www.web.archive.org

Lauren #fundie web.archive.org

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

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

Love,
Lauren

Yukon Jack #crackpot #racist #wingnut web.archive.org

Any thinking person can figure out the Bible god is the egoic projection of the writers, a the encoding of the prejudices of those who wrote it, god was man’s creation, the bible god is obviously a mental outpicturing of the racist authors. Thus god chose the Bible writers. How convenient. Many in the alt media are now figuring out the Holy Bible is really Jewish supremacist writing claiming holiness.

THE MASSIVELY INSANE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS REALLY THE MENTAL OUTPICTURING OF THE WRITERS

WHO WERE THESE PRICKS THAT WROTE THE BIBLE? MENTALLY INSANE TRIBAL SUPREMACISTS

The Jews who wrote the Bible says god chose Jews. Translated – the Jews with supremacist mindset and huge egos choose themselves and made themselves gods. If you believe the Bible god then what you are really doing is making the Jew your God. Just as plain as day obvious once you wrap your mind around it. The real “god” are the feelings of the soul. Love. The ego of the Jew is not love, it is hate for all others.
<...>
The Holy Bible is not salvation, it is induction into an insane supremacist death cult. All the assumptions about God are wrong. God is not judgemental – the Jude is judgemental and his courts are where you are judged – on earth – not in heaven. What so few in this age understand is that no man has any authority over another. No man has the right to use the state to enforce their wishes on others.

Christians don’t understand they are part of the insane Jewish supremacy cult. If you say you are saved and everyone else is going to hell then you are operating in Jew hell consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

Lust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Colin Liddell #racist #psycho web.archive.org

[Re: Is Black Genocide Right?]

Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.
[…]
But why should Whites even be in a position where we are forced to consider such a possibility? The White race is history's victor. We conquered Africa and the Africans on the sheer merit of the superiority of our race, culture, and society, and in a land that was largely going to waste we built an affluent and modern society capable not only of supporting a large number of our own people but also a vastly larger number of Blacks than would otherwise have been able to survive there. Of course, Black labour helped, but if that hadn’t been there, we would have imported White, Indian, or Chinese labour and have done the job anyway.

Rather than asking about White genocide, it surely makes more sense by any objective standards of utility, morality, or progress, to ask whether there should be such a thing as Black genocide.

Pretty Thin #fundie web.archive.org

(Pro-Ana means pro-anorexia)

Stay Beautiful

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

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

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

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.

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!

Mr. Enter #dunning-kruger #quack web.archive.org

So, let's talk about masks, the end all be all of stopping Covid or something. So, let's get right into the news here

Here's a 60 minutes interview with Dr. Fauci, saying the general public shouldn't wear masks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI&feature=youtu.be

Here's our US surgeon general saying that we shouldn't be wearing masks on a tweet that is still up https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1233725785283932160?lang=en

An Australian news service talking about masks, complete with a demonstration by a fireman who apparently went viral showing that aersols go through anything but an n95 mask which the majority of the public is not using https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqRL1GXu5DE

I could go on and on with news reports from earlier this year, including from the CDC itself that told the general public not to wear masks. So, there's two options about this - either they were lying then or they're lying now. So, we as the general public have two options - either listen to known and admitted liars or don't wear masks.

Argument #1 against masks: Our health establishment, across the world, almost universally told people not to wear masks back then the pandemic began. The established science on masks has not changed since then. There have been no longitudinal studies or science experiments changing our understanding about them.

At best, you could argue that our health establishments lied to secure these masks for doctors and such. Under this argument, masks should still not be worn by the general public, as that need hasn't gone away. Doctors should still be the ones to primarily receive masks before the general public.

Argument #2 against masks: There are edicts (not laws. Laws require a process to be enacted) about requiring masks. None of these edicts require specific kinds of masks. I've heard people say "you can use anything to make a mask." This is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard. A "Wear your fucking mask" person even suggested a scarf. Ignoring the fact that it is now July, and even in the northern United States we're experiencing 90 degree weather on the daily, scarves generally have holes in them, which do nothing to prevent aersolized droplets from getting through. Many of the masks you can buy on amazon specifically come with disclaimers stating that they do not provide protection from Covid, but you're allowed to go in public areas with those masks and no one bats an eye. This is even ignoring that in some places in the United States, we do have anti-mask laws. As in, if you obscure your face, you can be arrested. Good thing we don't live in an environment in which police officers would just love to abuse that little fact. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

Do you want to know the worst thing? Someone wearing a mask made from like an old t-shirt or something, thinking that they're safe... and doing more risky behavior. Going out more, making them more likely to get the disease and spread it. If you tell me that "anything can work for a mask" you are objectively wrong and I designate not to listen to you. n95 masks go through a specific processes that your sewing machine is not capable of.

Argument #3 against masks: People are stupid. People who think they're safe tend to be even more stupid and let their guard down. According to the science, last time I checked, we're supposed to stay 6 feet apart (2 meters in Metricland). However, when we talk, we're supposed to have an even greater distance because the droplets go even further. Guess when most people take off their masks? That's right, when they're talking.

I heard someone say that they borrowed a relative's mask. That is about exactly as hygienic as using someone else's underwear. Bet you didn't wash it either. Wearing a disposable mask twice is like wearing a disposable condom or diaper twice. Cloth masks (that do not stopped aeroslized droplets) must be washed after every use or they become more of a health hazard than they create. They trap moisture. Moisture becomes a petri dish.

You ever touch the inside of your mask with unwashed hands? You ever not wash your hands after taking the mask off? This is my favorite one because it happens the most - you ever only put the mask on your mouth and don't cover your nose? A mouth that's closed doesn't spread droplets anywhere near as far as your nose.

Do you want me to go on? Do you put your mask on before you enter a store and take it off as soon as you leave? Welp, you got the bacteria from your car keys, the car door, anything inside the car, and who knows what else on the mask... and on your face. And if you take it off as soon as you leave - guess what - all store bacteria is on your face as well.

This compounds with the problem of security theater. I repeat, if you think that you're safe and you're not, you take risks you otherwise shouldn't. By improperly wearing or handling a mask, you create more of a health risk. Rule 1 to not catch Coronavirus - don't touch your face. Masks require you to. Actual surgeons wash their hands before putting it on and taking it off.

Argument #4 against masks: Heat stroke and sweat. Your body gets out excess heat via various orifices. Your nose and your mouth can do a great deal to help with that. When you have a mask on, the heat is trapped there. Yes, they make breathable masks. Any mask that breathable is likely to do nothing to stop the spread of Covid. There are mainly two things that can happen in this case. Number one, it can cause heat stroke.

You know what heat stroke is like? It's not pretty and it can kill you. It also requires immediate medical treatment, which as you might know, is in short supply in some areas. Here's a question - how many high profile cases of heat stroke do you think it would take to get these mask edicts removed?

But let's not get so drastic. Your body has other ways of getting rid of heat. That being sweat. Sweats are droplets, which spread droplet based diseases like Covid19. This is the reason that gyms are still closed. Yeah, certain Asian cultures do wear masks when people are sick. Flu and cold seasons tend to be the winter, where it's cold and this usually isn't as much of a problem.

But no, even some Asian cultures are saying no to masks - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/01/south-korea-incidents-of-covid-19-mask-rage-flareas-summer-heats-up. If the South Koreans can't handle masks in the summer, do you really think the rest of the world will? If I need to remind you, South Korea was the country that was so determined to beat the coronavirus when their contact tracing pointed out a gay bar it created a wave of homophobia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/12/with-new-covid-19-outbreak-linked-to-gay-man-homophobia-on-rise-in-south-korea/#2bce2b404909#2bce2b404909. Some South Koreans are refusing to wear masks so much it's starting actual fist fights, because to get someone to wear a mask or a fucking scarf in 80-90 degree weather is unreasonable, unless you want to have a heat stroke pandemic on your hands and dropping compliance.

You go out on a hot day and no one is wearing a mask. And let me tell you, when it comes to something like civil disobedience like this, it becomes easier and easier. How many people shot off illegal fireworks on the fourth? Yeah, how many of those people do you think are going to keep going along with all of this? You can only ask people so much before it turns unreasonable. Here's some sciency stuff about masks and such https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7087880/

Argument #5 against masks: Here's a little bit of a wager for you. Either masks are effective (enough) or they're right, right? Those can be the only two options, right. If they're not effective, then any mask ordinance is... useless at best. If masks are useful... then things like the lockdowns and removing people's right to an education is useless at best. Are masks useful? If yes, then we don't need lockdowns. If masks aren't useful enough to make lockdowns useless then they're not useful. I was told repeatedly that we could just sit in lockdown forever and ever. We can't, but it's nice to live in a fairytale once in awhile.

Argument #6 against masks: A different kind of social distancing. I don't like what our culture is becoming. People nowadays, especially online, where most of us are, have stopped seeing other people as people, but... walking vectors of disease. That's not a good way to live. It's an incredibly dangerous way to live, actually. And masks... make the problem worse. Do you know what kind of communication a smile is? What it can really do for a human interaction. It's not something that you can do behind a mask. Most of our emotional communication comes from the mouth. When everyone is locked off from each other it creates an emotional distance, on top of the physical one.

And people are already... literally killing each other out there. This is not something we need more of. It's become incredibly dangerous. I can't imagine the kind of mental illnesses that we're instilling the youngest generation with. The generation after Z, I think they're called "Alpha" (which uh... doesn't make sense but okay) is being born into this. This is going to end up defining their generation; I could imagine a lot of... trust issues, nevermind obsessive compulsive tendencies. When young people have trust issues they tend to turn to violence or... drugs and alcohol, or they completely withdraw.

Argument #7 against masks: Mental health. I'm going to make this one quick. Masks are and do have a hellish effect on some people's mental health. For example, if someone has PTSD from being strangled, then it's probably going to be a trigger. It's not as simple as just "oh, it's a stupid piece of cloth." It's more like "I woke up during a surgery in more pain than I've ever felt in my life and medical masks bring me right back to that time" or "I was gagged when they kidnapped me and brutalized me." I'm not going to go deep into this, because for the past few months society has finally decided to become honest about how they don't give a fuck about mental health in the slightest.

Argument #8 against masks: Poverty. Again I'm going to make this quick, because as established, society has a whole has been honest with how they don't give a shit. Masks that actually work are in short supply. Short supplies causes prices to rise if demand doesn't fall. Getting ahold of masks that actually work becomes harder, especially for the more impoverished of us. Preventing people from going into locations based on their inability to procure this can count as discrimination against the poor. Yes, they can make something out of... rubbish. But as established that's not really effective. So, in turn, you'll only have the more well-off people with masks that actually work, which, once again, is discrimination. I supposed you could give them out for free. But we have shortages of PPE and the free stuff should probably go to the doctors and hospitals, right?

