as being made of bronze).

Btw, as a Biblical prophet, Jonah had it easy — compared to Isaiah, for instance, who had to walk around naked for three years, or Ezekiel, who had to lie on his side for 390 days and eat “measured food.”

Who knows what Yahweh was thinking?

Dark Princess #magick #psycho web.archive.org

A foe-killing ritual

This very effective ritual uses Reranber, who is one of the forms of Nyarlathotep. John Dee writes of him in Grimoirium Imperium: "The name of the fifteenth hour is Reranber, who is the most malevolent spirit and will murder anyone at your command. Reranber appears as a prince in glittering gold holding a black sword."

...

Then, say the following incantation: "I am He, the great and mighty God, the one who knows. I am Nyarla-Thot-Ep, who has given a name to everything, and therefore you are...(name of the victim)...and let there be no difference between wax and flesh! Y-hah, Iä Nyarlathotep!"

Prepare a dagger, and on a paper of such size that the figure may lie on it we will draw the black sigil of Reranber.

We proceed to the ritual itself at the beginning of the 15th hour with the incantation: 'I...(insert your name)...invoke you O Nyarlathotep, that I may offer you the soul and body of (name of your victim), invoke your form Reranber, for the terrible task! I call you O Reranber from the farthest depths of the cosmos, I curse you with a terrible formula that cannot be translated: 'Zazas Zazas Nasatanada Zazas, come and accomplish my task! I command you by the will of Azathoth, which no one can oppose, kill and destroy (name of victim)!"

Raise the knife and say, `My body is now the body of Reranber! I am Reranber, the terrible murderer of ancient Kem, and I do the will of Azathoth the creator-god himself, which nothing can prevent or oppose! Death to (name of victim)!" Then coldly plunge the knife into the wax figure. Continue stabbing, imagine blood oozing from each wound, viscera crawling out of the lacerated abdomen, your enemy on the table before you gasping for breath, gagging for blood, his life ebbing from his body and turning into a corpse. Then put down the knife and say, "The will of Azathoth has been done!"

You may bury the figure of the murdered corpse and burn it after the enemy's death.

Joe Newby #homophobia web.archive.org

“Our program staff monitors the media to make sure that anti-gay defamation is corrected and doesn’t occur anymore so that those stereotypes that you see about gay people in the media or when we have anti-gay voices in the media GLAAD responds to make sure that the LGBT community is heard,” he said.

In other words, the group works to ensure that only one side of the debate is heard while seeking the censorship of those who, like Phil Robertson, do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Jean Valjean #fundie web.archive.org

[Bracketed part is W. F. Price's introduction to the quote]

[Responding to Spanier’s poston raising daughters, commenter Jean Valjean points out some of the problems with feminism+hypergamy as they relate to family formation and economic equality. Not only do men lose out, but women as well, as the combined force of female social elitism and assortative mating conspire to concentrate earnings in the hands of the few.

It would be difficult to argue with Jean’s logic, which is why feminists almost always ignore these issues, despite the fact that they are immensely more important to your average man or woman in an average job than sexual harassment or the gender gap in wages:]

Jean Valjean

Why don’t women have kids at 21 instead of 31 or 41? Indeed it is far more logical for women to have kids earlier. Not just for the reasons you cite but also because by delaying a career for 10 years she can see her children to a point where they are semi-autonomous.

Once her kids reach 10 she can see them off to school in the morning and spend the day going to college or trade school. By the time the kids reach high school and need the least oversight the mother can begin her career and any employer can be assured that she will be more dedicated than if she had no children or had young children.

But feminists don’t want this. As Simone do Beauvoire wrote in “The Second Sex,” women cannot be given this choice because they will choose it.

Most women intuit the lie of feminism: that being a stay at home mom is “oppression” the moment they have a child and want to stay home. For the lucky few they are afforded the luxury of doing just that because of a willing and able husband. For most women, their choices are greatly limited thanks to feminism. Many men simply cannot support a household on their own income. Women, competing against men and employing hypergamy not only results in lower status men but also lower status women.

For instance, if we have a community of 1000 workers and there are 100 good jobs paying around 100k a year, and only men are allowed to work those jobs then that means that 100 families will have an income of 100k a year. But when women compete against men and say 40 of those jobs go to women and those women employ hypergamy then only 60 families have an income of 100k, and 40 have an income of 200k.

This means that 40 women will have to marry men who make less than 100k. This contributes to the widening gap between the rich and poor that many financial pundits fail or refuse to recognize.

This same dynamic applies to those families with two 50k incomes. The actual pain of these lower incomes is really felt by the mother most because she has to work to keep the family at the middle class level whereas 40 years ago she could choose to stay home.

But the real pain is felt at the lower incomes. Even two 20k incomes aren’t enough to allow a family of 4 to enter the middle class. And these lower incomes are the most common (and so is divorce among this class).

As always, feminism has always benefited the rich white women the most because the same dynamic that propels the sons of the rich into high paying occupations also does the same for the daughters.

The problem is that hypergamy (and high divorce not discussed above) are creating more lower income women than before. Feminism is harming women only women are too indoctrinated and selfish to realize it.

(Feminism harms men more but we already know that)

Rachel Sacher #conspiracy web.archive.org

The logo Hillary Clinton chose for her 2016 Presidential Campaign is wrong on several levels. Here is what the logo looks like and here is why I think it’s not ok.

image

[...]

This is the worst part about her logo. It looks like a plane crashing into the twin towers and she knows it. You see, Hillary thought about all this long before releasing the worst and most controversial logo in presidential history.

You may find yourself wondering, how could she make something reminds so many people of the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11?

Because Hillary Clinton is heartless and I don’t say that lightly. Her life reveals that to be true. She’s been married and stayed married to a man who has been consistently unfaithful to her. This would break any self respecting woman’s heart, but Hillary has turned that part of herself off.

She was just blessed with her first grandchild and yet she’s going to spend her time running for President. Another heartless move.

And now she has heartlessly decided to remind America of the tragic events that took place on 9/11 for her own political gain…. Heartless.

To Hillary Clinton, I have to say 9/11 is off limits. She’s decided to incorporate a terrorist attack into her logo. That is unacceptable.

So before anyone even thinks about voting for her, let’s all remember the extent of her decision making skills. Anyone who would use 9/11 to advance their political career does not deserve to be anywhere near the white house.

It’s time for Hillary to retire from politics.

Ladies (and gentlemen) let’s see her logo for what it really is – a desperate attempt to create political buzz for her campaign at the expense of the victims of 9/11.

Let us end the conversation about the bad logo and make sure she loses this desperate attempt to make America notice her.

Rabbi Manis Friedman #fundie web.archive.org

["How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?"]

I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

James von Brunn #racist web.archive.org

[The front page of the website for the suspected perpetrator of the Holocaust Museum shooting]

A new, hard-hitting exposé of
the JEW CONSPIRACY to
destroy the White gene-pool

by

James W. von Brunn

Here are 350pp of FACTS condensing libraries of information about the Talmud, Democracy, Marx, Genetics, Money, Aryans, Negroes, Khazars, The Holy Bible, Treason, Mass-media, Mendelism, Race, the “Holocaust” and a host of suppressed “bigoted” subjects, all supported by quotations from many of history’s greatest personages. Learn who is responsible for the millions of Aryan crosses covering the world’s battlefields. Why our sons and daughters died bravely but in vain. Learn why the “browning of America will alter everything in society from politics and education to industry, values and culture.” (TIME 4-9-90).

Learn who has committed treason - and must be brought to justice!

This carefully documented treatise exposes the JEWS and explains what you must do to protect your White family. Kill the Best Gentiles! Is a must for every concerned parent and a manual for every student of World History.

Mountain Manna #quack #crackpot #mammon web.archive.org

Mountain Manna is a water based homeopathic tincture / extract containing concentrated organic M-PMEs (M-state-Precious Metal Elements) in their highest natural energy state. They come straight from mountain mineral springs; before the dissipating effects of reactions with sun, air and soil. We believe that these M-PMEs are bio-superconductors, which flow the light-of-life.

