scientists would know about it

S. D. Wells #conspiracy naturalnews.com

Top 9 vaccine ingredients you would never eat if found in food, so why allow them to be injected into muscle tissue?

#1. Infected African Green Monkey Kidney Vero Cells

#2. Deadly Porcine (Pig) Virus called Circovirus (in highly experimental Rotavirus jab)

#3. Fetal Cells from Human Abortions

#4. Peanut Oil (the main cause of childhood severe peanut allergies)

#5. Latex (some syringes are poked through latex vial stoppers, hence severe childhood latex allergies)

#6. FD&C Yellow #6 aluminum lake dye (why do we need vaccines to be colorful?)

#7. Squalene (main cause of auto-immune disorder)

#8. Over 50 Parts Per Million of Mercury (still found in certain flu shots)

#9. Genetically Modified DNA from other Humans (foreign proteins cause unnatural immune reactions)

Sounds like some crazy witch’s brew for turning people into mice, doesn’t it? The theory of working vaccines is that you give a human a tiny weakened strain of an infectious disease, their body builds antibodies to fight it, and the next time the same disease is encountered “in the wild,” that human’s immune system is ready to fight, and better prepared. Sounds great. So why then does “modern science” infuse known neurotoxins into vaccines that cause severe allergic reactions, anaphylactic shock, autism, comas and even death?

Shocking Truth: Modern vaccines are not meant to prevent disease, but to cause long-term disorders that earn Big Pharma a fortune
Yes, we know, you want to believe American medicine isn’t so corrupt, but it is. In the 1960s, vaccine manufacturers had no idea what the heck they were doing at all. Merck scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted on tape that vaccines were spreading disease instead of preventing it. The polio vaccine contained SV40 cancer virus. Other vaccines were being produced using brain tissue from human abortions. Cell cultures from aborted fetuses are STILL used in today’s vaccines, including WI-38 and MRC-5. If you don’t believe it, check the CDC’s own vaccine ingredient web pages right here.

The polio vaccine is a complete hoax and is based on a complete misrepresentation of historical data, that duped over a hundred million Americans. How? The infamous Dr. Jonas Salk (fake hero), removed the kidneys of rhesus monkeys, cut them into tiny pieces, placed them in vials with a nutrient solution and three strains of polio, and then literally rocked the bottles (like a newborn baby) using a mechanical machine. This “incubator” stimulated growth of the virus. The formula was then diluted and weakened with formaldehyde (they call it attenuated today), chilled, and shipped to laboratories around the world. Voila! The amazing useless polio vaccine was invented and the hoax was sold to the world by the CDC.

Guess what? Today, the crooks and freaks at the CDC and Merck use infected African Green monkey kidney cells in the smallpox vaccine. Are you still in denial? Check this FDA page of “vaccines, blood, and biologics” and you’ll find the truth about African Green monkey kidney cells being injected into humans for the sake of “immunity.”

Now check out this video, censored by Facebook, that’s now available at this REAL.video link, featuring Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the World Mercury Project, warning America about the epidemic of vaccine-induced degenerative disease.

If the science of vaccines was legitimate, then the mass media would let the science speak for itself. Learn the risks for yourself. The pro-vaccine cult is “anti-science” themselves, knowing the truth about the toxins in vaccines would change millions of minds about what they call “modern medicine.” There are immunization alternatives. Check NaturalPedia.com for more solutions.

John Derbyshire #racist vdare.com

Part Two of my answer: Jews are white, Asians are not, and while any overclass is resented, a racially distinctive overclass is resented more than one that barely looks any different from the resenters.

Anti-Semites know this; that's why they put out drawings of the hunch-backed, hook-nosed cartoon Jew when they want to inflame anti-Jewish feeling. It makes the Jew plainly a different race.

Part Three of my answer: even under the current covert quotas, Asian Americans are enrolled at elite colleges in numbers far above their five percent share of the U.S. population.

Yes, they're being held down: on a strictly meritocratic basis their numbers would be much higher yet, because of the arithmetic of those distribution tails. Still, strictly measured by demographic proportionality, they're high.
So yes, we were importing an overclass a hundred years ago. Elite universities dealt with the issue by fudging and chicanery—just as they are dealing with this repeat performance.

There are some key differences, though. Jews are white, which makes things easier to fudge.