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

So, please keep telling me to wear a mask that just might be illegal that you don't know if I can afford while you wear one made of an old bath towel filled with mildew that you never wash. It's what the science says after all, after they've said repeatedly to not wear masks unless you yourself are sick. Keep wishing that people who aren't wearing masks get and die of Covid, without realizing that masks don't keep you safe. They're meant to keep others safe. If you keep fiddling with them and putting them on without washing your hands, you're more likely to die of Covid than someone who has never worn a mask ever.

And please, keep taking down your masks to shout at people so you know they can hear you being a hypocrite. I'd prefer someone who never wears a mask than someone up their ass about how everyone should wear a mask without knowing how they do or don't work. It really makes you look like you're on the moral right about this whole thing. If you hope I get Covid, I hope you get heat stroke. Hell, I can even claim the moral high ground because heat stroke isn't contagious.

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

Deadly Immunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Journey To The Heart #fundie #mammon web.archive.org

The Akashic Records level I
The 2 day workshop on 4 DVDs


Cost: $113.00 set Includes $6 Shipping to US/CAN

The Akashic Records Level I:

At last…the ultimate in-home resource for personal change; work using The Akashic Records; more than just a book, the complete weekend workshop on 4 DVD’s, along with the complete manual and meditations used during the class.

This complete workshop is specially designed to be accessible to everyone. No prior experience, no need for psychic abilities, just an open heart and the willingness to learn a Sacred Prayer.

You can own this whole program for less than half of a live workshop; with the benefit of being able to view and review the material as many times as you want.

What you'll learn:

*How to open YOUR Akashic Records using a Sacred Prayer
*Grace Points ~ Physical points of Action to anchor information received or let go of what no longer serves you.
*The Art of Questioning ~ Learn how to formulate your questions to deepen your experience.
*How to Align, Attune and Allow for this sacred energy to flow…
*An easy way to connect to Akasha
*The must powerful way to protect yourself
*How to use this energy with any other modality

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!

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.

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

Dave Truesdale #racist #wingnut web.archive.org

(Basically, SF is for white, cis hetro males, by white, cis, hetero males. Anyone else is culturally appropriating it.)
The SF field has always been open to everyone at every level, so the basic anti-diversity claim from the Woke crowd is an outright lie. This has been pointed out to them on numerous occasions over the years, yet they persist in the lie, repeat it often and ever louder, thus revealing their own disingenuous nature, and all the while labeling anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint a racist, sexist, homophobe, because these are the tried and true strawmen guaranteed to shut down any argument.

They scream and holler about cultural appropriation when it comes to the white oppressors in SF, yet use smears and intimidation3 to aid in their attempts to appropriate (and thus balkanize–divide and conquer) the SF field in service to the lie born of the double helix comprised of their social/political agenda of non-diversity in the field.

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

Sandra Porta #quack web.archive.org

Therapeutic defecation in the highEnergy Forest of the Weser Highlands
Price: 450 €

The gut is the key to our wellbeing. But when was the last time you talked to your gut. Asked it; 'How are you doing with the food? What are your dreams and wishes?'

We Are clothed for most of our life and in order to defecate we sit down on a cold chinaware surface.

Thousands of years ago, when humans still had to flee from dinosaurs, one went into the forest for defecation. The gut got fresh food from nature and gave it back to nature. A circle of energies. Now a days your energy ends up in the sewage plant. In the worst case, your food has also been processed industrially. Break this vicious circle.

In my weekend seminary “Therapeuthic Defecation in the High Energy Forest” We cook organic PaläoDiet according to Felix Olschewskis. Afterwards, we wander together through the high energy forests of the Weser highlands and defecate in turns or together in the beautiful nature. In this, we consciously absorb the energy of the forest into our gut as we enjoy the beautiful view.

Please bring comfortable clothing and your toilet paper of coice. (Not bleached, for the sake of the environment.) Furthermore, I ask you to not eat corn for 48 hours before the seminary, as that is badly digested. (Otherwise, the roes will eat it)

Cost per week and participant 450 EUR
Photo book of your Gut Adventure 45 EUR
(If I am allowed to use the images on my following website, the fee does not apply)

For a maximum of 18 participants

Next date: 4th of May 2019

Start: 9.30
I look forward to enjoy our guts together with you.

Original German
Therapeutische Defäkation im hoch Energiewald des Weserberglands
Preis: 450 €
Der Darm ist der Schlüssel zu unserem Wohlbefinden. Aber wann haben Sie sich das letzte Mal mit Ihrem Darm unterhalten. Ihn gefragt: ‚Wie geht es dir eigentlich mit der Nahrung? Was sind deine Träume und Wünsche?‘

Wir Sind größtenteils unseres Lebens bekleidet und zum defäkatieren setzen wir uns auf eine kalte Porzellanoberfläche.

Als die Menschen vor tausenden von Jahre noch vor Dinosauriern fliehen mussten, ging man zur Defäkation in den Wald. Der Darm bekam frische Nahrung aus der Natur und gab diese zurück zur Natur. Ein Kreislauf der Energien. Heut zu tage landet Ihre Energie in der Kläranlage. Ihre Nahrung wird schlimmstenfalls auch industriell verarbeitet. Durchbrechen Sie diesen Teufelskreislauf.

In meinem Wochenendseminar „Therapeutische Defäkation im Hochenergiewald“ Kochen wir biologische Paleo Kost nach Felix Olschewskis. Danach wandern wir gemeinsam durch die Hochenergiewälder des Weserberglands und defäkatieren abwechselnd oder gemeinsam in der schönen Natur. Dabei nehmen wir die Energie des Waldes bewusst in unseren Darm auf, während wir die schöne Aussicht genießen.

Bitte bringen Sie bequeme Kleidung und Ihr bevorzugtes Toilettenpapier mit. (Nicht gebleicht, der Umwelt zu liebe.) Des Weiteren bitte ich Sie 48 Stunden vor dem Seminar keinen Mais zu essen, da dieser schlecht verdaut wird. (Sonst essen die Rehe diesen)

Kosten pro Wochenende und Teilnehmer 450 EUR
Fotobuch von Ihrem Abenteuer Darm 45 EUR
(Wenn ich die Bilder für meine folgende Internetseite nutzen darf, entfällt die Gebühr)

Für maximal 18 Teilnehmer/innen

Nächster Termin: Samstag, 4. Mai 2019

Beginn: 9.30 Uhr
Ich freue mich mit dir gemeinsam unsere Därme zu erkunden.

Gregg Buell #crackpot #conspiracy #racist web.archive.org

[Did someone say does this stuff sometimes sound like poetry. Have some song/poetry of pure racist conspiratorial alternative science]

Introduction to the Light Year Conquest Corporation

My deck of cards has 52 nearest solar systems
NASA has not even mapped out 52 nearest solar systems
Let alone made plans to travel to another solar system
Lets play 52 pick up
With new card and board games
Coerce NASA into another Moon Landing
Make NASA stick up for themselves against the Pentagon
In the year 2000 Joint Chiefs of Staff news article
Approved a new Moon Base but it never materialized
The Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled Apollo
30 years of wars substitutes Apollo scientists with troops
NASA director sold out in 1980 when the Electric Windmill Car
Was invented
NASA director sold out to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Hidden safely behind hidden cameras no one complained
NASA also lost humanity its first Aircraft Carrier Hospital Ships
Electric Windmill Ships windfall is a new Hospital ship
NASA coerced into doing the wrong thing
This could not happen if the hidden cameras were exposed
NASA’s unequivocal triumph of genius was shot in the head
By those with the guns
No avoiding WW III now
After the NYC WTC attack
Nukes will eventually be planted in NYC
Unless the other side is totally, bankrupt
Invent an Electric Windmill Car + Ship a stroke of luck
Idiot Generals suppress luck and genus
Promoted to General after you walk on the Moon
Thousands could be living on the Moon in 2002
Inventions in landing on the Moon
Destroy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Invention board game on the computer
You land on the moon and all these inventions pop up
To invent 1,001 spin off inventions
Game more sophisticated than any Microsoft game
You land on Curie, Bell, or Edison and pop up windows
List all their inventions
Atomic age poetry just before Nukes blast off in NYC
We must change all the worlds madmen
WW III before we visit another solar system
Thanks to the NASA directors who sold out to Generals
Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted it this way
Unequivocal triumph of Madness
There is no avoiding WW III now
Now we must win WW III
Parish in Nuclear War over the suppressed Electric Car
Oil Kings have no mercy on the masses
TV News went along with this for Oil Money payoffs
Double-dealer they took cancer research funds
CNN and MSNBC did this to humanity
On a scale of $$$$ Hundreds of Billions of dollars
TV stifles
This takes on another connotation today
Electric Windmill Car + Ship would have drove humanity
To the nearest 52 nearest solar systems in 1980
Generals get new glasses and the Rx with their benefits
5 billion people pay dearly for these Generals
Bridges and crowns are the most expensive
So, false teeth are suppressed to billions by dentists
Everyone’s mentality is that of Oil Kings and their Court
Government lets those who prey on us rule
Big Brother is watching, but not watching out for you
Big Brother is watching, but not watching out for you
There is no seizing hole of Big Brothers conscience
He is like a Black Rapists taking what gets him off
Cold-blooded killers
Blacks are born; the Army coerces Whites
NASA could dominate over these environments
But choose not to fight for the right to Moon Landings
NYC will join club Hiroshima
Jews will spread their war to the shores of America
Intellectuals in a unpublished war behind hidden cameras
Oil was bankrupt in 1980
Cancer could have been cured with real Intellectuals
Who could outsmart the Jews and Generals
Moreover, land on the Moon
With thousands of troops who would be promoted to general
Intellectual talk about what is gravity
Is never published on the News
News keeps the masses uninsured and in debt with student loans
Comprehend the News media doing this to 5 billion people
News of the new atom laser at MIT
Does nothing if its not in your computer invention games
Waves or particles in physics
Even Physics News Updates on the web sold out to Warriors
52 nearest solar systems are out of their mind
Really, they are out of their minds
Impossible for men at war to see 52 nearest solar systems
Let alone trade their war inventions for space inventions
Genius of a computer board game
That brings up all the inventions in history of man
Finally a program that needs more computing power
Than Microsoft Golf
Observe protons in multimedia giving off light and gravity
Warp speed space ships with gravity satellite engines
Aliens on the way to the nearest 52 nearest solar systems
Joint Chiefs of Staff never wanted you to know about this
Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff could not avoid being sucked into
OK’ing black hole of Faggot Sex in the Army Oil Kings wanted
Misleading you are the idle rich
Misleading you are the idle rich
How is gravity generated can be misleading
How hard it is to find this invention is also misleading
USA is mobilizing for WW III not a gravity invention
Mobilization of the intellectuals waits until the war is won
Between wars we land on the Moon
In addition, install smart lasers on cars
War is more addictive than landing on the Moon
It’s in the atrocities that’s hard to comprehend for Astronauts
News she knew it was wrong to drown her five kids
No news about 5,000 kids burning in gasoline fires
Our American Caesar and Oil Kings
Will be reincarnated in a distant galaxy of Hell
Consciousness transported at warp speed
To some Hell hole 52 million light years from here
Turn to your consciousness and brain inventions
Brain will have a slot in my computer board game
Lobotomy history up to the gas that can tame Generals
Jew Generals who get off on killing PLO girls
A lobotomy gas can suppress this desire
It just has to be invented
A perpetual motion machine creates gravity
There are thousands of perpetual motion machines
They exist in their own spectrum
Far from the Judgements of our Supreme Court
Conduct of this highest Court
Is responsible for the NYC WTC attack
Business as usual
Even when mobilization is for war not Universe Conquest
Sailing over cosmic rays, gamma rays, x-rays going fast
Some s-rays can travel 450 times the speed of light
Next generation of high tension lines from Public Service
Public Service will not invent these
Someone playing the computer board game
My deck of cards has 52 nearest solar systems will
Mobilization catalysts can be war or universe
Top leadership of Earth has picked war for now
Observe Ivy League selfishness in their web pages
You need a password even to pay your tuition
Pay Channels on Cable TV do not offer a University
CEO forgot to have any mercy on 5 billion people
Miracle of vision
If you land on this on my board game, you get Mercy
No mercy in the number of pop up windows
As they will fill your computer screen
Throw the dice in the Casino
Lawmakers threw billions of people to the trash bin
Godsend of perception that created itself
Ha
52 pick up is more than picking up on 52 solar systems
52 pick up is more than picking up on 52 solar systems
Commanding Officers do not second-guess vision
Big Brother is watching on hidden cameras
But not for consciousness inventions
Public Services is not know for its innovativeness
Light year travel depends on these Public Utilities too
Train wrecks and car wrecks are beyond their innovations
How do you expect them to travel a few light years?
How do you expect them to travel a few light years?
Docking rocket sections in orbit
Docking 747’s in flight
Train concept is one of the places you can land on my game
100% power from your Intel CPU will be used
When you land on this Hotel
Hotel is not a Casino - you can win here
Photographic memory can be made into a pill
You just have to make the gamble to find these pills
Nuclear scientists are occupied
Smarter scientists can pick and choose invention games
Bankers have been intimidated by Oil money
Fiery car crashes with people on fire inside didn’t intimidate
Bank One went along with the oil genocide
NYC Banks did too
One-arm bandits are the makers of idiot gamblers
Introduction to the Light Year Conquest Corporation
Introduction to the Light Year Conquest Corporation
Introduction to the Light Year Conquest Corporation
My deck of cards has 52 nearest solar systems
My deck of cards has 52 nearest solar systems
Land on any of the 52 solar systems
And all the inventions in history will pop up
In one of those annoying, pop up windows
Most annoying thing about Microsoft programs
Is their lack of pop up windows with histories inventions
Getting a PhD in Light Year Travel is eons away from reality
All of Chinas masses could profit from the sale of Taiwan
Using force how much could they get in dollars for Taiwan?
More billions than Bill Gates and Microsoft have
Using the money for tuition would double their money
Sailing Shanghi and Calcutta into a Riviera
Winds of the Electric Windmill Car and Ship
Would do more for these parts of the World than any other
Worst off would be Corpus Christi and Mecca
Profits from Oil have bought more cocaine than penicillin
ATT know who spends big bucks on long distance
Big Brother is listening to the cash
Injustice is by way of the Black MD’s who misdiagnose so much
Pointless to make a Black a MD
Just to have Black MD’s
Even their statistics makes them mass murderers
VIA the Medical School policies in place by the government
Introduction to the Light Year Conquest Corporation
I introduce you to a God invented Universe
My deck of cards has 52 nearest solar systems
That contains more things that are unimaginable
Than Humans could imagine
Than Humans could imagine
That could be living in the nearest 52 solar systems