This class of materials has also been called White Gold, ORMEs (Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements), ORMUS and m-state. We believe that they are related to the Biblical Manna, the Water-of-Life, the Alchemist's Elixir of Life and the Philosopher's Stone.

The benefits attributed to their use as a mineral supplement are due, in part, to the isomeric energy released by the M-PMEs as they are digested in one's body. Their unique energy frequencies tend to bring a holistic balance to the nervous, and cellular systems, as well as the subtle bodies. The objective of regular consumption is not primarily as a curative to alleviate a specific condition, although such benefits can occur, but for sustenance to build a reserve of special frequencies not available in our normal diets anymore.

Since these spring-water colloids are offered in a very concentrated and bio-available liquid form, the suggestions for use should be closely followed.

Coming directly from spring waters deep in the Trinity Alps of Northern California, Mountain Manna is extremely rare in the purity and grade of its natural elements. Very limited quantities are harvested as dictated by the optimum flow conditions at specific times during a given spring's annual cycle. Our care in the production of Mountain Manna ensures that you get the highest energy natural m-state minerals. These colloids are extracted with the source water to the desired concentration and then processed through a series of successively tighter filters to allow only the smallest organic mineral particles in the final tincture / suspension (98% are smaller than 1/10th micron).

FineprintWe make no specific claims as to any medical benefits of any of the Mountain Manna formulations. People who use them do so entirely at their own risk as would be true of the use any product containing m-state precious metal elements. Mountain Manna is sold as a natural mineral water. Any use is the responsibility of the buyer.

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

From the beginning, humans have lived in tribes, which are somewhat akin to groups of chimpanzees, cooperating to provide food, childcare, labor and dissemination of information. The family, in its varied forms, was always subordinate to the tribe, and the tribe often in conflict with other tribes. Humans have competed with each other for resources and territory from the dawn of history and before, and they have usually done so through some sort of tribal conflict. Usually, the more numerous tribe would win, because it could summon more men and defeat the other by force of numbers, but because the ideal human group is relatively small – some 50-100 individuals – summoning a larger force required relatively complex rules and strong taboos to maintain any sort of social cohesion. Hence the seeds of civilization were sown through tribal competition.

Despite the addition of all this complexity, which has enabled humans to live in mass societies, the basic tribal tendency remains part of human nature. And in a tribe, the most important component has always been the men. Without them, there is only booty, free for the taking for any group of men willing to come along and claim it. In fact, this has been the case for so long that patrilocality is the norm throughout the world. Exogamy in primitive tribes is exceedingly common, but it is usually the women who leave one group and go to another — this is reflected in our modern practice of women and children taking the husband’s surname. The men stay, because without them the group would simply be swallowed up by others.

Because the tribe has been, if not the most basic, the most important unit of human society, it is highly likely that humans evolved to maximize the success of the tribe. This would include gender roles, and probably even gender phenotypes. Human females are particularly poorly suited to hunting when compared to other species that derive a similar portion of calories from meat, so division of labor has obviously been in play since at least the emergence of modern homo sapiens. Some have suggested that this division was not so clear for neanderthals, whose women may have come along on the hunt and helped bring down large animals, but the neanderthal physique was substantially different from our own.

The point is that the tribe is mainly defined by its men, and has been throughout recorded history, which suggests that this was always the case. Evidence from primitive tribes in the modern era supports this as well. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fact that men are usually targeted while women are often spared in tribal conflict even further confirms the importance of males. If it were true that tribes cannot survive without women, the most successful tribes would have been those that systematically exterminated their enemies’ female members, which would be far easier to do in any event. But this simply did not happen.

For the biblically inclined, I’d like to point to the story of the tribe of Benjamin, a particularly warlike Israelite tribe which was nearly exterminated after some mortal offense (inhospitality) prompted the other tribes to gang up on them. The other tribes were so angry at Benjamin that after defeating their men in battle, they slaughtered all the women and children, leaving the Benjaminites a tribe of bachelors. Finally, when the other tribes felt fairly certain that the Benjaminites had learned their lesson, the men were allowed to marry women from other tribes, and ultimately the tribe was reestablished.

Now, imagine what would have happened if every single Benjaminite man was slaughtered and the women spared. The women would have been distributed as spoils of war, and Benjamin would have been no more. From the tribal survival standpoint, who is more expendable?

It would be tempting to suggest that things have changed so much that tribal consideration no longer matter, but that would be a short-sighted argument. Civilization did not develop by repudiating humans’ natural tribal sentiments, but by incorporating them into a larger organization. Military organizations, today and in the past, are broken down into manageable groups that approximate the size of a tribe. The US Army Company, the Roman Centuria (which also means tribe), the Mongol Zuut and the Germanic Hundred are all examples of this. Churches have traditionally had about a tribe’s worth of parishioners, and large corporations are organized to take this optimal group size into account as well. Despite the sophistication of contemporary society, humans are still fundamentally tribal. It’s instinctive and reflected in how we organize our lives and tasks.

Therefore, one can see modern states, and civilization in general, as a massive confederation of tribes, between which there remains a great deal of competition. However, men are arguably just as important as ever to these basic social units to which they belong. Where would our businesses, our military and our public service organizations be without their men? Law and order, commerce, infrastructure and defense would fall apart within days.

So why are men so often treated as expendable within society? It goes back to competition, i.e. your men are expendable, but ours are not. Elites have always been perfectly happy to use other people’s sons as cannon fodder, while usually protecting their own from the battlefield. At the highest levels of society, sons are preferentially educated over daughters, and then these exact same people who favor their boys take steps to ensure that less fortunate sons are prevented from competing with them. Other people’s daughters, on the other hand, are no threat to their tribe — they are a resource to be exploited. In fact, support of feminism by elites only confirms that they see other tribes’ women as chattel, or perhaps tribute — either term would suffice. When men are given as tribute, it has typically been in one of two roles: the warrior or the eunuch. Hence, they want our boys as soldiers (including police) or femme homosexuals (the modern incarnation of the eunuch); for the rest of us they have little use except as peasants, to be kept in line with punitive taxes and overwhelming force.

The argument that men are expendable because of some biological mandate is perhaps the last vestige of the pseudoscience that emerged from 19th century anthropology and plagued humanity with various wrong-headed ideologies throughout the 20th century. In reality, men have always been the most essential component of the tribe, which has characterized human social organization since the dawn of our species. The world’s oldest and most successful civilizations have learned this over time, and have survived because they incorporated this truth into their law and governing philosophy. We have to recognize that men are targeted for abuse and dispossession exactly because they are essential to the strength and health of their tribes. When we live in a mass society without any sense of common values or interests, where discord, envy and greed are the norm, it is perfectly natural that men will come under attack. If one thinks of it as an inchoate civil war, it becomes all the more clear.

[Same fundie, posted in comments]

Something like that, but I don’t think it’s an articulated effort or policy so much as normal human nature. Those in elite “tribes” instinctively favor policies that limit the choices and power of those males who are part of upstart tribes. People naturally fear rival males — we are an apex predator after all, and have little to worry about from anything else. This, I think, is at the root of androphobic policies.

Civilization has been a constant effort to channel male resource competition into constructive effort, but here in the West we are currently failing at that, and men have turned on each other. It always seems to happen eventually, which is why war is a constant.

On the positive side, I think we have a very good chance of eventual victory, because never in the history of humanity has a state exercised its power over the people with a harem. Those of us who do not give up our men will eventually take the spoils.

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

Writing about Barack Obama’s willingness to send women into combat, I suggested he might be seen as an MRA by some because he embraces a form of absolute equality that is, if we are to be honest, very anti-feminist. I wasn’t being entirely serious; Obama doesn’t and will not identify as an MRA. However, what he is doing as President will do a better job wrecking Anglo feminism than anything any other American president I can think of has done.

Anglo feminism is probably the world’s most potent kind of all, and has been for centuries. Women are accorded more privilege and concessions in the Anglo world than anywhere else on earth, but it doesn’t look like that will last much longer.