Also, the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is more verbal than visuo-spatial, leading to that dominance in the shaping of opinion.
Asian Americans, by contrast, are much more visible as a group. And their high IQ is more visuo-spatial than verbal, giving us more engineers and scientists, fewer writers, lawyers, comedians, movie and newspaper moguls.

But in both cases, non-Asian gentiles get squeezed. We un-squeeze blacks and Hispanics with Affirmative Action, but that just squeezes white gentiles even more.
Under our current state ideology, the orthodox approach to that hovers somewhere between "Who cares?" and "Serve them right!"

Whether that ideology can be sustained going forward through the 21st century, is an interesting question.

Second point main point raised by readers: any merit-based immigration system imports an overclass.

I agree. Consider for example India. The mean IQ of that country is 82. The mean IQ of Indians in the U.S.A., on the other hand, is 106—higher than the mean for white gentile Americans.

So there's an overclass we've imported — from a low-IQ population.

The same applies to Africa. The mean IQ in black Africa is 70, which is very low. Assuming a normal distribution with mean 70 and standard deviation 15, Microsoft Excel tells me that only 0.0032 percent of the population is higher than 130 IQ.

That's a teeny-tiny percent; but there are an awful lot of black Africans: 1.2 billion is the latest number I've seen. Point zero zero three two percent of 1.2 billion is 38,000. Every one of those 38,000 very-smart Africans is applying for a U.S. student visa.
Caribbean blacks are, for complicated reasons, somewhat smarter than black Africans. Add them into the mix and we're importing a small black overclass.
Is this something we should be bothered about? We-e-ell — there are contrary factors to consider.

Under the present regime of chain migration, for example, all those smart Indians and Africans can bring in their way-less-smart siblings, brides, parents, and even cousins. You could argue that long-term that evens out the mix.

There's also regression to the mean. The offspring of these high-IQ immigrants will regress towards their population mean — although not all the way to it, or else Natural Selection wouldn't work. Given the likelihood of assortative mating, in fact — smart immigrants marrying other smart people — regression all the way back to the population mean is highly improbable, even after many generations.

So, no, this is not a great issue. It is an issue, though — an issue that lurks behind all the happy talk about a merit-based system of immigration.

The first time America imported an overclass, we did so accidentally. When that Great Wave of Ashkenazi Jews came in after 1881, we had only the vaguest ideas about population differentials in intelligence and personality. Psychometry as a quantitative science was just getting started.

Now we understand much more, and can make better decisions. If we import a new overclass today, we'll be doing it deliberately. We know enough to not do it.

And any overclass we import now will be nonwhite. That follows just from the balance of races in the world being much different than it was 100 years ago.

If you're a nonwhite who doesn't like white people, you are fine with that. If you're a white person living in one of the globalist-bubble districts — big coastal cities, college towns — you may think it's no big deal, we can all get along.

The rest of us are shaking our heads.

Holdwater #conspiracy tallarmeniantale.com

I realize fully that the reader must have been awash in the prevailing view that there has been an Armenian “Genocide” during the days of W.W.I’s Ottoman Empire. (Nobody can argue the catastrophe suffered by the Armenians was genocidal in its impact; where the deception lies is that the impact of genocide was felt singularly by the Armenians and not by all of Anatolia's citizens, and the assertion [which is what "genocide" basically means] is that the destruction took place as a policy of state.) After all, Turkey has never been seriously interested in explaining what truly occurred until the early-to-mid 1980s, and Armenians and other Turk haters have had the field wide open to tell their side of the story, virtually unopposed. The Turks made the very mature decision to not dwell on the tragic events of the period... not to sweep crimes under the rug, but to look forward and avoid the destructive forces of hatred.

(...)

Therefore, the site targets the Western reader who is interested in getting to the bottom of what really took place. I can understand the Westerner is not going to trust Turkish sources, as the word of an accused criminal will always be held suspect. Save for commentaries and the occasional Turkish source, an effort has been made for the information in this site to come from impartial Westerners. As opposed to the handful of web sites that present the Turkish viewpoint (that I’ve seen), this one also presents various Armenian sources.