R.G. Thatcher #racist #conspiracy #wingnut web.archive.org

THATCHER THUNDERS!

A Prophecy of Israel’s
20th Century Braveheart

ADOLF HITLER, the enigma of the age! A man shrouded in mystery! Who and what was he? Was he really a raging demonized maniac as portrayed below who destroyed whatever was good and right, or a conquering hero who helped his people stand up on their own two feet and destroy their oppressors?
Were the German people really blind to follow him? These are the questions this article WILL answer! The presentation of facts and analysis of those facts that follow WILL alter the political direction of Western Civilization! They will be profound and TRUE! They will establish Hitler as a Saint of God who was PROPHESIED to come in the Holy Bible. They will point a finger, not at Hitler, but at the Jews and their Communism and call them Satanic! This is heady powerful stuff. Can you handle it? Be strong and rejoice in this new Biblical view that is so needed at this desperate hour in Western civilization as many Gentile nations rage and build up their armies to destroy us. All ministers, preachers, and teachers who claim to acknowledge God’s Word, the Bible, WILL be held accountable for what they do with this priceless insight. Too many people in high positions have been guilty of calling good evil and evil good, some unwittingly due to mis-education and others knowingly because they ARE mis-educators and disinformation agents of the Communists and Jews (Edomites). But whether you are a Christian, agnostic, an atheist, or even a Jew, of the right or left politically, will you be able to accept the answer given? It will all depend on whether or not you are a person of TRUTH. Regretfully, too many people embrace whatever ideology or values which appear to be acceptable to their own peer group, not bothering to substantiate anything or even knowing how to. Your ability to come to grips with TRUTH will have to be your problem.

Although this article may very well be read by people of different races and creeds around the world, its primary audience will be found in Europe and the Western hemisphere, therefore they will be nominally Christian in that they supposedly take their beliefs from that book referred to as the Holy Bible. But only the TRUE Christian who TRULY seeks to upgrade his understanding of TRUTH as the Holy Bible professes to proclaim will be profoundly affected by the new insight presented here. Of course, there will be some of you nominal Christians who may actually, for the first time, sit down and READ the Holy Bible with more than just casual interest. And then perhaps in the not too distant future, our pacified inept nominally Christian society will be able to stand up and FIGHT the Beast and its allies that so much want to engulf us. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TIMELY AND REVEALING EXPOSE, FOR THE HOUR HAS COME!

Is there a third alternative to Communism or Capitalism? The Communists and Liberals will emphatically scream “NO!” And as proof they will point a finger at Hitler, 6,000,000 dead Jews (Edomites) and the destruction wreaked by World War II. The answer posed to the West by Hitler keeps resurrecting itself, but the Communists and Jews are constantly trying to keep entombed their ideological enemy. They want us to focus on just one concept – “BETTER RED THAN DEAD!” – and nothing else. We are constantly reminded by the Communists (but not the Russian Communists who are playing dead) that we of the West, as decadent Capitalists, have as a choice only Communism to rising Fascism as the lesser of two evils. They will also be quick to point out that any form of rising nationalism, of putting one’s country first, is merely fascism or neo-Nazism. The very thought of being tainted as a neo-Nazi usually triggers a conditioned response – you would probably quickly recoil in horror even as the fictional vampire recoils at the sight of the cross (i.e., the Swastika). We have been conditioned even as dogs were trained and conditioned in the famous Pavlovian experiments! The “Christian West” has been lowered before the specter of atheistic Communism.

Cannot the world remember that Hitler and the National Socialist movement were the archenemies of the Communists? We have been taught that Hitler’s “real” problem was “ANTI-SEMITISM” with which he infected his movement. And “ANTI-SEMITISM” the West equates repugnantly with the dreaded contagious AIDS through mind conditioning from “our” Jewish controlled communications media. We just cannot seem to remember that it was the Jews who started Communism in the first place – that most of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks of the Communist revolution in Russia were Jewish. No, we cannot remember that because we WERE NEVER TAUGHT THAT! But what we ARE TAUGHT is that Hitler had a fixation disorder with regards to the Jews and used them as scapegoats to explain why Germany was having so many problems.

When are Christians going to read the Bible? If we are going to condemn Hitler for waging war against his enemies, we are going to have to condemn a lot of God’s servants who lead ancient Israel. (Read about God’s instructions to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:2 & 3.) Should a soldier be condemned for doing his consecrated duty. Of course NOT! Only a criminal should be condemned to jail or death. As you will be shown “[Hitler] executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgments with Israel.” Can we as Christians not righteously judge this day between good and evil? Who is good and who is evil? The executioner and our soldiers who defend us OR the criminal and the enemy troops? CHOOSE!

Another word we have also been conditioned to use and respond to is the word “PREJUDICE”, and oh, how prejudiced we are against our OWN BLOOD RELATIONS – the German people – a CHRISTIAN folk, and how readily we defend NON-Christian aliens, the Jews! Truly we are a confused people who have drifted from our anchor, the HOLY BIBLE. And if I were your typical biased “Christian” who thinks all Jews are God’s Chosen, that Jesus Christ was one of the Jews as we know them today, and that Hitler was evil, I would NEVER have been able to figure out the references to Hitler in the Bible. What I came to understand through my own in-depth studies was that Adolf Hitler, contrary to political deception of the masses, was not the evil person he has been portrayed as. However, I did not study Hitler first. I studied the Jews and found out about their garbage books, the Talmud. And then I became, I figured, as incensed as Hitler became against the Jews. I, as a Christian, learned that the Talmud was not their name for the Old Testament of the Bible, but really the repulsive idiotic ramblings of various ancient Rabbis that makes null and void the Holy Bible. What I received from my studies was a definite case of RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION against these people who call themselves Jews. If you do not know what I am talking about, that is what a lot of deceived “Christians” come down with when they are confronted with a Nazi! You know, that exasperated angry feeling. But now my indignation was rightly directed against the Talmudic Jews (Edomites) who have developed Communism as their tool to gain control and enslave the world. Communism is but a by-product of Talmudic thought. It is the system that they, as the elite, will use to rule the masses (GOYIM). I WAS ALARMED!

James Weidmann aka Chateau Heartiste #sexist web.archive.org

Lots Of Feminists Are Getting Banged Out By PUAs

Ronin asks:

Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?
As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.

Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:

1. The Femcunts

These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.

2. The Partisans

These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.

3. The Lemmings

You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.

So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.

There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.

*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.

**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.

crusadercat #fundie web.archive.org

The most familiar of Satan's weapons is the propaganda center in our homes known as Television. Children spend hours every day in front of the T.V. watching godless entertainment. I remember when I was in first grade me and my classmates watched "The Land Before Time" The opening monologue for this evil program says "millions of years before the first humans", being a Christian at this time I knew that the first humans were Adam and Eve; so I figured it was millions of years before them. Sort of a gap theory philosophy entered my mind. By the way, did I mention I was in a Christian school when this was happening!? Satan has come a long way. Now thanks to God sending Kent Hovind I am wiser. Homosexuals use television as well to promote there sick lusts, there poster boy for this is SpongeBob Square pants. Some Illuminati symbols have been viewed on nickelodeon, and some NWO propaganda was on Cartoon Network. Christian parents, it is your duty to keep your offspring focused on the face of God; so unplug that T.V. and have a family Bible reading!