I remember when Obama was talking about offering birth control to women, which he seemed to feel genuinely strongly about. He said women needed birth control to keep them productive and in the work force. Now, some feminists may say that that’s a potential perk of birth control, but the reason they want it has nothing to do with women’s productivity, but rather options. Endless options, that is: to work or not to work, to be mothers or not; to take the pill if they feel like it, or merely to let it sit in their bathroom cupboard. To get pregnant or not at will, and to have sex with the men they choose and babies with whom they choose.

There’s no higher purpose to Anglo feminism — it has nothing at all to do with a “different” or “better” society when it comes down to it. It’s all pure, distilled, unadulterated selfishness.

And here we have Obama telling women that they are now equal, that they will be ordered into combat, and that they will be given the pill so as to stay on the job and not get knocked up. If they want, they may have a child, like Julia, and the state will manage all aspects of that for them. But theirs is not to choose. They are going to do it the “Julia way.”

I know Obama’s order to send women into nuclear submarines has a lot of people wondering how on earth this will be feasible, given women’s yearly pregnancy rate while deployed (approaches 16% on surface ships). For undersea missions that require secrecy and many months under the ice, this will not do. But I bet Obama already has a solution: forced birth control. Soldiers are already required to take vaccines and undergo other procedures, so why not make the women submit to quarterly depo shots while deployed? It will not be publicized widely, and it will not be portrayed as forced birth control, but women will be given the kind of choice feminists never intended: take the shots or you will not be allowed on the ship.

There will be more and more of this kind of thing as we integrate women into the world of men. Women’s choices will slowly be whittled away, and soon they’ll find that they gave up a great deal of the freedom and privilege they had a mere decade or so before.

Barack Obama is not an Anglo feminist. He is an old-school socialist, which is not at all the same thing. Our Anglo feminists don’t understand that yet. They think socialism simply means “more options.” But it doesn’t, especially not in a country like the US. Socialism means limited choices not only for capitalists and men, but women, too. It also means that men will no longer have the same ability to provide for them they once did, so they will rely on a state that doesn’t think of them as a special snowflake, but rather just another number.

So although Barack Obama may not care about men’s rights in particular, he will do more to undermine Anglo feminism than any president who has come before him. His idea of “equality,” although strange and not necessarily realistic, will finally call the great feminist bluff, and then the privilege and pedestal that supported Anglo feminism for so long will topple, replaced only by an official “gender neutrality” that will highlight women’s weaknesses while removing all their strengths.

James “Chateau Heartiste” Weilman #sexist #psycho web.archive.org

Feminist Idiocy Unintentionally Provides Useful Game Advice (Again)

A graphic produced by some dumb feminist associated with the dumb feminist Twitter hashtag campaign #WhyIStayed is amusingly, if unsurprisingly, self-contradicting pabulum that works well if read with the opposite meaning intended.
image
(The Power And Control Wheel, a widely accepted diagram of abusive relationship dynamics)

Duluth, Minnesota. Fuckin’ ground zero for empty-headed shrill feminist white girls.

If you didn’t know, #WhyIStayed was a de-clawed internet cat swarm that defensively erupted after video of Ray Rice knocking out his adoring now-wife in an elevator emerged. The #WhyIStayed message, if one could call it that, was “Don’t blame women for anything, ever, that goes wrong in their lives.” Really, how else do you interpret thousands of women offering thousands of lame excuses for why they stayed with their sexily abusive alpha male lovers?

There must be an equivalent hashtag called #WhyIHadNoTroubleLeavingMyBoringBetaMaleBoyfriend. There’s not? Oh too bad.

Anyhow, if you sift through this dung pile of feminist ego assuaging butthurt you find a few curious nuggets of anti-feminist truth about relationships and how to keep them going.

“not take her concerns seriously” — women love love love when a man charmingly patronizes them.

“say she caused it” — it may be unethical, but then why does it work so well?

“use jealousy to justify actions” — chicks do dig occasional flashes of jealousy, as long as it’s obvious the man is expressing them with complete control over his emotions.

“make her feel bad and guilty” — reframing.

“play mind games” — that’s one way to provoke a vaginal gusher.

“smash things” — occasional bursts of anger, when justified, are cues of sexy male dominance and they do turn on women.

“make her do illegal things” — the ghost of Bonnie chortled.

“threaten to leave her” — dread game.

“make her ask for money” — because throwing money at women really makes them fall more in love. /sarcasm

“give her an allowance” — if women have no agency in abusive relationships, shouldn’t they be treated like children for their own protection?

“not let her know about or have access to family money” — chicks dig mysterious men. by the way, this PSA is starting to read like an action plan for fleecing wealthy beta males.

“take her money” — aka make a woman feel like she’s invested in you. she’ll try harder to make it work.

“be the one to define men’s and women’s roles” — chicks dig a leader. and they also dig benevolently sexist men!

“make all the big decisions” — because letting women make big decisions works out real well when they’re trying to decide whether to leave an abusive alpha male.

“treat her like a servant” — 50 Shades of Gray has sold millions of copies. To women.

“act like the master of the castle” — this has got to be a feminist secret wish list.

Another day, another drubbing. Thank you feminists, for revealing the holes in your hearts your beboobed beta male lackeys cannot fill!

Journey To The Heart #fundie web.archive.org

Overview

References to the Akashic records, or the eternal Book of Life, date back to antiquity. References in the Old Testament and beyond give us the sense that there is a collective storehouse of knowledge that is written on the fabric of reality.

WHAT ARE THE AKASHIC RECORDS?

The Akashic records are like the DNA of the universe. They are the soul's journey over time, so every thought, word, and deed is registered in the Akashic records. Each soul has its own Akashic record, and there are collective records of all souls or all journeys.

They way we receive information from the Akashic Records is in encoded Light language, which is Sacred geometry of words encoded in fire, so learning how to interpret the information is crucial. We start learning to use our inner senses to give words and interpretation to what we receive; we also start getting fine-tuned to this new energy.

The Akashic Records are the individual records of a soul from the time it leaves its point of origin until its return. At the time we make the decision to experience Life as an independent entity, there is a field of energy created to record every thought, word, emotion, and action generated by that experience. That field of energy is the Akashic Records. Akashic because it is composed of Akasha, (the energetic substance from which all life is formed); and Records, because its objective is to record all life experience.

By opening the Akashic Records with a Sacred Prayer, we align ourselves to the vibration of the one receiving the consultation (either ourselves or another). The Prayer works with energetic vibration to "key in" to the specific "name" of the life form, and carries with it God?s protection through the Masters, Teachers and Lords of Akasha.

The information in the Akashic Records helps us bring our past, present and future in to the "now". By accessing the Akashic records, we can identify and release anything that we have created, that has become a block to our present realization of our oneness with God.

'We can look at why we have addictive patterns, why we choose the relationships we do, why we have created our habitual responses, and how to create action in our lives instead of re action.

The heating energy of the Akashic Records allows us the freedom to choose grace in all things; therefore, overriding any illusion we have created that causes us to believe we are separate from God/Spirit/Source.

It is one of the most powerful tools available on the planet today, to help us remember our oneness with God/Spirit/Source.

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

While thinking about the issue of the undervalued Siberian girls (relative to American women), I realized that there is probably a direct correlation between the wealth of a society’s men and the value and power of the society’s women. That is, the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.

So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time.

It’s really pretty obvious if you think about it objectively, but it tends to escape notice because these days people don’t think of these things in terms of a symbiotic relationship between men and women, but rather an oppositional one. What they do is compare men and women, and argue that men’s wealth is somehow “oppressive” to women, because that’s how modern, liberal democracies work; each group sees itself in opposition to others.

Here in the West men have been very wealthy by world standards for quite some time. We still are, but this is changing. What’s been happening is that the younger generations of men have steadily lost wealth, while the older folks have managed to hang onto a fair amount. Part of the reason for younger men’s decline in wealth (although by no means all), is feminist affirmative action and “positive discrimination,” as well as confiscatory policies designed to give the female group an advantage over the male. These measures have been effective, and have contributed to the declining wealth of the Western male in both relative and absolute terms.