As a matter of fact, this site is a unique one. I combed through Armenian sites, of which there happen to be no end (in fact, Armenians are so obsessed with the genocide issue, they have constructed pseudo- "generic genocide" sites along with pseudo-"Turkish" sites, which is pretty immoral; meanwhile, there are extremely few Turkish "genocide" sites put up by individuals, because the Armenian "Genocide" is simply not a driving force of life)... and I was hungry for the best facts the Armenians were ready to throw out. Unfortunately, that's what many of these "facts" deserved... to be thrown out. Aside from the incredibly deceptive garbage long recognized as forgeries and falsifications (such as the Talat Pasha telegrams) that many of these sites still unethically present as genuine, the best defense the Armenians offer are charges of Turkish "lies," "propaganda," "revisionism," and the ever popular "The Turkish government says..."

I did not hide a thing. The more incriminating the "evidence," the more I chose to highlight it on this site. Anything I couldn't analyze with the real facts or just plain common sense and logic, you will see I've been man enough to admit.

The reason? If the Armenian "Genocide" were to be proven as a genuine fact tomorrow, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. Genocide is a terrible crime, and I wouldn't be proud about the episode... even though the event took place under a Turkish government the current one worked to overthrow. What am I going to do, allow this historic episode from a century ago bend me out of shape, as with some Germans who are still struggling with guilt... and by the same token, should I also not be able to live with myself for what Americans did to the Indians? It would also be a great help for me to know the Armenians violently provoked the events (unlike the Jews of WWII), by committing the ultimate treason.

Turks choose to live in the present, and Armenians choose to live in the past; the Armenian "militia" has made the "genocide" a cause for their existence. Their obsession and deep pockets allow them a clear upper hand in the West, regarding the information war. I maintain an open mind... and when all is said and done, I really don't know if there was a state-sponsored extermination policy by the Ottoman government. (Although after preparing this site and learning all I have, I'm convinced more than ever there wasn't.) And anybody who says they know for a fact the genocide occurred are either deluding themselves, or hoping to delude others. All we can go by are the cold, hard, reliable facts...and the only factors that guide me are truth, honor and integrity.

By the same token, Armenians have been allowed to get away with murder (which can actually be taken literally) in the presentation of their story, and it is very frustrating to see lazy-thinking Westerners blindly accepting their version of events. I will at times not hide my emotions, and consequently talk to you on a human level at this site, and not in a cold, clinical and scholarly way. In fact, those times when I'm not outraged by the degree of deception on the part of the Armenians, I believe the examination of this subject matter calls for some humor now and then... since it's unbelievable in this day and age Westerners still choose to overlook the volumes of impartial evidence against the genocide argument. (Admittedly, this is a kind of "bitter" humor, but the situation is so absurd, it's kind of funny.)

The main reason for why Westerners have been unable to shake their deeply-ingrained belief systems, of course, is that there are very few outlets that present the contrary, Turkish view. Even many professors think twice about going against the Armenian grain, as they have learned during this last quarter-century (or so) how harmful Armenian fanaticism can prove to be to their reputations, or worse.

While Turks will no doubt make use of the information presented here and will enjoy the impartial facts and figures which serve to absolve them (in a "one-stop shopping" kind of a place, which can be very useful), this site was not prepared with Turks in mind. I have put myself in the shoes of the non-Turk. This was easy for me to do, as I was born and raised in the United States, and have had little contact with Turkish people. (The reason for that is there have been few Turks. American immigration policy only allowed for the cream of Turks to enter the country... the scientists, doctors and other skilled professionals... until around perhaps a generation or so ago, when the “ordinary Turks” were allowed to trickle in. Living in New York City, by the way, my best friends — not just regular friends — in different phases of life have been Greeks. At least at one time there were more Greeks living in NYC than in Athens, so it's not very hard to cross paths with a Greek.)

I can only hope Armenians and Greeks who come by will consider the material here with an open mind... but I know that unlike Turks — who are generally raised to look upon these peoples (with whom they have shared a common history for so long) as their brothers and sisters — too many Armenians and Greeks are raised with hatred for the Turks. Coming across information that counters their deeply ingrained belief systems often proves too rattling, and such information will likely be dismissed as lies... no matter how impartial and sensible the information sounds. Not all Armenians and Greeks are like this, of course; such is the danger of generalizing. However, there is a definite pattern with the great majority of them that cannot be ignored.