President “Turkmenbashi” Saparmurat Niyazov #psycho #crackpot #wingnut #fundie web.archive.org

My Dear Türkmen Nation!

You are the meaning of my life and source of my strength. I wish you a healthy and long life. Our Türkmen ancestors were courageous people and they began to educate their children before they came to life. The Türkmen child reached maturity and bravery, and then has a national education and worldview. For that reason, bodily health, intellectual stability, and integrity, and good manners were the special characteristics of the Türkmen.

In our times, the Türkmen should take care in his eating and drinking to preserve his health and endurance. He should not eat greedily. In order to keep his health, strength and productivity, the Türkmen should remember Allah Almighty’s order: “Eat and drink but do not waste,” and behave according to this order.

The real Türkmen should be careful about the clothes he wears and the way he dresses should be reasonable. His appearance should be pleasing since Allah is beautiful and the Türkmen should be appropriate for His love.

The Türkmens before us continued to read and learn new sciences even though they had reached the highest levels in the sciences. They lived with the accumulated knowledge that had passed from generation to generation and passed it on to the current generation. They thought that the learning of the sciences would end if they made any break in this endeavour.

Today’s Türkmens, you will be seen as scientists if you keep reading. If you lose your learning, then you will become illiterates. Every citizen of Türkmenistan should have a knowledge of science. This would be the result of brave souls, poetic perceptions, sensitive heart, and spiritual richness. To read and to learn is to have a deeper knowledge of life. When one reads, new ideas and anxieties emerge in the mind. Thus, to read and to learn is to appreciate Allah Amighty. Intellectuals and scientists have special place in my world and I show them great respect.

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?

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.]

crusadercat #fundie web.archive.org

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

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

Catfish Game

An emailer asks me for the details about how I run Catfish Game.

Hi,

I want the details about the fake profile pics and pulling girls. You basically catfish them?

Thanks

Basically, yes. Sometimes. Or the fake pic is so obviously fake that it’s not really a catfish, but an opportunity to wildly flirt with the girl and issue increasingly brazen challenges to her to overcome her “weird suspicions”. It’s what I call Gaslight Game, and the objective is to corrupt the girl’s comfortable grip on reality and make her think she’s going a little bit crazy believin’ her lyin’ eyes and her gatekeepin’ thighs. It’s akin to the advice I have given to men who get caught cheating: deny deny deny, until your woman starts to question her sanity.

It’s hard to give too many revealing details, what with the heat around every corner, but a couple of commenters provided personal techniques that are similar to what I do. From Chris,

I did exactly this all throughout 2012-2015 when I was on POF.

I used to hate being seen by locals on that sewer of a site, and so always used fake pics (that were, admittedly, a reasonably close resemblance to how I actually looked). I used to hunt for someone like me on Google Images.

The thing is, 50% of chicks never remarked on anything untoward when they met me, and when the other 50% mentioned me not looking like my photos I shrugged my shoulders and said “photos can be funny like that”. I actually had a girl I had been seeing on the regular (for around 4 months) finally discover one afternoon I had used fake pics; she was really upset that she had been duped, but it didn’t stop me from continuing to plough her.

One of the other reasons I used fake pics was that I could run no-holds-barred asshole game on these girls with the confidence of anonymity.

Those were my best years in game.

100% cosign. I use two methods. The one Chris describes here (similar looking photo and nonchalant dismissal of the woman’s suspicions) and a supplementary method where I choose a fake photo looking nothing like me and then challenge the girl to see past the pic and ask herself what kind of sexy asshole would think he could get away with this *wink*. Or, like I mentioned above, I’ll turn on the gaslight and make her think she’s nuts for even questioning my moral rectitude. The overall effect is a positive one: “who does this guy think he is?”

From HEM, a reminder that if you’re gonna try Catfish Game, you had better have command of your frame,

I like to do this when I get bored. I actually prefer not even using a pic at all. But, sometimes I’ll use a scenic pic of some exotic place. Put something interesting in the profile bio (eg something that illustrates you’re intelligent and witty, as well as explicitly state that you’re alpha; the alpha can also be referenced in the screen name) and prob about 30% will respond. Of those, half will immediately ask for a pic. I usually trash them. The other half are receptive to what you have to say. Be straight-forward, brash and cocky. Never compliment their looks. Never apologize for something jerky that you say. You’ll be amazed at the results.
These are generally useful rules for online and offline dating. Truth is, there is plenty of overlap between the techniques advised for each realm of pickup.

No Pic Game is a cousin of Fake Pic Game, and the tactical payload is the same: zero fucks given sexiness combined with an enticing challenge to a woman to rise above her lameness. Plus, follow the general rule that a big component of any online pickup is radical pre-screening. The numbers are there, so there’s no good reason not to screen.

Final note. I can drop one vagnette from my worldstar. If I meet an online prospect for a first date who has not seen my real pic, she naturally will be stunned once our faces are inches apart. I immediately move to reduce her anxiety: “Yeah, I know, you’re pleasantly surprised. Even better in real life than in photos.” This gets a laugh. If it doesn’t, I follow up, “If you keep acting weird, I’m gonna think you’re a serial killer. Some guys are into that. Not me.” See what I did there? What would normally be a defensive position is upturned and the onus to act like a normal person is placed on her.

If she bites on all this, she will get around to asking me why I chose a fake pic. I measure her buying temp and use that to decide wether to continue whimsically gaslighting her or to get real and confess that the fake pic is there to a) evade the feds or b) screen for really shallow women. Now she’s feeling a need to prove she’s not shallow. Off to the races!

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.

North Korea #quack web.archive.org

Kumdang-2 injections

[…]

Russian Itar-Tass on Kumdan-2 injections:

• ” PYONGYANG , June 11. / Correspondent . ITAR-TASS Yuri Sidorov / . Attention visitors recently held in the capital of North Korea international trade fair attracted the attention of the immune system stimulant ” Kymdan -2 .” This multifunctional injectable preparation is produced Korean pharmaceutical company ” Pungan .” According to its general manager Chung Sung Hoon , he was in great demand in foreign countries , including Cuba , Syria, Mongolia and Germany. ” Mongolian firm ” Aisha Pharma “- he told reporters , – monthly sells approximately 20 thousand packages ” Kymdan -2 ” not only in their own country but also in neighboring countries . This month , Sung Hoon Chung added , “our Mongolian business partner made ​​a proposal to increase supply.” ” Kumdan -2 ” is intended for the treatment of hepatitis , diabetes, polyps and other diseases , has a detoxifying and anti-inflammatory action , promotes rapid tissue regeneration and strengthening immunity. Korean Ministry of Health says nearly 100 – percent efficiency of this tool that is based on extracts from the famous Kaesong Ginseng / ginseng / grown under special conditions. For maximum healing effect by long scientific research has been developed specially formulated fertilizers for this plant , which included several kinds of amino acids , small doses of gold, platinum and other rare earth elements. Moreover, according to recent surveys of North Korean medics, ” Kymdan -2 ” is effective for the prevention of dangerous infectious diseases such as avian flu and SARS . It also protects tissues from exposure to radiation during radiotherapy. ” Kymdan -2 ” useful during sand storms. ” Channel

2. Unique features of Kumdang-2 Injection

1) Kumdang-2 Injection is a herbal medicine extracted from Kaesong Koryo insam (ginseng) cultivated in Kaesong DPR Korea by applying rare-earth molecular fertilizer. It contains insam saccharides, light rare earth elements, a micro-quantities of gold and platinum.
2) It causes no pain during and after injection.
3) Unlike chemical medicines, it has no adverse side effects.
4) It has no contraindications and can be used together with other medicines.
5) It optimizes the systems of autonomic nerve and self-curing by stimulating hypothalamus, the centre of the autonomic nervous system, functions anti-inflammatory, anti-bacteria and anti-virus, restores the diseased parts t revitalizing and proliferating cells, optimizes immunity, maintains the homoeostasis of the body, and functions anti-oxidant
6) It absorbs or removes all those that have not originally been in human body (e.g. cancer, pathological secretion, etc.) including those of the same cellular tissues as the healthy ones like polyps or some skin diseases.
7) Owing to its healing mechanism, it can cure a large variety of diseases, and its effects instantly emerge vivid and last long.
8) Dosage does not vaiy according to diseases, but alters a little according to the patient’s body weight and severity of the illness.
9) The main purpose of injection is to cure diseases, but it is also good for healthy persons as it invigorates them, optimizes their immunity and makes them more beautiful.
10) It is good for those who have taken chemical medicines like anti-biotics and narcotic drugs and those who have drunken much alcohol because Kumdang-2 Injection prevents, neutralizes or removes all side effects and addiction. In particular, when taking such medicines that entail severe side effects like anti-cancer and anti-TB medicines, it is advisable to apply this injection simultaneously with them so as to prevent their side effects and expedite cure of the diseases.
11) Hitherto, in uses of Kumdang-2 Injection, nobody could find any sign of attachment (love), addiction, intoxication or their similarity of any kind.

3. Notes

1) This being a herbal medicine, it can be administered without punctuality in disregard of the timetable exhibited in the enclosure of its packet. According to the hitherto clinical records, the rate of recovery was higher among its random users than its punctual users.
2) All the patients with clear knowledge of the principles of its dosage have experienced satisfactory effects and 95.5% of them resulted in complete cure.

[…]

5. Contraindications

• No contraindications have been reported. In the period of administration, you need not refrain from drinking or become too sensitive to foods. As no medicines antagonistic to Kumdang-2 Injection have so far been found, you may use Kumdang-2 Injection with any other medicines depending on your conditions.

6. Adverse Effects

• No adverse side effects have been found so far.

[…]

(Submitter’s note: For brevity’s sake, I’ll just post what they claim it cures and omit the paragraphs where they elaborate on the dubious claims.)