As the younger, poorer men come of age, and are still significantly poorer than their predecessors, this will begin to impact women of their cohort as well. I believe this process has already begun, but the effects have some lag; perhaps ten years or so. When it becomes readily apparent that living in a country full of poor men is no picnic for women, feminism will be discredited, but not until then. Using the recession as the starting point, I’d give it about five years until it can no longer be ignored.

So, given that women’s status is a result of male wealth, it looks as though feminism may actually turn out to be self-correcting, as it strips men of resources that could be used to further empower women. Maybe human society has a mysterious way of correcting itself, and the natural balance between the sexes is restored even through counterintuitive processes such as feminism.

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

Yep. Pattinson’s a younger guy who hasn’t yet developed the confidence and swagger that years of being in charge of hot young starlets gives a guy. As a director, Sanders is quite literally the boss of beautiful young women. For these girls, who are used to being catered to hand and foot by ordinary men, that’s erotic, and probably hard to resist. It’s yet another reason we should think twice about putting young wives to work with men who have higher relative status in the office than their husbands do at home. That’s obviously a recipe for marital disaster.

However, some may ask why this is such a big deal. Pattinson may have just gained the opportunity to be done with a slutty girlfriend, so what’s the problem?

Well, think about how this will play out. Pattinson is young enough that this will eventually be forgotten, but in the meanwhile he’s going to pay for it. Older, higher-status men taking women from their younger boyfriends/husbands is nothing new, and quite frankly it’s often how they put up-and-coming young men in their place. Nobody really feels sorry for a chump whose woman cheated on him — they tend to laugh at him. It’s unfortunate, but it seems to be human nature.

In a business like Hollywood, losing respect is not very good for your career. A guy whose girlfriend cheated on him is going to have a harder time landing a leading role. The girl, for her part, takes some punishment as well. But the alpha male cheater doesn’t really lose. In fact, he tends to gain respect (whether people admit it or not). Therefore, the woman who cheats betrays her man socially and professionally as well as sexually. It’s a very nasty thing to do to a guy, because unlike a betrayed wife, he gets ridicule instead of sympathy.

Cheating women don’t just make you feel bad; they make you look bad, too. And that does have real life consequences. When women betray men, it really is worse.

The one positive thing is that this will probably damage Stewart’s career more than Pattinson’s. He’s got decades to live this down, but by the time it’s forgotten she’ll already be over the hill for an actress.

Sluts just screw things up for lots of people. That’s why we shame them, and should continue to do so.

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

One can only imagine millions of women diligently obtaining degrees in communications, marketing, etc., all believing that after they slept their way into a high-paying job some handsome, independently wealthy man would choose them for a bride. At this point, it’s increasingly difficult to feel sorry for them, but from a female perspective this does pose a real problem.

The problem, of course, is that “settling” always makes women miserable, and these girls have no other choice. For the corporate, careerist types, it’s especially problematic, because they have been trained to equate status to earnings and job title, and the kinds of guys who have status but less money (e.g. professors, classical musicians, some artists, junior officers) generally won’t touch them with a barge pole. The high-status males in their own milieu have access to sweeter types who work in childcare and the like — far more attractive women they can’t hope to compete with.

...

Marriage has never really been based simply on men’s “overwhelming economic dominance.” As long as men were economically dominant (a period that only lasted a few generations in any event) they were not allowed to divorce without very stiff penalties. However, marriage has always been based on male dominance in general, because it is the only setup in which women feel secure, happy and content to stay with their men. As soon as women are made dominant – or even equal – in their marriages, marriage self-destructs.

As the awful truth about human nature begins to reveal itself, an entire generation of women find themselves crying into their chablis as the credits of the latest episode of Mad Men roll by. It is becoming apparent that what we are witnessing is not so much “The End of Men” as it is the desolation of the feminist dream.

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

[I'm honestly impressed with how much of a soft-focus lens Price manages to put on what is basically Marxist-Rodgerism]

One of the most common epithets hurled at men by feminists, and probably the most genuinely hurtful, is that men are upset at women because they are bitter about being unloved. The reason this one hurts more than the typical “small penis” or “mother’s basement” insult is because it is so often accurate to some extent. The best insults always hit a weak spot. It’s true that many men are very bitter about loss of love, betrayal or lack of attention from women. This is why some pick up artists have such commercial success with their ventures, and why men flock to gurus who say they hold the secrets to a woman’s heart.

Actually, if these cruel women only knew, it goes a lot farther than mere heartbreak. The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.

So, yes, these are bitter, unloved men. They are hated and they know it, although many have no clear idea why. They think to themselves “I’m not a criminal… I never hurt anyone… How could this happen to me?” Some can’t handle it. There are many suicides that simply don’t make the news. In a small minority of cases, they snap, and then there’s the “domestic disturbance” situation that has become so routine these days in which a police gunman puts the man out of his misery, as though he were a rabid dog. However, in most cases the men simply accept their doleful fate and live their miserable lives.

I was one of those miserable, unloved men for some time. But not entirely. Circumstance gave me a considerable amount of time with my kids when my ex decided to make her move. She left just as she obtained a good job thanks to my promise to work part-time and take care of the children while she trained for it, and she didn’t want to pay for daycare, so she proposed and received a parenting plan that had me caring for them much of the time she was working. Although being abandoned without any warning was devastating, my children never abandoned me, and despite the horror of separation I had them almost half time. All it took to snap me out of the most morbid thoughts was the sound of my kids’ voice, or the thought of them growing up and wondering why daddy did such a selfish thing as to leave them.

But if it weren’t for that time with my kids, I would have been totally, utterly alone. When I didn’t have them I had no desire for human contact. I really felt that the only people in the entire world who cared about me at all were my little children, aged one and three at the time. I suppose I digress a little here, but I can’t help feel that they were little angels, even if I did have to change their diapers and wipe food off their faces after every meal.

For men who don’t even have that, it’s almost unimaginable. It’s such a shockingly horrible experience that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, yet here we have feminists taunting men for feeling unloved. And still we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

All that said, men have every right to be angry, and righteously so. But deep down, I think what most of them want is far simpler and more benign than revenge or some political payback. They want some love, some security and the opportunity to be a part of a family. They want to grow old with a woman who is true to them, and to see their children grow tall and strong. It doesn’t always come out that way, and there are those who have rejected the idea entirely, but it’s an ideal that I think most men would agree is worth some effort, if not for themselves then for a better society in general.

So, I’d like to say to the feminists out there that yes, there are men who are bitter and sad about being unloved. Yes, it is often why they malign women, and it isn’t always a pretty thing. But if you really take pleasure in people’s loneliness and despair, you’ve got a cold, dead heart, and no reason to be proud of yourself. Instead of waxing triumphant about unfortunate men’s loneliness and misery, why not work for a world in which everyone can feel loved? Are you woman enough to do that?

laidnyc #sexist web.archive.org

I'LL LOVE YOU FOREVER UNTIL YOU TURN 30

Your Seed is Gold

Sex is too easy.

Work out, put on nice clothes, talk to girl, tease her, tell her cool things about me, pretend to be interested in her, fuck her.

See?

Too fucking easy.

It’s stupid.

I don’t give a shit about sex. Any broad can spread her legs.

You know what I do care about? Holding girls to a higher standard.

Why? Because my seed is liquid fucking gold and I don’t give it out like its god damn tap water.

See girls, your pussy is powerless to me. What else you got?

You slip on a tight skirt and throw on some makeup and flaunt those nice tits and think your job is done. You shit-test me all the way into the bedroom expecting me to give you amused mastery and show you my status and give you attention and ignore you just right all at the same time, and then you’ll give me sex.

But why should I give you my valuable time and let you revel in my charisma?

Sex, is that the big deal? I’m supposed to feel so grateful that you blessed me with that magical unicorn pussy of yours?

I got news for you girls. For a guy with any clue, finding sex is as easy as finding a pizzeria in New York, and like pizza in New York, its all pretty fucking good.

Your brand ‘aint that special.

Sex is everywhere and anywhere I want it, I don’t give a shit about yours.

It takes more than a nice curve of the ass or a bat of the eyelashes to earn my seed.