The difficulty in presenting impartial Western sources is such: Turks are not just unpopular with the Orthodox peoples; since the Crusades, the “infidel” Turks have been regarded as the enemies of the West. (And it is precisely this historic Christian-Moslem animosity that Armenians and Greeks have learned to exploit, in selling their sob stories to the sympathetic West.) The average Westerner has grown with a negative impression, regarding Turkey. Therefore, few Westerners are going to make it their business to learn about a people they have come to regard as historical villains... and fewer are going to write books and articles in defense of the Turks. (Turkish people themselves could not defend themselves in the West... until the last half-century, few Turks had been living in the West, and those that were Western residents had other things on their minds besides presenting the Turkish viewpoint... assuming they possessed the language skills of their new countries to effectively do so.)

All the more reason to keep in mind the Western sources in favor of the Turks (that are comparatively much more difficult to come by than the Western sources in favor of Armenians and Greeks) can be trusted. The reason? Those Westerners who spoke/speak for our Orthodox friends often had/have their own prejudices and agendas... and very few were/are impartial. However, the Westerners who speak for the Turks grew up like any other Westerner, where the image of the Turks has almost always been negative. In their delirium to discredit anything that comes across as "Pro-Turkish," Armenians and bedfellows are known to make unsubstantiated charges that these people must be getting paid by the "sinister" Turkish government, as if the Turkish government has so much money to burn... but if you don't buy into this nonsense, you can easily conclude the only motivating force for those who speak for the Turks is respect for the Truth.

If you think this logic makes sense, and realize there really isn't a reason for a typically prejudiced, anti-Turkish Westerner to speak well of the Turks except for reasons of integrity, then... generally speaking... regarding information that comes from a "Pro-Turk" Westerner, please keep in mind the following scientific formula : Pro-Turk = Pro-Truth.

Forscience314 #fundie fstdt.com

If you want progress, stop discriminating people based on gender and start discriminating them based on IQ. And that's INDIVIDUAL IQ, not "my parents were smart so I'm smart", prove it, we test you first and then assign the level of rights based on that.

You want to know why we're not progressing faster? Take a hint: most people in politics and "civil society" are bullies and narcissists. Almost NONE are scientists. Almost NONE are geniuses in the true sense. Sure they may be average or above average, but that's not enough to manage a complex society.

People themselves are a problem, they don't want real intellectuals leading them, they are easily impressed by bullies and narcissists. The way the system is set up, that's what you need to be to succeed in any leadership positions. Freedom and democracy went to far. Time to scale it back a lot.


{the following is from a later post in the same comment thread, emphasis by Vman:}

[...]

What are the actual conditions?

1. absolutely no violent crime

You will not go to prison immediately, less severe but still violent crimes will involve relocation in tier 2 residential areas where only other violent criminals are sent to. As technology improves we can ensure compliance easier.

2. people receiving assistance through basic income are barred from having children

Violation = castration and relocation to an area where such violators can be more easily monitored. Not prison, but limited ability to travel and interact with others.

There are many ways we can brainstorm what a scientific rational based governance would look like. It would also be far more nuanced than this childish left vs. right freak show.

Ricardo Duchesne #racist eurocanadian.org

European males were exponentially the greatest visual artists in history. According to the most objective comparison we have on the respective contributions of the world’s civilizations to the visual arts, Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences 800 BC to 1950 (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), Europeans clearly stand way at the top. The crazies on the left have dismissed this book as a subjective assessment without much merit, insisting that all cultures have contributed more or less the same to culture.

But any person whose mind has not been warped by current academic trends can’t deny that Human Accomplishment is the first impressive effort to quantify “as facts” the accomplishments of individuals and countries across the world in the arts and sciences by calculating the amount of space allocated to these individuals in reference works, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. Contrary to the accusations of establishment academics, Murray recognizes that one cannot apply a uniform standard of excellence for the diverse artistic traditions of the world, and this is why he created separate compilations for each of “the giants” in the arts of the Arab world, China, India, Japan, and Europe. (He only produced combined inventories of the giants for each of the natural sciences, since world scientists themselves have come to accept the same methods and categories).

Now, although Murray did not compare artistic achievements, he noted that the sheer number of “significant figures” in the arts is higher in the West in comparison to the combined number of the other civilizations. In the visual arts, the number of significant artistic figures in the West is 479, as compared to 192 for China and Japan combined, with no significant figures listed for India and the Arab World.