• Allergic skin diseases, Ambustion, Chilblain, Engorgement
• Cosmetic Effects
• Diabetes
• Different kinds of inflammation, Fevers of unknown reasons, Loss of appetite
• Disorders before and after child-delivery
• Drug Addiction
• Epidemic diseases including Bird Flu and New Flu, AIDS
• Gastric hemorrhage, Stomach cramp, Diseases of large and small intestines
• Heart Diseases, Arthritis
• Hypotension, Impotence
• Infection, adhesion and scar after medical operation
• Liver disorders caused by alcohol
• Malignant influenza and other kinds of cold
• Medicinal poisoning, Harm from use of computers, Stomatitis
• Neuralgia, Neurosis, Debility, Insomnia
• Pancreatitis, Poisoning by perished food, Thyroid Diseases
• Polyps, Myalgia, Vegetative Neurosis
• Spontaneous Gangrene, Epilepsy
• Sterility caused by undergrowth, Menstrual disorders, Cystitis
• Stimulant to children’s growth, Anti-radioactive
• Treatment Hepatitis А, В, C, D, E, G
• Tuberculosis (ТВ), Uterine and other intestinal hemorrhages
• Various cancers
• Venereal diseases, Resistance to aging

Michael Sisco #wingnut #fundie #elitist web.archive.org

Contrary to popular belief, by all objective observable criteria, Monarchy has been a resounding success. Recorded history makes it evident, that Monarchy has been the predominant form of governing on Earth since at least 3,000BC. What evidence is there that humans at large are so much more advanced, and intelligent than all of humans of the past? If Monarchy was such a menace to the Earth, would it have remained so dominant a force? Liberal democracy is a mere speck, in comparison.

For example, beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt, monarchy led to nearly three millennia of stability since 3150 BC. Certainly, it was developed in pre-historic times, flourished in the Greek Bronze Age, in Rome between 700 and 500 BC, The Chinese states, and early medieval Western Europe. The worlds greatest cultures and institutions, in every period, were cultivated and shaped by the Royal dynasties. Even the Nubian Kingdom in Africa produced periods of continuous stability, one lasting for at least 900 years. Until the pernicious lies wreaked chaos in England, the feudal Monarchs also produced stability. There is no doubt that Monarchy built great things! As pointed out at Unqualified Reservations, the world’s most beautiful and impressive architecture were built under the royals’ watch. One need only to compare the age of the Monarchs, to the age that followed. The rise of popular government, whose various expressions fought for dominance, destroying much of the cultures they consumed, and leading to the most bloodshed in the planet’s history.

Why exactly was Monarchy so successful? First and foremost, it is a natural reflection on Earth, of the hierarchy of Heaven. The Christian teaching of man, being created in the image and likeness of God, also applies to the order of civilization. Because mankind is created in His image, the most ideal form of government is that, of as a single head. Just as the father is the head of the family, so the King is the head of nation. Under a monarchial system, people are more inclined to reverently view the monarch as a dear relative, with a healthy blend of fear and adoration.

Leonso Canales, Jr. #fundie #conspiracy web.archive.org

Language, an important human behavior, slowly but constantly evolves from older forms to newer ones. Also our greetings through time have changed several times:

<table>

12th Century HALLOW Chaucer(1340) Europe
16th Century HALLOO Shakespeare(1564-1616) England
19th Century HULLO U.S.A
20th Century HELLO Thomas Alva Edison(1847-1931) New Haven, CT
21st Century HEAVENO Leonso Canales,Jr. (1940- ) Kingsville, TX

Hello took life in 1878 when Thomas Alva Edison said the first word through the newly invented telephone. Who really knows, the news media was not around at the time to give us an accurate account. He could have said, "Hullo," jokingly and mistakenly misprinted. The fact is that Hello was printed by Noah Webster's dictionary in 1883.

The telephone kept expanding, and so did the greeting. As the greeting "Hello" kept growing it soon became a general greeting. Webster's dictionary kept on printing "Hello" as a greeting word. Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) rejected the "Hello" greeting all his life. His greeting was "Ahoy, Ahoy!" The dictionaries became a standard foundation for the language and continued to promote the word as our standard greeting. We never questioned it; we took it for granted and learned it as it was always there..., and strangely enough it has become our most used word on a daily basis. "I" is the second. This negative phenomenon possibly has set its pattern. We have been too busy and too involved in our daily doings to see the whole picture. Until a person born in Kingsville, Texas questioned the connotation of the word "Hello." The "O" is not enough to hide the most negative word (Hell) printed in every dictionary! This greeting word "Hello" has been upon us for 117 years! Maybe subconsciously we have promoted and fueled the wrong message.

Let's now understand that we all have been misled. We should now put it behind us and call the 20th century negative and obsolete. We should now set a new example and set a new precedent! It is up to us now to make a change and start setting and paving a new road for our youth and ourselves. Let's show the rest of the world that we are united, friendly, and unique people.

Let's now begin working towards the next 100 years with a more harmonious, intelligent, and positive new universal greeting: "HEAVENO!" A symbol of Peace, friendship and Welcome!

______________________________________________________

Morris Dictionary(1962)

hello: Legend has it that Thomas Alva Edison himself was the first to say hello over the telephone

Alexander Graham Bell, who is reported to have used "Hoy" or "Ahoy" all his life, rejecting "Hello."

(Submitter’s note: In 1997, he actually got a small town in Texas to adopt “HeavenO” as its official greeting.

President “Turkmenbashi” Saparmurat Niyazov #psycho #crackpot #god-complex web.archive.org

Fate gave me the role of being leader of Türkmenistan at the juncture of the second and third millennia. The burden of the responsibility of taking my people from the last years of the second millennium, in which things did not go well, to the summits of the third millenium fell onto my shoulders.

This position and responsibility, which have been given to me without my asking, have motivated me to call up my spiritual, intellectual and physical strength that Allah granted me with and use them as a societal force to achieve progress in my country. I understand that it is necessary to call up not only my own strength but also all the national spiritual strength given to the whole Türkmen nation. Indeed, throughout history which connects one generation to the others, there is a law of individual-society relations: the power which has been generated by the society in one era comes to life in an individual matured in the same nation at a later point. This should not be put to keeping people where they are but to come back with a different outlook and raise them to the summits. I dedicate Ruhnama, my desired and expected book, to my people. Although the demand for a book such as this has come from our generation, this is not a problem which has only surfaced in recent history. The Türkmen generations before us, even though they did not make such demands explicitly, felt the necessity of spiritual principles which will not lead our generation to divide and disappear. Each individual comes to the fore with the symbols that constitute its core: the commander holds a weapon, the poet holds a pen, the doctor holds a remedy. The President, as historical character, writes his guidelines and come to the fore with these.

My main guideline is Ruhnama. As a systematic worldview, Ruhnama is the core of all my political, economic and life targets, with civil content and methods of use in different areas of society.

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 #fundie web.archive.org

One thing that has been brought up over and again here is is that it isn’t all that difficult to keep house these days, what with modern appliances and all. This is true — without children keeping house is a pretty simple affair. Even with them it isn’t anywhere near as difficult as it used to be. Still, a lot of guys can’t be bothered, and a lot of these men are single. However, an amazing fact is that most maids are employed by wives (or so they call themselves) who simply can’t be bothered. Not all that many men actually contract housekeeping services because they simply haven’t grown accustomed to the idea.

This is an opportunity that is ripe for the picking. When men go into any business that is traditionally the provenance of women, they generally clean up. Think of the wholesale replacement of wifely industry by the industrialization of spinning, weaving, etc. There are legions of men who have made fortunes by taking advantage of the inefficiency of the housewife of yore. Wives no longer sew, mend or spin, but rather shop and enrich the men who have made their jobs redundant. These days, wives don’t even cook, instead simply opening boxes and reading instructions written at the elementary school level. Put two cups of mix in bowl, add egg and milk, stir with fork… That’s it.

Given modern social norms, it’s time to eliminate the wife from the household picture altogether. And considering the fact that modern appliances make a good scrubdown little more than an afterthought, the amount of labor required to keep a place in good shape is minimal. So, even paying a higher than average hourly fee – say $20/hr – for low-skill work such as housekeeping is reasonable. For your typical childless man, two hours a week is probably more than enough to take care of the details he’d rather not bother with. Add ten bucks for transportation/gas money and that comes out to only $50/week. For that, a man could have a thoroughly clean domicile without any of the trouble that comes along with a girlfriend/wife performing such basic labor, who would surely complain and make compensatory demands anyway. Sure, he’d have to wash his dishes and buy groceries, but scrubbing the bathroom and kitchen, doing the windows and mopping and vacuuming would all be taken care of. Also, the woman (or man) doing the work would be discreet, respectful and fast.

If I were to start this kind of business, I would market exclusively to men — women are always intrigued by what men are doing and would find it on their own, so female clients would appear without any extra effort. I would treat employees with the humanity and consideration that men generally bring to the table regarding employees, and exercise quality control based on my male clients’ feedback (women are prone to complaining and petty retribution, so I’d place less weight on their opinions). Furthermore, I’d challenge the female-run maid services, which comprise the majority, head-on and beat them badly and without mercy.

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

[When the Taliban did nothing wrong to women]

In a deeply cynical ploy by feminist Tracy Clark-Flory, the endemic abuse of boys and use of male prostitutes in Afghanistan is being portrayed as a result of women’s oppression in this recent Salon piece. Although it is doubtless that Islam may play some role – in the context of Afghan culture – in the practice of “bacha-baz,” the idea that feminism is the solution to the abusive treatment of boys is either the result of deeply held ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Male prostitution and pederasty have been a problem in the area for at least a couple hundred years, and probably far longer. Famed 19th century British explorer and secret agent Richard Francis Burton was tasked with investigating a male brothel in what is now Pakistan at one point, and wrote extensively about the practice, which led to spurious accusations that he was an avid participant himself.

...

Since that time much has changed, but Afghanistan is notoriously backward and resistant to change, so the practice has persisted despite reforms in the Islamic world. However – and this is very important where Clark-Flory’s article is concerned – the fundamentalist Muslim Taliban have made it a priority to stamp out bacha baz. It is not in the strictly fundamentalist parts of Afghanistan where the women are veiled and kept out of school that bacha-baz is practiced; it is found primarily in the north where the ethnic groups who are allied with NATO have control. Fundamentalist Islam is not so much a characteristic of Afghan culture as tribalism, but it has made inroads thanks to Arab fanatics filled with a missionary zeal and a desire to fight what they see as the godless “North,” which includes Russia along with what we call “The West.”

Furthermore, if we are to take an example closer to home, we could shine a light on the problem of pederasty in the Roman Catholic Church in the late 20th century — during which time liberal ideologies, including feminism, gained the upper hand in seminaries and parishes across the US, and then even Europe itself. The relaxation of tradition and the rise of feminist ideology in the Catholic Church occurred at the exact same time that the epidemic of pederasty did, which suggests a correlation between the two. So no, it is not “the patriarchy” that is raping boys. In fact, many of the rapist priests were notoriously “progressive” in their views and feted by wealthy liberals, some of whom doubtless were aware of their proclivities.

Unfortunately, most people are not all that well-informed, and may be susceptible to appeals to human decency. This is how feminism has gained so much ground: by usurping moral issues and proposing feminist policies as the solution. Even conservatives have fallen for these tactics, passing hardcore feminist legislation and enabling feminist radicals because they never took the time to study and get to the root of problems, preferring instead to blindly react to social problems with heavy-handed, ill-considered measures.