My salty essence and genetic code is a gift from my father, and his father, and his father, and on it goes. Its the sticky genetic code of self-sufficient men who have protected and provided for family, women and children. Its the haplogroup of men who built civilization. I have the genetic lineage of warriors, business owners, firefighters, blacksmiths, farmers, herders, poets, politicians, soldiers, artists and even chefs. Hard jobs that help build the world, thinking jobs that help build a culture, they’ve all been done by men in my bloodline. My ceiling for accomplishment is limitless.

I’m not some average guy begging to give my seed away. My seed is valuable and I know it.

Men of lesser genetics may be able to afford spraying their seed anywhere; I allow myself no such atrocities.

My sperm could populate an entire society of strong good looking altruistic people and any girl who takes it in would be lucky to be a vessel towards that new world.

But for that I demand a high price.

Whether or not our sex is intended to end in pregnancy makes no difference. Just the sheer fact that it could makes me demand the same high price.

You better have enviable genetics yourself- I don’t breed with inferior stock. Beauty is the minimum and you better know how important that is. Long hair grown to impress me, healthy diet and exercise to maintain your figure and viability of your eggs.

But the beauty that draws the stares, stutters and drools of lesser men won’t capture my attention for more than a millisecond. I am inundated with a surplus of beauty in my daily pursuits, I can assure you that yours ‘aint that special. You probably look like shit first thing in the morning or on the first day of your period.

I expect impeccable hygiene and classy style. A body tainted by tattoos and excessive piercings and slutty clothing signals you are available for sex to lesser men than myself. I’ll have none of that.

I demand a low N count to show you value your body and sex, and the seed I am about to give you will be appreciated on the level it deserves. A low N count shows both intelligence and confidence as you are smart enough not to give your body to charlatans and scoundrels, and confident enough to wait for the high value man you know you deserve.

I expect manners and grace. No swearing, drunkenness, burping, sarcasm or anything else unbecoming of a lady. I spend a lot of time working with and competing against men in my daily life, the last thing I need is the company of a woman who acts like the men I must compete with. You exist to soothe, not to grate.

A year from now I will be richer and fitter and more socially respected in the Kingdom, but your beauty will have faded a notch. I demand that you treat me with the humility and respect that this biological reality dictates.

Finally, there is nothing I despise more than a woman who shows any disgust for my jizz.

It is the Royal Essence and you better enjoy every last drop.
If it lands on your face, chest or back, consider it raindrops from heaven, a rope of Holy Yogurt.
If you are lucky enough to get it in your mouth, savor it like the nourishing nectar of the Gods.
If I shoot it inside you consider it the greatest compliment of all. You will feel an immediate buzz.
My jizz is to women what Walter White’s pure blue meth is to junkies.
You’ll take my seed, sweetly tell me “thank you sir” and buzz with happy feminine energy for the next day while you iron my fine shirts and indulge in memories of me.

I’ll settle for nothing less.

Some girls don’t want to respect a man that much. They have been poisoned by feminism or never had a strong male figure to look up to growing up or they have already taken far too high a volume of cock to revere their next one. I have no use for those girls. Even a one-night stand with them is worthless beyond the ten-second orgasm, itself not worth the time spent to get it. Leave them for the men who have a low enough opinion of themselves to not demand such respect.

For guys, I don’t give a shit how many girls you’ve fucked just like I don’t give a shit how many pizzerias you’ve eaten at. A man is measured more by the pizzeria’s he refuses to eat at, the prices he refuses to pay for average pizza, if you know what I mean.

Remember, you set the price of your seed.

Mine is fucking gold.

What’s yours?

Jeff Giesea (disciple of Peter “Dracula” Thiel) #wingnut #psycho web.archive.org

HOW TO FUND TO THE ALT-RIGHT
by @bunkerwsmith

BACKGROUND: The Alt-Right is fueled by incredible passion and talent but very little money. Taking this movement to the next level will require resources. That means $$$. My hope is that this guide makes it easier for people to contribute. Consider this a kick in the pants to support the movement, even if it's a small amount.

PRINCIPLES: A few quick principles as I put this together. (excuse the faggotry)
1. How you spend your money is a personal decision. My goal here is to give you options. (I'm happy to offer my personal opinion of the best places to invest if asked, but that's not my intent here.)
2. Obviously there's some subjectivity about what's considered #AltRight. I'll do the best to scope this appropriately.
3. This is not a personal endorsement of any of the resources listed.
4. I realize this is USA-centric. Over time we can add more international resources.
5. Consider this a living document. Feel free to DM or tweet edits or additions.

ANONYMITY: This is one of the biggest concerns among Alt-Right donors. For the vast majority of donors (contributing $0-$5k annually), anonymity is totally between you and the organization you're funding. There's no federal reporting requirement of donations. Leaked info is always a risk, so check with their security practices if you're concerned. Contributing via Bitcoin and PayPal may offer additional privacy protections. In the USA, 501c3 organizations have to report those who donate $5,000 or more in a single year on their annual 990 forms. If you want to donate more than $5,000 and are concerned with anonymity, I suggest getting in touch with the organization directly. In the USA, personal gifts can be made tax-free up to $12,000 per year.
-> We are working on a guide to contributing using bitcoin.

PLACES TO CONTRIBUTE
Here is a working list of places to donate with links.

ESTABLISHED NON-PROFITS (501C3s)
- American Renaissance - @AmRenaissance - https://store.amren.com/donate.php
- Chronicles (Rockford Institute) - @ChroniclesMag - https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/my-account/login/?redir=%2fdonate%2f
- Counter-Currents - @NewRightAmerica - https://secure.counter-currents.com/donate
- National Policy Institute (Radix Journal) @RadixJournal - http://www.npiamerica.org/support
- Occidental Observer - @TOOEdit - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/donate
- VDare - @vdare - https://www.vdare.com/contribute (you can contribute to individual authors like Sailer and Derb directly via Vdare)

BLOGS/MEDIA/INDEPENDENT VOICES ACCEPTING DONATIONS
Daily Stormer - http://www.dailystormer.com/contributions (fund Andrew personally at http://adventurequest2012.com)
Dissident Right - @adissidentright - http://dissidentright.com
Millennial Woes - @MillennialWoes - https://www.patreon.com/MillennialWoes?ty=h
Rome is Burning - @RomeBurningShow - http://romeisburning.show
Steve Sailer - @Steve_Sailer - http://isteve.blogspot.com
TheRightStuff - @ThaRightStuff - http://therightstuff.biz
WeimericaWeekly - @HadleyBennett - http://www.socialmatter.net

MEMBER-SUPPORTED MEDIA
Red Ice Radio - @rediceradio - http://www.redicemembers.com/amember/signup/index
Rome is Burning - @FerricJaggar - http://romeisburning.show/
White Rabbit Radio - @eurorabbit - http://whiterabbitradio.net/membership-options-page

OTHER RESOURCES
-> Here's another list of "heroes of the Alt-Right" with contributions info. https://goo.gl/yxjxfQ

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.]

Ron Paul #fundie web.archive.org

(Note: This article was salvaged from the Wayback Machine.)

Christmas in Secular America

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

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

I don’t think there ever will be an MRA “victory.” One way or another, things balance out. What will happen is that women will eventually pay for what they asked for, as in they will reap the “benefits” of wrecking the family. We must remember that most women – most people, actually – are not all that sophisticated, and others take advantage of them all the time. The average young woman is not currently benefiting from feminism — she’s working a crappy, low-wage job and living a mediocre life as a single parent. Unless she’s both pretty and bright, which is only about one out of twenty or so women (if that), her value is significantly lower than it was a generation in the past.

I’ve pointed it out before several times, but it bears repeating:

When a given society’s men prosper, the women are happy and healthy. When the men are poor and powerless, the women live much harder lives. The reverse is not true, because women do not share wealth. Just look at the average lifespan in counties and neighborhoods where women make more money than men in the US. It’s abysmal. Pine Ridge is probably the most blatant example of this.