It is important that we keep an eye on feminist arguments to prevent them from making appeals to our sense of decency in an effort to fool us into giving them even more power and influence than they already have. As we know well, the situation has not improved for boys since the advent of feminism, and eliminating abuses such as pederasty are best achieved not by giving women more privileges, but by caring about the humanity of boys, which is not even remotely part of the feminist agenda.

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

The reason a man’s status is so important to a woman’s erotic desire, if Meana is correct, is that a higher status man’s attention is directly related to a given female’s desirability. If he is the kind of man who can have any female he wants, then the woman he chooses must be intensely desired by a great many men. His attention fuels narcissistic fantasies, and therefore triggers erotic feelings in the woman who receives it. It is a simple and elegant answer to the question of what turns women on, and explains the popularity of princess fantasies, female fixation on beauty pageants, model shows and figure skaters. It is the basis of hypergamy. Even the seemingly puzzling contradiction of female rape fantasies makes sense when seen in this light — the “rapist” of these fantasies is typically some handsome prince, officer or other high-status male. Imagining themselves as the object of attention and lust is deeply erotic to women, and the higher status the man the more validation it provides.

Given this primal desire, it stands to reason that women would seek out situations that place them in the company of high-status men. Perhaps this explains the crowds of attractive young women who flock to Washington DC, which is not otherwise known for particularly beautiful people. The attraction of Mad Men likewise makes sense — what woman wouldn’t want to be surrounded by high-powered executives?

So, if we create a society that raises female status at the expense of men around them, women will have fewer opportunities to fulfill their erotic needs — the atmosphere of “equality” will have a deadening effect on their libido and provide them with less sexual fulfillment. This in turn will result in less happiness. And this is exactly what we have done, particularly in the Anglo world.

Women in the United States have reported steadily decreasing happiness since the 1970s, when equality feminism took off and society began to change to accommodate more women in positions of power. A University of Pennsylvania study from 2009 reported that women’s happiness, while higher than men’s in the 70s, has steadily declined to the point that men are now, on average, happier than women[.]

...

Perhaps we could do the authors, and women, a favor by “decoding the paradox.” The feminist triumph has deprived women of an essential element of their erotic lives. By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. Rather than objects of lust and passion, they are now competitors, rivals and colleagues — their erotic capital is significantly diminished. The men around them are no longer strong and dominant, but cowed, vacillating and timid. Women’s opportunities to “feel like a woman” have been radically curtailed. Hypergamous needs are left unfulfilled by their “equal” husbands and boyfriends.

Is it any wonder that women report less happiness?

For all the trouble feminism has caused us men over the decades, it appears that it has been a significant source of misery for women as well. This is why feminism will ultimately fail: in their hearts, women don’t want it.

[Bonus comment by the same fundie, found below the article]

I think feminism has already failed, to be honest. If you ignore the rhetoric (remember: never listen to what they say, watch what they do) the slutwalks are a total repudiation of feminist ideals, and a desperate attempt by American women to collectively declare their status as objects of desire.

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?

Welmer #sexist web.archive.org

[When women were never severely oppressed but they should have been]

" this is a vastly different telling of empire/history than we learned growing up in school, even in the university/college. vastly different. normally, we’re told how despotic and draconian previous civilizations were, how women/children were ALWAYS oppressed and property…wow.

TAllagash"

Yup. It wasnt like they told you. In many ancient and classical cultures women had it a lot better than youd think. In fact, it was often libertine female behavior and abuse of power that eventually led to the restrictions one finds in recent history.

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

It’s always been about sex. Sex outside of marriage was technically illicit in Christian society, and marriage implied consent. For example, there was no such concept as marital rape until very recently — rape had an entirely different definition from today. Also, virginity was considered a woman’s property (or her male relatives’ property) in most cultures, which had a lot to do with the old definition of rape. This means that the concepts of sex and property are not strictly separated in regards to marriage, and are actually quite closely intertwined. Christian ideas about marriage were kind of revolutionary in that there was a concept of mutual ownership of sexuality in marriage (e.g. a woman had as much right to demand marital fidelity as a man), rather than the simple chattel status of wives most common in other parts of the world. The modern definitions of marriage and rape have actually reversed what was the norm in most of the non-Christian world, and placed ownership of all heterosexual sexuality entirely in the hands of women regardless of marital status. Accordingly, it has been devalued a great deal, just as one might expect a car company to become essentially worthless quite rapidly if it were entirely owned and controlled by women.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s break it down:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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

Although it’s pretty clear that a lot of the blame for problems in modern relationships can be laid squarely at the feet of young women, we ought to at least ask why they are such miserable failures compared to their grandmothers. They are genetically pretty much the same people, after all, so there must have been something about their upbringing that made them worse than useless as wives. Well, I guess we all know that’s pretty obvious, but how often do we get down to brass tacks and ask “what really makes the difference?”

Having had the dubious benefit of having raised a couple of children for almost five years, much of the time all by my lonesome, I’ve started to get an idea of what’s going on. One thing I can say is that raising kids, although rewarding in some incomprehensible way, is hell. I’ve never had a harder job. Doing it yourself is an exercise in masochism, or maybe martyrdom, which is why I don’t believe all the BS about “single mothers” going it alone. In fact, I’ve never, ever met a single mother who did it alone. Women are better at social networking for a reason: they need to be to get help raising kids.

Nevertheless, modern young women are particularly deluded about childrearing. Most of them have no more experience than a few weeks in total of babysitting kids during the easiest possible age bracket — between the ages of six and twelve. Your typical parent wouldn’t dream of allowing a teenage girl to babysit an infant or toddler for more than a couple of hours, and in that event would do their utmost to set everything up for the babysitter so that it went as smoothly as possible.

So young women come into marriage without a clue. In days past this wasn’t the case. Just as boys in old times would be expected to handle firearms, chop wood, and deal with large, dangerous farm animals, girls would be thrust into the business of childrearing and homemaking as soon as they had the strength to pick up a child and handle a cast-iron skillet. Now, these girls are texting on mobile phones and chatting with friends online all night as soon as they’re done with their homework.

However, the instinct to be a grown woman and mother remains, so girls dream of the traditional marriage without having any idea what it really means. Therefore, as a guy who’s been there and back again, I’d like to give other men an idea of what they really ought to be thinking about if they are serious about a traditional marriage, so I’ve come up with a few questions to ask women before tying the knot:

Can you handle the obliteration of your former physique for at least eighteen months for each child you bear?
Could you drive a car with someone screaming into your ear at a high volume for a prolonged period of time, day after day, without losing your cool and/or crashing?
Would you be able to interrupt your dinner to put your hands on human excrement, and then return and finish eating?
Can you go for weeks without sleeping more than a couple hours at a time?
Are you prepared to handle a 1000% increase in housework?
Can you see yourself acting as impartially as a referee in a boxing match during sibling disputes?
If your sex life were to evaporate, would you still be able to retain a fair perspective concerning your spouse?
Does the prospect of being chained to a few little hellions every minute of the day, at the risk of prosecution if you fail to do so, seem bearable?
Can you sacrifice your shoe budget for family necessities?
Would you be able to control your hormonal mood swings enough to prevent yourself from blowing your marriage sky-high?
Do you have enough sense to stop and look for the light at the end of the tunnel?

If a woman says no to any of these, she’s a bad bet. Not to say there’d necessarily be a divorce (although chances are better than even), but the road will be very rough. Unfortunately, this probably comprises at least 75% of young American women. Their mothers, indoctrinated as they were by 1970s feminism, did a huge disservice to society. Not only did they frequently emasculate their sons; they coddled their daughters, teaching them to be the cheap facsimiles of men we are so familiar with today.

Is it possible to change a girl who has grown up within this milieu? I have my doubts. Even with game, just keeping things together with such a woman requires a Herculean effort from most men, and we have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether it’s even worth it.

However, if you are a guy who wants to knuckle under and go for it anyway, ask these questions. If you can’t ask your girlfriend, at least ask yourself about her and try to detach yourself from your feelings for her so that you can be as honest as possible about the answers. Although the conclusion might be depressing, it could save you from a kind of pain you never suspected you could be subjected to.

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).

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.

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?

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 #sexist web.archive.org

According to a former waitress who is now a “writer”, one Hannah Raskin, a 15% tip just ain’t enough anymore. People are making less than ever, are unable to afford eating out, and yet she’d have them pay servers more than they can afford.

I’ve got nothing against servers, but I hate tipping. I always do it, and my tips fall between 15-20% about 95% of the time. However, if I ran a restaurant, I’d include the gratuity in the price of food. Selling a sandwich for $5? Raise it a buck and give the extra to the server. $1 for a soda-pop? Make it $1.20. I detest feeling that somehow I have to prove my worth by giving the server some exorbitant fee for showing cleavage as she bends over to serve me food. And that’s really what this comes down to — as women have come to dominate food service they’ve sexualized it to the point of something near pole dancing.

Frankly, I’d rather a guy serve me my food. He’ll usually do a better job and not try to use some physical assets to try to open my wallet. Same goes for a therapeutic massage. After getting run over by an old lady doing a thankless, low-wage job that I should have been tipped for, but never was (courier), I had a few sessions of much-needed massage therapy to minimize scar tissue in my neck and back. By far the most useless practitioners were females. Not only were they weak and ineffective, they seemed to feel that I owed them $60/hour simply for them having deigned to touch my back. As a young guy who had no shortage of female attention at the time and definitely needed a therapeutic massage, I certainly didn’t see it that way, and after a couple sessions with lazy, pathetic masseuses I made it a point to demand a masseur – preferably a strong one – or no go.

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

Whatever the case, if I had my way I’d eliminate tips altogether and have waiters work on commission, as I suggested before. If their 20% is in the menu price, I know exactly what I’m getting into when I look at the menu and there’s no reason to complain. If the service is bad, I simply don’t go back to that restaurant. If guys want gussied up little hussies, they can go back over and over again, but as for me I’ll be happy to patronize pleasant places with a touch more class. Pardon me if I’ve been a bit uncouth in this post, but to be quite honest I find Ms. Raskins’ attitude pretty offensive and simply replied in kind.

I’d like to hear Chuck Ross’s take on this.

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

[Note: the post name says "Welmer" but the blue background indicates it's by OP, who is denoted as W. F. Price]

People havem’t really changed much in their nature since the very beginning. Many of these terms like ‘witch” “posessed by the devil” etc were just another way of saying what we would have a modern term for.

True. And despite the standardization of terminology, most people today are just as ignorant about mental/physical health as they ever were. Community leaders back then – the intelligent, literate sorts – knew a lot more than people credit to them.

Many of these witches were old hags living on the outskirts of villages who collected poisonous plants. They would supply females with drugs to induce abortions or to poison their husbands or kids.