Carol Bambery #racist web.archive.org

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Brandon Lakefield/Zerberster and Brainactivator (translater <sic> to English) #conspiracy web.archive.org

LEAKED: OFFICIAL AGENDA FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF GERMANY
FACE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST VISIBLE

Whistleblower report by Dipl-Ing. Dr. Austeja Emilija Dominykas

Translated into English from the German original by
Brainactivator
September 2016

EMAIL titled: A life story of horror
sent to Brandon Lakefield – Wichtig@Zerberster.org

(Forged "whistleblowing" about the German government building bunkers for evil muslims in preparation of genocide against German Christians. Austeja Emilija Dominykas is fictional.)

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

But whatever the rationale, women will now be officially equal to men on the battlefield, which brings me to an amusing revelation:

Barack Obama is an MRA.

When you say you will not hesitate to order women into a position that may well harm them or get them killed, you are violating the core principles feminists demand that men adhere to. Furthermore, you are embracing a kind of radical gender equality that is, in fact, a feature of much of the men’s rights movement.

I don’t happen to adhere to it myself; I find the idea of absolute gender equality to be short-sighted, counterproductive and, in the end, more harmful than reality based thinking. Some MRAs disagree very strongly with me on that point.

However, Obama is apparently on their side. Barack Obama wouldn’t hesitate to put women in harm’s way just the same as men. I think for feminists, this is going to be a confusing moment. It will be like what happens when you’ve got a particularly nasty, aggressive woman who gets up in a guy’s face and says “go ahead and hit me, you coward, I dare you!” and rather than back down like most men would, the guy gives it to her as though she were a man and lays her out.

This radical equality Obama is pushing is going to be the end of feminism as we know it for a couple reasons. First, the pedestal is effectively gone. White knighting has been erased from law, and the effect will be similar to what happened in the USSR, where women’s “liberation” eventually ended up giving them more work and responsibilities than they had before. This is going to be a major blow to women’s exclusive prestige and the end of chivalry as we understand it.

One could say it’s funny that the result of feminism will be that women end up losing the special status they used to have and find themselves looked upon as merely weaker, slower and more emotionally difficult versions of their male counterparts, but in the end we won’t be better off for it. No, it’s just going to make society somewhat more crappy for most of us — we’ll be a little more like China and Eastern Europe, and a little less like Switzerland.

Sometimes I wonder whether women will end up cursing the feminists who put them in this position. Unfortunately, I doubt many will. I think this whole feminist episode will be entirely forgotten, and the lesson forgotten with it.

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.

Missing Universe Museum #fundie #dunning-kruger web.archive.org

Per Evolutionists a vestigial organ or appendage is supposedly something that exists in a living organism without any function, but served some useful purpose in the past in some ancestral form. These should exist as well as harmless appendages that never did perform any useful function. They would be external as well as internal.

Here is an illustration of a created man as opposed to one who just evolved by chance:
image
Note that the Evolution man is bloated due to the numerous useless internal vestigial organs. Evolution would be obvious and undeniable if we looked like the man on the right! He would have trouble finding a suit that fits!

If Evolution is truly occurring, vestigial organs would not only exist, but they would greatly outnumber the fully functional ones! The same argument applies for transitional forms as described in Exhibit 5. Since Evolution is a random, chance process, there must be numerous trial and error combinations until a functional organ or appendage is produced. Any of these "vestigial" organs would still be in existence in a multitude of species and individuals and there would be no doubt that Evolution is fact.

However, in the late 1800's there were an estimated 150 vestigial parts in the human body. Supposedly anyone can claim that something is vestigial because it serves no apparent purpose and the individual can survive without it. Today there are no vestigial organs claimed for the human body! That is because in the last 100 years, medical science has found that there is indeed a purpose to everything in the human body.

Creation says there will be zero vestigial organs while Evolution requires millions of them.
_____________________________

imageThis car engine also has no vestigial parts because, like the human body, it too had a Creator! If something so complex as the human body could evolve by chance, then even more so could this automobile evolve by chance.

I don't know what many of the car parts do, but that doesn't mean they are useless leftovers (vestigial).
_____________________________

imageJust look at how the human body is ingeniously packaged. Like the car engine above, everything in the human body has a purpose and was designed by a Creator.
_____________________________

imageFirst we remove the external vestigial organs so we can make an incision.
After the incision we must remove the internal vestigial organs that are in our way.
Then we can perform the heart surgery.

Why don't we ever hear doctors mention vestigial organs?
_____________________________

imageVestigial Organ Donor Card - why don't we see these?
_____________________________

imageWe're having Vestigial Stew today.
Tomorrow it will be left over left overs!

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

[When you overthrow your dictator and celebrate your freedom by subjugating half the population and then some]

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolts in Egypt, the Maghbreb and some parts of the Arab world (it might be better termed Berber Spring than Arab Spring, as it began in largely Berber North Africa), many of the “progressive” policies put in place by dictators have come under attack by new political factions.

In Tunisia, where the revolutions began, the previous ruler had done a great deal to advance feminist causes in his country, possibly at the urging of his wife. Many of these Muslim leaders were educated and trained in the West before they came to power, and during the course of their instruction they absorbed a lot of what is known as progressive policy today. In fact, sometimes they were ahead of the West in that regard because, being authoritarian dictators, they had little standing in their way when they chose to implement new policies.

...

Hmmm, sounds just like home. Looks as though Ben Ali modeled his country’s divorce laws on California code. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Arab Spring began with a slap to the face of a young man by a female authority.

Ben Ali, according to the report, used feminism as a means to gain legitimacy even as he committed human rights violations. As is so often the case, the excuse that one is “protecting women and children” often serves as a license to commit egregious violations of human rights.

...

Finally, the author of the piece, who is evidently a feminist (or feminist friendly) herself, admits that most feminist achievements in the region were achieved not in spite of oppression, but because of it[.]

...

Feminism needs authoritarianism for obvious reasons: men must be forced by those with more power than they have to submit to the women in their lives. Feminists may sometimes claim to support freedom and democracy, but the smart ones know that both must be curtailed in order to achieve their version of equality.

Ultimately, however, as Tunisia demonstrates, the symbiotic relationship between authoritarianism and “progressive” policies such as feminism create an environment that is too much for the people to bear, and unrest breaks loose. When that happens in the West is an open question, but given our economic stagnation, I can only see the pressure rising from here on out.

Fritz Springmeier #conspiracy web.archive.org

[This is from Springmeier's introduction to the wharrgarbl conspiracy book The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave.].

The Illuminati have secretly put in base programming that allows them ultimate control over many of the other groups’ slaves. This will be described within this book. For both the ease of reading and the ease of writing, I have dispensed with most footnotes. To provide my sources would double the size of the book, and many of them are confidential. (In the past, when I have attempted crediting information, some people have gotten bruised feelings for having been passed over or for being named. When information comes in from several sources, it becomes difficult to pass out credit.)

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.

CH #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.

Andrew Schafly #quack #wingnut web.archive.org

Hydroxychloroqine (C18H26ClN3O), also known as hydroxychloroquine sulfate and HCQ, is a drug sold under the name Plaquenil Prior to COVID-19 it was most commonly used to treat malaria, and also currently to treat lupus. The package insert for Plaquenil describes its mostly minor potential side effects some of which occur at much higher doses than what is used to treat COVID-19.

It has been used by the physician Dr. Vladimir Zelenko as a part of successful treatment for coronavirus and was recommended for such by President Trump (see: Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment). Specifically, Dr. Zelenko used hydroxychloroqine, azithromycin (an antibiotic) and zinc as a part of his treatments to his patients.

China, South Korea, and India all use hydroxychloroquine to successful combat the effects of COVID-19.

Never-Trumpers in government and hospitals block early use of this medication, and instead either withhold it from patients entirely or delay it until the end stage of the patient's life when medications are least effective. Other governments (such as Texas), wanting to make sure current patients had a supply for their pre-existing medical needs, permitted it only with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis.

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

[When you actually agree with the feminist argument that domestic violence is political and about control]

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

Rabbi Moshe Averick #fundie web.archive.org

The Real Deal of Atheism

If Hitchens had presented an honest and candid articulation of his world outlook as an atheist, it would have gone something like this:

MY FELLOW GROUND WORMS:

It is important for you to know that religion poisons everything! Imagine how beautiful life would be if only we would stop trying to treat our fellow man like he was created in the image of God, stop treating him as if the Creator endowed him with unalienable rights, stop pretending that all men stand equal before their Creator, and start treating him like a purposeless carbon based bag of water revolving around a boring dwarf star, like bits of stellar matter gone wrong, like a sick fly, like the ground worm that he is, like a tuna fish that sprouted legs…

Remember, it is religion that poisons everything! The only thing religious people do is to go around killing each other in the name of God. I ask you honestly, does any rational, logical, skeptical, atheistic, scientific minded person really think it's necessary to believe in God if you want to go around killing people? Of course not! Don't let those fanatics brainwash you. Stalin** and Pol-Pot murdered millions and I am proud to remind you that they were fellow atheists. Anything those religious people do, we can do much, much better.

Let's be totally honest. As an atheist I assert that Adolf Hitler's racist notion that the Aryan race is superior to all other races is a "stupid" construct "made out of literally nothing." By the same token, Thomas Paine's idea that all men are created equal is also a "stupid" construct "made out of literally nothing." There is, however, an important difference between the two…Thomas Paine did not have that silly moustache.

On second thought, since as a result of Darwinian evolution species evolve to higher and higher levels of sophistication and intelligence, it actually is quite possible that one particular race, say for example the Aryan race, through the process of natural selection actually did evolve to a superior level and some of the other races actually are inferior. In other words, just like some types of monkeys and primates are smarter than others…..oops, better not go there, that line of reasoning could really get me in trouble…

In the final analysis I really don't know what difference it makes anyway, since I have no conclusive reason to care one way or the other. However, please keep in mind that all of us atheists, including myself, Dr. Sigmund Freud, Dr. Steven Weinberg, Dr. Will Provine, etc., assert that there is no objective purpose or value to human life, and the universe is meaningless and pointless. This of course means there is no real point in me speaking to you, or for you to listen to me for that matter…which makes me wonder…why exactly do I keep speaking anyhow?...But even more important, why do you keep listening? The main thing to remember is this: Although I haven't the faintest idea why, all these things are necessary for morality!

Rabbi David Eidensohn #fundie web.archive.org

A child growing up learns by absorbing, almost as if by osmosis, the gender and personal lessons of life form parents and society. Crucial to proper sexual development is the gender roles of humankind. Today, the emphasis on society is to confuse gender roles, to forbid a man to be a man, and to forbid a woman to be a woman. Children are raised in public schools and watch media that oppose normal gender development. This may be the greatest obstacle to proper sexual development in history. One expert wrote a book showing how educators try to force boys to be feminine, discouraging physical sports and even closing playgrounds. If we have public school systems where students regularly come to school with guns and murder people, and if we don't have this as often as we once did only because schools are throned with armed police, it is perhaps because boys are being stunted and frustrated in their natural masculine growth.

[...]

Therefore, heterosexuality has come under assault. Up to eighty percent of couples indicate difficulty in their sexual relationships. As society continues it plunge away from natural gender roles, these difficulties increase. A woman who is taught to be a man, and a man who is taught to be a woman, come to bed, and what happens? Does the man become pregnant? Anyone who allows a child to go to public school or watch television or movies is tampering with the child's natural sexual growth.

Richard Williamson #fundie web.archive.org

[Yes, this is the same Richard Williamson who recently denied the Holocaust on Swedish TV]

Canadians strike me as a gentle people; but "strike" is the word! Ten yeas ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university. The answer now to the second question may be as stormy as the answer to the first:- because of all kinds of natural reasons, almost no girl should go to any university!

The deep-down reason is the same as for the wrongness of women's trousers: the unwomaning of woman. The deep-down cause in both cases is that Revolutionary man has betrayed modem woman; since she is not respected and loved for being a woman, she tries to make herself a man. Since modem man does not want her to do what God meant her to do, namely to have children, she takes her revenge by invading all kinds of things that man is meant to do. What else was to be expected? Modem man has only himself to blame.

In fact, only in modern times have women dreamt of going to university, but the idea has now become so normal that even Catholics, whose Faith guards Nature, may have difficulty in seeing the problem. However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests - can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.

WorldNetDaily #conspiracy web.archive.org

WASHINGTON – It’s the age of revelations. Bizarre creatures. The false perception of reality exposed.

And in Watchers 10 , supernatural hunter L.A. Marzulli traverses the world for the truth in the latest installment of his mind-bending series.

Focusing on the DNA testing of some of the more incredible, unidentified specimens ever found, Marzulli travels to Mexico City to investigate the remains of a “fairy” dubbed the Metepec creature, a being some noted eerily resembles the locusts mentioned by John in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 9:7,9,10).

Marzulli’s Watchers 10 , includes detailed scientific research, including DNA testing and X-rays to determine whether or not this small, winged creature is a hoax, an elaborate scam by an individual piecing together body parts, or if it can be authenticated as a real carbon-based life form.

“These creatures are very anomalous. I don’t know what I’m looking at,” Marzulli incredulously tells Ricardo Rangel, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology.

Rangel said, “Yes, we’ve done different DNA testing on them. The DNA is very similar to humans, 98.5 percent.”

“We have an X-ray of this creature, where we can see the structure of the bones. We have a sample of tissue from this creature that we sent to a DNA laboratory, that we hoped to have sequenced. It was found to not have DNA in accordance with any related mammals on earth.”

“It’s impossible to create a puppet or mold based on these creatures. We must start a serious research into the origins of this creature.”

Rangel gave Marzulli a DNA sample of the “fairy” creature to take back to the United States for testing in a laboratory, but the TSA confiscated and destroyed it upon entering the country.

Also featured in Watchers 10 , is the frightening story of an encounter U.S. Special Forces soldiers had in Afghanistan in 2008 with what has become known as the Khandajar Giant, a 12-15 foot tall being some have compared to the biblical Goliath.

A U.S. soldier, who was part of the engagement, spoke to L.A. about how the Afghan people told stories of giant creatures that would eat people, but they dismissed it as similar to America’s folklore of Big Foot.

He would go on to detail how a number of soldiers were killed in the initial encounter with the Khandajar Giant and how the U.S. military sent in a helicopter to retrieve the corpse of the being after it was killed.

Watchers 10 features exclusive interviews with soldiers who were part of the unit that battled the Khandajar Giant and the C-130 pilot who transported the body of the creature out of Afghanistan.

Watchers 1-10 Bundle is also available at the WND Superstore, featuring more than 10 hours of incredible footage examining strange phenomenon.

In this bundle, you’ll have the opportunity to see the most dramatic UFO videos ever – those actually released by foreign governments hoping for explanation!

The Watchers 1-10 Bundle features investigations into:

What are these strange “orbs” that are increasingly common around the world and easily captured on video?
Are these phenomena extraterrestrial in origin or are they inter-dimensional and spiritual in nature?
And what’s behind the wars and rumors of wars engulfing the planet like never before?
Why are flocks of birds dropping dead and falling from the sky?
What about the gigantic fish kills?
Why are sinkholes suddenly appearing all over the earth?
And is there an increase in volcanoes and earthquakes, or does it just seem that way?
Also, meet a doctor who specializes in removing alien implants from hundreds of patients.
Strange sings in the heavens … strange sounds in the air. Are there unknown objects around the sun in our very own solar system?
What about the Shroud of Turin? Is it really the burial cloth of Jesus?
And is there a cover-up spanning generations to hide the truth about the Nephilim – the giants and mighty men of old from the Bible?
Learn about the strange encounter of a pilot with a UFO that actually audibly announced its proximity to a small aircraft and tracked it in an encounter that defied the laws of time and space as we know them.

And don’t miss the examination of another new and strange phenomenon – that of the appearance of the “black-eyed children” who appear at hotels and car windows, even on boats at sea! They appear with a singular purpose – they want to be invited in!

Who or what are they? Demons? Alien hybrids? Urban legends?