Sounds accurate to me. I think in a lot of cases calling one of these hags a “witch” may have been the most convenient way to eliminate a truly malignant influence from the community. In Scandinavia, female holdouts who still practiced sorcery in the Christian era, known as Völvas, exerted some influence on women for quite some time. They would sell them potions to entrap men, have their way, etc. Some of them, created from concoctions of potent psychoactive drugs, actually work. These potions show up in stories like Tristan and Iseult and the Völsunga saga.

A lot of the folk wisdom about witches comes directly from these women, who probably were still operating home businesses of sorts until the witch purges of the 15th-17th centuries.

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

In my recent post questioning the origins of what seems to be a sudden awareness of men’s issues, I wrote that the transition appears to have begun about two years ago. In asking what trends might have converged to spark an awakening of sorts and the emergence of a new generation of writers and activists, I received a number of thoughtful and well-written comments, proving that I am far from the only person thinking about this.

While I intend to concatenate these responses in a future post, I found a two-year-old article written for Salon.com that gives us a clue as to what has been going on in the late 2000s, and sheds some light on the cultural changes that may have helped bring awareness to the fore.

The article, “Women are the new men on TV,” reviews a number of TV shows scheduled to debut in 2007. Although many of these shows never got anywhere, the theme and tone of the shows is very revealing, depicting an America where men have lost their way, and their very manhood. I would urge readers to read the entire article, as it is a well-written piece and surprisingly candid coming from a female entertainment writer (Rebecca Traister), but I will include a few of the better quotes below for readers without the time to slog through three pages.

...

Note the adjectives used to describe the women in the shows: aggressive, confident, hard-bodied, independent. These are not traits that men generally find attractive in women, but perhaps women themselves enjoy being portrayed as such.

...

Men are shown to be needy, awkward and juvenile. They are kicked around by women and sexually assaulted by monkeys — in fact some were actually portrayed as monkeys themselves in the short-lived “Cavemen” show (based on the Geico commercials). Now, the idea of a horny monkey may be a bit funny, but would any TV show ever portray bestiality as an acceptable punchline where a woman was concerned?

...

That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated. Traister wants them “to just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control.” Doesn’t she realize that putting men in the role she and millions of other women wanted us to fulfill required a serious social and legal beatdown as well as a massive seizure of power? Like the woman who cuckolds her husband, she wants men to be reasonable and accepting rather than “angry, neutered bastards.”

...

Traister sees that it isn’t working, but she doesn’t get it. Women have a huge blind spot when it comes to what they have helped do to men. Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state.

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

" Again, your movement could gain a lot for ground if you would actually focus on male issues. At this point you’re just perpetuating the thing you claim to be fighting against.

I don’t think you realize how reactionary and misogynistic you guys come across as. Go on any mainstream forum, and plenty of men and women will agree that there are male issues while being disturbed at the misogyny and therefore distancing themselves. Also, call out the Eivind Berge rhetoric.

-yoyo"

Yeah, sure, you want us to do the 90s all over again. Fat lot of good that did. When men who had their kids taken from them for no good reason fought it, next thing we knew we were being called the “abuser lobby.” That’s all I need to know about feminists. Go ahead and call us names all you want, but be advised that we’ve caught on to that game.

Unconditional surrender is all I’ll ever accept from feminists. It’s better than they deserve, but I’m a humanitarian kind of guy, so I’ll give them that opportunity when the time comes.

"I promise you, that taking a break from reactionary sites and going out into the world will be way more productive. And again, WF, since you have a daughter, PLEASE consider joining a fathers support group. I understand why you think the way you do, but blogging on a reactionary blog like this one isn’t going to make things better for you, your daughter, or humanity in general."

You want to bring my kids into this? Typical feminist trash. My daughter’s happy being who she is – a girl – and that’s fine by me. I’m not going to try to shove her into the US Marine Corps like you sick bastards. Nor will I tell my son it’s righteous to cut off his balls and wear a dress.

You know what?

Fuck you.

Now get out of here.

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last year saw the spectacular implosion of the feminist narrative and a huge electoral humiliation for people running on explicitly feminist platforms.

You’d think this would open the way to reforms, and incoming legislators would be proposing to roll back the excesses of feminist legislation. If not on the federal level, at least there would be some states doing so, right?

Wrong.

There has been nothing but deafening silence, and nothing has been done to even rectify the unwarranted blame aimed at college fraternities following the lies published by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in the great Rolling Stone rape fantasy article of 2014.

Instead, the lies actually furthered the agenda, and fraternities are being punished as we speak for what has been proven to be a hoax.

Why on earth can’t MRAs take advantage of this situation? Why can’t they find a sympathetic ear?

The problem lies in the continued insistence on playing the same game by the same rules as the feminists and expecting to finally win despite losing time after time after time.

Let’s start at the beginning. Warren Farrell is called the Father of the Men’s Rights Movement, and I think that’s fair. He sincerely worked for gender equality, starting at NOW over forty years ago. He genuinely believed in this concept of equality, but eventually saw that it wasn’t exactly what feminists had in mind.

Eventually, he published books proving that men do not, in fact, have it better than women. In doing so, he incurred the wrath and enmity of feminists everywhere.

So much for good faith…

However, Warren Farrell hasn’t changed his tune. He still believes in gender equality as a laudable goal. You might think that this would put him in alignment with feminists in general, but then again one could say that Stalin and Trotsky’s differences were not really all that substantial, either.

And this is perhaps the best metaphor for feminism and MRA: the Stalin/Trotsky split in the Bolshevik party. Both believed in the inevitability of the workers’ state and both shared the same general Marxist philosophy; they only disagreed on the specifics and how to get there. Nevertheless this occasioned a great deal of hatred. Trotsky and his acolytes lost early on, and from then on they were relentlessly hounded across the world by Stalin’s henchmen.

So here we are in the USA, feminists having won the equality war hands down, holding all the cards politically and having the power of the state at their disposal. Yet MRAs insist that theirs is the “true equality,” and continue to believe that the same belief system that so thoroughly crushed them from the beginning is ultimately their salvation.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

I’d like to offer another option:

Reject the ideology altogether. Stop trying to compete on the same terms. People who offer promises of this unicorns and rainbows fantasy of gender equality are selling you a barrel of bad apples. After all, you’d end up with the same thing even if MRAs did manage to win. Gender confusion, emasculation, unattractive women, sexual chaos and the destruction of the family.

Instead, recognize that men and women are different, and different rules and standards can and must be applied to them for the benefit of both individuals and society.

Imagine if Russians, instead of rejecting Communism altogether, had simply switched from Stalinism to Trotskyism. They’d still be living in a drab, totalitarian state with severe restrictions on individual freedom and lower material standards.

Same goes for MRA vs. feminism. If you had your choice, wouldn’t you prefer “none of the above?”

Think about it.

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

As thousands cower under the howling rockets and bursting shells unleashed by the Syrian regime, opposition leaders have released thousands of emails exchanged between the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma, a British-born and educated beauty who has long been held to be a shining example of modern womanhood, featured many times in fashion magazines and the like.

Some of the emails show Asma making jokes at the expense of the people of Homs, who have been under siege and sustained attack for some time. Several Western journalists have been killed while covering the assault, which current reports describe as brutal and indiscriminate. In another email, Asma claims to be the real power behind the regime, saying that Bashar al-Assad has no choice but to listen to her. Evidently, her advice has not been merciful.

Not long before the Arab Spring revolts that erupted last year, the first ladies of the Arab world were regularly praised as trail-blazing feminists who commanded great influence and power. Of 22 Arab states, 15 first ladies signed up for a feminist organization called the Arab Women Organization. In 2009, Helen Smith of The Guardian described the group as “founded with the express purpose of empowering women…” and lavishes praise on its members.

The list of member states is eye-opening: Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Oman, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Yemen are all members. All but a couple of these states have faced unrest over the last year, and nearly half open civil war or regime change.

One of the things feminists often claim is that if women ran the world, there would be no more war, conflict, hunger, etc. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this to be ridiculous; female heads of state have been every bit as warmongering as their male counterparts, if not more so. From Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I to Empress Dowager Cixi, female leaders have been associated with bloodshed and chaos. Now, if we are to take her word for it, we have Asma Assad to add to the list.

One thing Westerners tend not to understand about the Arab world is that although the people themselves tend to be deeply conservative and traditional, their elites and leaders are far less so. This is beginning to become more the case in the US, but the divide is far more stark in places such as Egypt and Syria. Many of the leaders – and their wives – were educated in the liberal Western tradition when anti-traditionalism was at its peak, while opposition leaders are more likely to have gone to school in madrassas to study classical Arabic and the Koran. The Arab people see these first ladies traveling around in limousines bedecked with priceless jewels and wearing the latest fashions while mouthing platitudes about women’s rights and “progress.” In the meanwhile, young Arab men can’t find work and many of their would-be wives are stuck at home with little chance of starting a family of their own.

We aren’t there yet, but we’re getting closer by the day. If our feminists can’t see their role in creating the kind of social decay that eventually leads to regime change, it’s only because it isn’t in their nature to concern themselves with these matters. As for the Arab elites who let their wives rule, we have only to read the newspaper to see what eventually happens to men who grow soft and seek counsel in the bedchamber.

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

Nick Kristoff, a NY Times opinion columnist who writes like a Unitarian minister and pens self-serving articles urging liberals to give more money (his wife is in the philanthropy business), has come up with a long piece advocating a “Crusade” on behalf of women all over the world.

...

So what we have is a concerted global effort to help “women and girls,” probably along the lines of the decades-old campaign to do so here at home, which has resulted in the collapse of traditional marriage and boys being increasingly marginalized in school and the workplace.

One of the tools used to promote women in less developed parts of the world is “microfinance” — essentially small scale credit extended to women through World Bank programs and such. An example Kristoff gives is that of a Pakistani housewife with an unemployed husband (who is, naturally, described as a deadbeat and a wife-beating villain)[.]

...

So here we have a success story, in which wealth is being created through light industrial production of apparel.

Of course, we should all cheer the change in circumstances for Saima, who has now turned the tables and become domineering toward her husband[.]

...

No, I don’t think so. Countries that successfully raised themselves out of poverty following WW II did not do so through small businesses run by women. Certainly, they put women to work, particularly in Asia, but these jobs were part of a state-planned emphasis on light industry that exploited country girls by making them the low-wage workhorses in factories, i.e. sweatshops. For Korea, China and Thailand this has worked out pretty well, but it didn’t have anything to do with “liberating” women; in fact it was all about control and exploitation. And once the sweatshop model outlived its usefulness, countries like Korea have switched to higher value-added products rather than footwear. These high-end products are manufactured and designed overwhelmingly by men.

Kristoff (who is actually a supporter of sweatshops) is getting it wrong. The countries that most successfully lifted themselves out of poverty did so through patriarchal authoritarianism and strict control and exploitation of women. Of course, once the hurdle was cleared, women were given increasing freedom and opportunity, after which most voluntarily switched from production to service jobs.

So Kristoff’s crusade is doomed. Any effort that encourages female independence and dominance as a means to lift a society out of poverty is working against its own stated goal, as we can see from our own ghetto failure here in the US, where women are clearly socially dominant, and yet have not managed to lift themselves out of poverty without paternalist carrot and stick type incentives from above.

We should beware of crusades advocated by pompous elites like Kristoff, who think they can solve the world’s problems despite having only a contrived understanding of the world, honed to very narrow specifications in detached, exclusive institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, Dragnet, I think white privilege is very real. I was the beneficiary of it while in China. White Mexicans do very well for themselves. A mediocre white female teacher in DC makes a whole hell of a lot more than most of her neighbors. When I was in Latvia I met some Americans who, although not privileged for their skin color, were definitely privileged by virtue of their nationality. There’s no way some of the mediocrities I met there could have had such high positions here. So perhaps “white” privilege is an inaccurate term, but elite privilege has always been a feature of civilization.

However, this privilege is conditional. And it’s predicated on a particular lifestyle and social system that is better suited to colonial Latin America than the dynamic democracy we have here. In some cases, privileged minorities can exist in a mutually beneficial relationship with their hosts, as in Sephardic Jews in early modern Holland, who invented modern finance with their Dutch colleagues and paved the way for the industrial revolution. However, what we have in the US is a privileged white minority that seeks first and foremost to be a parasite on other, non-privileged whites, and is trying (but failing) to do so through moral appeals.

Instead of trying to find a working solution, they are increasingly turning to divisive, confrontational politics, much as the white elite of the antebellum South forced the issue prior to the US Civil War. As much as it may cause cognitive dissonance to modern readers, I definitely see the white elite in this country as the modern incarnation of the Southern slaver culture. With a good grasp of history, it isn’t much of a stretch, but they’ve succeeded in casting themselves as champions of everyone but themselves even while they are perhaps the most tenacious parasites this nation has seen in ages.

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.

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.

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.

Survivalist News Network #conspiracy web.archive.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given my current dilemma, which is pretty run-of-the-mill for a lot of fathers today, I thought a bit about how it relates to The Spearhead and its existence. On some reflection, it’s pretty clear to me that I never would have thought to start a site like this if I hadn’t been a father. It’s a direct result of a deep need and desire to be a father to my children.

But in addition, it’s also a result of the circumstances that were created when I did my best to create a life that would allow me to be a father to my children, despite all the roadblocks put up by the state, individual feminists, groups of feminists (they operate in packs, like hyenas), and the anti-family elite class. If I’d acted in my own and the system’s best interests, I would have forgotten about my children, and probably would be in a much more comfortable situation today. There is no blame whatsoever attached to men who totally ignore their children, so long as they pay the minimum fees. “Good men,” according to the system, are those who substitute a check for fatherhood.

Throwing a ball with your son, keeping an eye on the boys chasing your daughter and teaching your children are all meaningless to the state. What you are is a human resource — not a father. This is what I’ve rebelled against. It’s what has given me the psychological motivation to keep the site running.

A lot of this is no doubt personal. My father wasn’t there for me when I needed him, and that had pretty dire consequences for me. I don’t want that to happen to my children, so I struggle on, despite all the hatred from feminists, who, when it comes down to it, just want to fuck and get paid for it. That’s really all feminism comes down to: provision and protection for sex. It’s so deeply ingrained in primate psychology that it won’t change in a million generations. Children’s interests have nothing to do with it. Feminists are only the prostitute lobby writ large.

If I am to attach an honest epithet to this site and my efforts, I would have to call it a patriarchal site. I believe patriarchy is the one family system that works best in sum for all involved. It’s best for almost all children, for most women, and most men. For certain elite and standout specimens of both sexes it involves some sacrifices. It is not the best deal for extraordinarily attractive men or women, who can live a charmed life without taking on the responsibility of patriarchy. But why should they have priority over the rest of humanity? Does their pleasure and privilege raise the mean?

It does not, and this is the moral basis for patriarchy as a system for organizing families. If a few extremely attractive or powerful people can benefit, while the vast middle is dismantled, then a chasm develops between classes, and ultimately this is unsustainable for cohesive society. Sure, we want people to be more attractive on average, but giving all the power to the few extraordinarily attractive works in the opposite direction due to constraints on human female fertility and the non-selective nature of elite male sexuality (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger). What it does is limit reproduction in the middle and encourage low-investment r-selection in the hopeless lower class, which always outnumbers elites. We then become a disorderly society of a few aristocrats atop a vast mass of proles.

So, I think it’s time to come right out and say that The Spearhead is not equalist, nor does it support “reinvention” of traditional sex roles, but rather is committed to restoring patriarchy as a just, family-centered principle of social organization. And not the despotic form of patriarchy that prevails in slave societies, but rather a more democratic form in which men are held accountable to one another, and the law. It is the ancestral Western model, and it’s what made Western peoples strong, not to mention East Asians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims, who organized their societies on a similar basis, with varying degrees of success. The West prevailed in the 19th and 20th centuries not because of its racial, but rather its social superiority, which was closer at the time to the democratic patriarchal ideal than any other part of the world. Sadly, that has been lost, hence our Western decline.

The restoration of patriarchy should be the long-term goal of all righteous men who care about their families and people. It is the most just, humane and progressive form of social organization known to man. It’s the only system worth fighting and dying for, and that’s why it will ultimately prevail.

Unnamed author #fundie web.archive.org

[From "Unbaptized Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Heretical Pelagian Fable"]

Conclusion: supralapsarianism and docility

The Jansenists were right about this. We have seen that it has been defined that unbaptized infants have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil and that it has been condemned to say that they have some place anywhere of rest and happiness. As such it is heretical to deny the fiery fate of infants or to attempt to revive the Pelagian fable of Limbo. No pope or Scholastic can change that. The infants die guilty of original sin and are punished for it in the fire.

However, original sin provides only a partial explanation, because it may be asked why – if all are subject to suffering because they deserve it due to Adam’s sin, which they have inherited – why did God not create a different man who was as free in soul as Adam was, whom he foresaw would not sin? Then there would have been no original sin, none would have been created guilty and all this suffering would not have been justified. Presumably such a man was possible, given the infinite number of possible men whom God could have created. Indeed, Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary lived her whole life without sin: so if God is good and wills only good to his creatures, why did he not create a sinless first couple, shall we say, Mary and Martin rather than the sinful Adam and Eve? Why did God not create an entire race of Marys and Martins? Why did he choose rather to create a first couple that he foresaw would sin and then hold their progeny guilty of that sin? Did he not create the world with people the way that he wanted them to be? as fundamentalists are wont to protest against homosexuals when they say that God made not Adam and Steve. It would be incoherent to say that God could not have created a world without evil and suffering: God is all-knowing, all-powerful and eminently prudent, that is, he is perfectly wise; the wise man always first decides what he wants to achieve and then acts so as to accomplish his end. So, why is there all this suffering?

The Dominican Thomists, following the doctrine of Aquinas, teach that God created the universe to manifest to the utmost his goodness in his creatures: and that his aim is best accomplished through the creation of the greatest variety, which includes creatures that fail in the accomplishment of their ends, their goods, and so suffer. Reprobation is a part of God’s providence, that he should allow some to fail. For thereby the goodness of his justice and wrath is manifest and not only the goodness of his mercy and loving-kindness. With people, that entails that they not only suffer in this life, but also that they fail to attain salvation, die guilty and so manifest the goodness of God’s justice in the eternal sufferings they experience in hell. This explanation is known as supralapsarianism, the doctrine that God willed even prior to the fall of humanity in Adam to reprobate creatures and to inflict punishments upon people. That is, God willed to damn infants in hellfire from all eternity. The infralapsarian position – which maintains that God willed evil to his creatures only after the fall – seems incoherent for the reasons given above. Indeed, God could have just created all people in heaven, free but sinless like the glorified saints now, including those baptized infants who never chose God but were chosen by him, for none would refuse the beatific vision as it is good under every aspect. We have argued this from the writings of Aquinas in the essay, ‘Does God Want All to be Saved?

One should be worshipfully docile in this matter. God is to be adored because he punishes infants and has chosen to do so from all eternity, not because they deserve it, for he permitted their guilt only that he might punish them for the sake of his glory. It would be rebellion against the righteous God not to submit oneself to his wonderful justice and wisdom and to worshipfully join our will to his – whether it regard the merciless punishments of infants in this world or the next. We have a responsibility to protect infants from harm, though the extent of that responsibility is disputed, whether it extends to children not our own, home or abroad. But the guilt had by negligent adults does not change the providential character of God’s permission of that negligence, which he permits so that his justice should be manifest in the punishments suffered by the infants. There is nothing unjust about this. God deliberately permits infants to be burnt alive in fires and to die without baptism and to go to hell to be burnt for all eternity, all for his own glory and may he be praised for it!

This may be a “hard teaching” to some, like unto that according to which some no longer walked with Jesus (St. John 6) but those who have caritas, even the divine and supernatural virtue of the love of God, will be disposed to accept his will and to believe in him as he really is and to accept these teachings about his salvific will. It is impossible to be saved without caritas (charity) and those who do not love God for his own sake but are motivated in their religion by cupiditas, that is, by a worldly love that is not properly ordered to God, may well refuse to accept this doctrine because they love the world above God, saying that they are swayed by their emotions regarding the fate of the infants. The two loves produce contrary motions, affections, causing ambivalence but God gives victory to his elect through delight, an affectionate cleaving unto him. He gives his elect to know him and to love him as he is and to accept the doctrines regarding him. God saves whomsoever he wants by making them lovingly faithful. If people reject this doctrine of infants, it is because they do not love God as he is, they hate him and prefer the world over him. Concupiscent delight has conquered in them and has produced the bitter fruit of blasphemy.

It is a false and harmful charity that seeks to obscure ‘hard teachings’ and to hide the gratuitous nature of God’s love for his creatures and the nature of the loving response that he gratuitously puts into the hearts of his elect. Indeed, if God is eminently prudent, then the devil is thoroughly cheeky and his demons delight to incite people to despise the true God and to thus damn themselves, blaspheming him in their inordinate worldly concern for the reprobate and in their refusal to know him and to adore him as he is. They are wont to utter such dreadful blasphemies as that, Such a God would be unjust, cruel, the devil himself and eminently unlovable! Thus the devil constructs a blasphemous parody of the true religion to damn people in, sometimes called Pelagianism or Molinism. It is almost impossible to find an orthodox Christian these days, who really loves God. People who teach a false doctrine that compromises the doctrines about God, original sin and the punishments that he subjects people to, unite themselves with the demons, inciting blasphemy. Historically, the Jansenists represented honesty and the Jesuits represented doctrinal and moral compromise. The elect are few, the damned many.

Next page