Speaking of legends, the researcher-host Marzulli interviews the leading expert on “The Spear of Destiny,” the weapon that pierced the side of Christ and supposedly gives its owner the power to rule the world.

What significance, if any, does the word “Obama” have in the Bible codes, referencing the Gog and Magog war?

And what secrets does the North Pole hold? Were Admiral Byrd’s and Adolf Hitler’s suspicions right? Is the “Hollow Earth” theory credible?

Goodbye TimeCube

TimeCube / Gene Ray #crackpot web.archive.org

[Note: Apparently the domain for timecube.com has expired. This is the last post that can be found on the Wayback Machine. I cleared up the formatting to make it (a little bit) easier to read.]

In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.

Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation. Practicing Evil ONEness - Upon Earth Of Quadrants. Evil Adult Crime VS Youth. Supports Lie Of Integration. 1 Educated Are Most Dumb. Not 1 Human Except Dead 1. Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self. 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God. Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies. Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s. God Is Born Of A Mother – She Left Belly B. Signature. Every Priest Has Ma Sign But Lies To Honor Queers. Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.

Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days) Time to not foul (already wrong) bible time. Lie that corrupts earth you educated stupid fools.

Go Belly-Button Logic Works.

When Do Teenagers Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record Of Their Death. Father Son Image, Not Gods. Every Man Born Of Woman.

Belly-Button Is the SignatureOf Your Personal Creator - I Believe Her Name Mama.

Pastor Told His Flock That God Created All Of Them - Truth Was That They All had Mama Made Belly Buttons, Church Was Full Of Liars.

Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong.
Einstein Was ONEist Brain.
Try My Belly-Button Logic.
No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days,
Does Your Teacher Know ?

Fraudulent ONEness of religious academia has retarded your opposite rationale brain to a half brain slave. YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,THEY ALREADY EXIST.4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. 4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS. 4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS. TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS – THE ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE. LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN. SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED. EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAYTIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL. IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION. CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
******************************************************************************
The ONLY Official Site
For Gene Ray/TimeCube.
Need Help - Donate to Timecube/Gene Ray at PayPal

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.

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

[This is an archived post from 2014 so it's somewhat dated, but it nonetheless provides an insight into Price's mind; his desire for traditional restrictions and boundaries for their own sake, against what he sees as the dehumanization of individualism. Read this post alongside this to get a fuller picture: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=111274]

The head of our propaganda outreach to Russians, a radical feminist lesbian supporter of Pussy Riot named Masha Gessen, wrote an op ed a couple weeks ago that essentially makes Putins case for him. Gessen, of course, sees herself as an ally of progress, but she and her cohort are responsible for alienating an enormous number of native born Americans including, incidentally, those who would traditionally be most inclined to sacrifice themselves for the flag and nation.

...

Gessen focuses on homosexuality to the exclusion of other fraught cultural issues, clearly because she is biased in this regard. However, it is not only coerced acceptance of a redical redefinition of family, which Gessen explicitly supports, but the annihilation of distinct cultures and peoples through a radical form of multiculturalism and promotion of diversity at all costs. Naturally, the peoples who succumb first are the smaller nationalities, but ultimately everyone loses as a fundamental part of their humanity their culture is amputated or otherwise mutilated to fit some poorly defined common form that every man, woman and child can be stuffed into. Adding to that, Americas aggression against non-belligerents, foreign adventurism and coercion of weaker nations and peoples to impose its will has added an element of terror to our crusades. In truth, the American right and left differ only in their means, but the end goal is the same: the obliteration of any and all that stands in the way of unrestricted expression of the id. It is, as Putin correctly notes, a descent into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.

The contemporary American elites vision for the future is a horrific nightmare in which anything goes, and therefore nothing is distinct or cherished but pure power to do as one pleases. There are to be no limits but the physical: no moral restraint, no customs, no traditions to stand in the way of unfettered action on primal desires and appetites. Putin, it seems, is genuinely opposed to this mission on a personal level, and has articulated his opposition in a manner that has galvanized the Russian people into a politically united force.

...

Again, institutionalized homosexuality is only one issue, but it may have been the one that finally crossed a red line. Considering that even in my very liberal state of Washington legalization of gay marriage passed by only about one percentage point in late 2012, and then only after enormous campaign donations from the globalist billionaires in the state, it is probably too costly even for the US to successfully convince the rest of the world that it is a good idea. But for whatever reason, progressives have made it their defining cause and staked their movements claim to the future on it. This act of hubris may prove to be progressivisms Achilles heel, but in the long run what matters and hurts the most for those of us more traditional Americans is our dramatic loss of faith in our own nation.

To see the US reduced to little more than a platform for the greedy and licentious when it used to be a beacon of liberty and common decency in a savage world is profoundly unsettling. It is also why I am all but certain that our decline is a fait accompli rather than an imminent threat.

At this point, we can only hope that nihilistic radicals like Masha Gessen refrain from plunging us into a catastrophic war on their behalf, sacrificing our sons for ideals that we despise from the bottom of our hearts.

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

In all likelihood, the death toll will be in the thousands, but as grim as that sounds, it could have been far, far worse. Tragedies are still unfolding in Japan, but the people of the island nation are, for the most part, taking care of their own. American search and rescue teams are helping search for survivors, and US Navy helicopters are airlifting food to stranded Japanese civilians, but the bulk of the rescue effort is being undertaken by Japanese. Overwhelmingly, of course, Japanese men. And the women are not complaining. Even the feminists in the US are eerily silent on this score.

When you have a society in which men have a vested interest in protecting and taking care of the whole, and they are allowed to do so, they tend to do a good job. They display selflessness and their efforts are characterized by cooperation and teamwork; often by heroism as well. On the whole, everyone does better. There is no better example of this than the comparison between matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster. Where in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. There is no doubt that some displaced Japanese will still be facing significant hardship a year from now, but despite Japan’s crowded land vanishingly few will be without a roof over their head, and none will go hungry.

As for the Japanese men, they have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.

As we observe these events and their aftermath, they provide us with valuable lessons about nature of things, and give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

...

[Comments by the same fundie]

These things you list all derive exactly from the matriarchal nature of Haitian society. Or perhaps if Haitian women hadn’t been “oppressed” they would have built sound structures and prepared for emergencies — just like the Japanese, whose women surely are mainly responsible for Japan’s engineering, architecture and emergency response…

...

Matriarchal societies are characterized by the presence of a few dominant men at the top who command gangs of dispossessed, disaffected young men who grew up not knowing daddy.

...

[When you know less about Japanese metalworking than your average weeb but still pretend to be a history buff on the internet]

My take on the race thing:

Of course races are not all the same. But it wasn’t my intention to make an issue out of race in the article.

However, if you look at history, it’s pretty obvious that more patriarchal societies are the ones that became increasingly safe, orderly and technologically advanced. Was Japan advanced 2,000 years ago? Not really. It wasn’t until they adopted elements of Chinese philosophy (e.g. Confucianism) that Japan began to take on its modern characteristics. Before that it was matrifocal (good point Jack made) and characterized by tribal warfare the same as Africa or Haiti. So was Northern Europe, for that matter, before the Romans introduced civilization.

Sooo… Whether or not Haitian people could be immediately turned into Japanese is not the issue. The thing is, however, that by thrusting feminism on them nobody is doing them any favors at all. On the other hand, if given some workable patriarchal civilized set of rules, in time the place would improve instead of continuing along as a mess. I think Africa and African-derived societies are a great place to look at how patriarchal/matrifocal societies play out.

Patriarchal organization of society works on two different timeframes: the present and the future. It definitely makes improvements in the present, but the effects over generations can add up quite a bit as well. We have to keep in mind that the Japanese were living in the stone age just a little over 2,000 years ago — even the natives of the far-flung British Isles had been working metal for thousands of years by then.

Here’s a lecture describingthe transition of Japan from matrilinear/matrifocal society to strict patriarchy over the years, largely under the influence of foreign ideas such as Confucianism and Buddhism (yes, Buddhism is male-dominated like Abrahamic religions).