I have stopped with the end of the 19th century because it is apparent that Gombrich was not too keen about the major trends of the 20th century, the Expressionists, Surrealists, Dadaists, or “modern art” generally, even less about the “abstract artists” of the post-WWII decades. Spengler anticipated this decline in the late 19th century. Understanding this decline would be a major subject of writing. The many passages cited above were meant to convey to readers that European superiority in the arts has not been only about number of great works; it has been about the incessant drive of European artists to find novel ways of painting, new ways to portray life, use colours, shadows, light, express the infinity of nature and human emotions. Europeans have reached deeper into the meaning of everything there is. It is almost as if God put them in charge of bringing about perfection. Sad to know that our current elites are now in charge of destroying this perfection for the sake of equality and diversity.

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Leftists have a word “entryism”, which they use when privately talking amongst themselves. They never plainly state what entryism is, but if you are part of the in group, it becomes obvious that they are talking in code. If the chans got hold of some emails about “entryism”, would probably interpret it as referring to satanic rituals involving sex with children.

I don’t know what “pizza” means in the pizzagate emails, other than that it obviously does not mean pizza, but I know what entryism means:

Identify a respected institution.
kill it.
gut it.
wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect

Since outsiders have never heard the word “entryism” used, they invented their own word for this: “Barnacling”

Science died with peer review, and is now a skin suit worn by a demon. As social justice warriors moved into technology companies, the same has happened with technology. If you are a gamer, you will have noticed that you no longer need new hardware every year. If you are a fan of self driving cars, you will have noticed that they can self drive just fine 99.99% of the time, which is 0.01% less than is useful, and that impressive as this is, it is not getting any better, nor is it likely to get any better. Similarly, Google Translate was a gigantic achievement, but no real progress has been made in automatic translation since Google went social justice, quite a long time ago.

Musk is a serial scammer, always hyping technology that does not exist and that he has no real intention of producing, but his reusable booster was a real technological achievement. It was, of course, produced by male geeks, and now that the eye of Soros has fallen upon them, they are finding their job redefined from producing a reusable earth to orbit rocket, Musk’s proposed, and genuinely intended BFR, to proving that black muslim women produced all technology, and whites stole it from them. Musk’s electric cars and solar city are scams, which could have only produced a profit through Hillary’s crony capitalism, but he really did intend the BFR, the re-usable earth to orbit and back again rocket. Reading between the lines, I feel him giving up hope for it now, which is going to destroy the lives and careers of a horde of really great rocket scientists. If no BFR, there is not much for them to do now. Their careers are going through the same dead end arc as a Fortran engineer’s, or a nuclear engineer’s or a climate scientist who tells peer reviewers what he actually observed, instead of observing what they tell him he observed.

The term “Barnacling” was coined in reference to the Social Justice takeover and destruction of the Star Wars mythos and intellectual property, but I have seen the same thing happen to various open source projects that adopted a contributor code of conduct. Instead of the objective being to produce good software to serve some valuable purpose, the objective becomes giving black women STEM credits, and the project suffers bitrot and technical debt. The creators are, sooner or later, accused of mansplaining, sexual harassment, rape and racism, they become radioactive and permanently unemployable. And without them, the project mysteriously languishes while being used to adorn the resumes of progressives who do not know what a dongle or a fork is.

If you adopt Github’s community code of conduct, your STEM career is going to die, because you are giving people who hate you and everything you stand for, who hate your race, hate your sex, and hate the entire civilization that your ancestors created, the tools with which to destroy your life.

If you have heard leftists talk about entryism (and you will have only heard them talking about it if they are confident you are a fellow leftist) it swiftly becomes obvious that they are talking in code about something that gives them great pleasure. You might suppose that the code is code for satanic rituals and diddling little boys, which is probably how the chans would interpret it, but they are talking about something more fun that that: They are talking in code about destroying the lives of people that they hate. And they hate you, and they hate everything you represent.

Stealing from the best, here is a detailed description of how social justice warriors destroy games and movies:

SJW CRITICISM – The intellectual property is criticized by SJWs for being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and a smattering of other things.
Intellectual property IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO REBOOT – or reimagining, or remake, or whatever term is fashionable at the time.
THE BARNACLING – SJWs barnacle themselves to the intellectual property both within its production and without in the fan base, and start lecturing long time fans.
FAN CRITICISM – Long time fans of the intellectual property voice legitimate criticism of the new direction.
SJW RESPONSE TO FAN CRITICISM – A large fan backlash is created when SJWs both within and without the production falsely accuse critics of being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic etc.
DISMISSING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces declaring the backlash doesn’t exist.
IGNORING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces instructing others to ignore the “tiny vocal minority.
SUPPRESSING THE BACKLASH – Blogs and websites delete or otherwise “redact” critical comments and posts in discussion forums under the aegis of “hate speech.”
BACKLASH INTENSIFIES – As an inevitable side effect of suppression, backlashers seek out other venues to express their criticism, and some publish their own, growing the backlash exponentially.
HATE HOAXES & FALSE FLAGS – The rank and file SJW activists get heavily involved in shouting down critics, and creating false flags and hate hoaxes in an effort to discredit critics.
Intellectual property FAILURES – The intellectual property starts to falter as fans drift away and sales plummet.
THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS – A female member of the production (it could also be a gay man) is granted victim status over a fishy event in order to deflect from the failures of the intellectual property, and shame critics into silence.
DESPERATE PLEAS FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT – “White Knights” in the media call for creative authorities to smack down the backlash and restore control of the narrative in response to The Damsel In Distress event. Media publishes multiple articles with the same talking points and buzzwords such as “toxic” in an effort to mischaracterize the fan base. Major news outlets report on the story, and quote these “think” pieces as authoritative.
ANSWERING THE CALL – Celebrities and creative cast & crew answer the media’s call, and make public statements admonishing critical fans, typically over false accusations.
THE FINAL PUSH – Media entities, and rank and file SJWs tell long time fans to go find something else if they don’t like it anymore, in a last ditch effort to push critics out of the “community” once and for all.
Intellectual property BLEEDING – The intellectual property continues to hemorrhage money, as long time fans continue to abandon the intellectual property in droves.
FANBASE OBLITERATION – The fanbase is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.
THE END – The new incarnation of the intellectual property comes to an end. Since the majority of the fan base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original intellectual property is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the intellectual property overwrites the original intellectual property, and the original intellectual property is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future media mentions.
MIGRATION – The remaining SJWs jump ship to devour a new intellectual property that is popular, and undergoing a transitional phase.
REBIRTH – The process begins anew.

If you are working in tech or science, as for example Musk’s rocket, expect the same, though with far less reporting by major newsmedia. I have seen the same at Google and at projects that adopted a community code of conduct, and reading between the lines of Musk’s tech announcements, I can feel his reusable earth to orbit rocket fading from a real project that would create income, purpose, dignity, and status for a great many rocket scientists, to yet another of his many tech scams. (As, for example, his self driving car: When Musk decided to produce a self driving car without lidar, it was obvious he had given up on the possibility of producing an actual self driving car.) Today, only a scammer can produce science and technology, because you have lie to social justice warriors, and scammers are apt to scam all sides, scamming those who have high hopes for science and technology, and scamming those who hope to have income, purpose, and dignity in creating it. Trump is the only notable scammer who seems to be genuinely on our side.

Robert Celeste #fundie pressherald.com

(This happened in March 2018)

An Oxford Hills School Board member who resigned last week amid an outcry over divisive comments he made on social media says he’s not a racist and doesn’t deserve the scorn heaped upon him by critics. “I am not the problem. The problem is what’s being taught in the public schools to Christian boys and girls,” said Robert Celeste, a former construction company owner who calls himself pastor of the web-based Church for the American Christian Patriot.

“God created four races – white, red, yellow and black,” he said Monday. “Man created a fifth race through rape, slavery and prostitution – the mixed race.” Celeste has a history of making racist comments on social media. In a November 2015 post on Facebook that followed deadly terrorist attacks in France that killed 130 people, Celeste posted “An Open Message To Members Of Maine State Militia” that said in part, “Last night in Paris, France the Obamites showed their hand. I and others expect something like it will happen here, on US soil.”

An image of a handgun firing a bullet accompanied the post and bore the words: “To All Muslims: The USA has the highest concentration of Armed Christians in the world. Just in case you forgot.”

In a June 2016 post about how to break up an anti-Trump rally he included a picture of a poster that said: “How to break up a Black Lives Matter protest!” The poster showed black men running and a little boy in the foreground with a speech bubble that said, “Are you my dad?” Elected to the regional school district’s board in 2016 when his only opposition was a write-in candidate, Celeste also regularly submits opinion pieces to various newspapers expressing his views on race and religion, often prompting rebuttals from members of the community.

He believes there is nothing wrong with trying to protect white people. “Nobody tells the yellow race they need to integrate and water down,” Celeste said.

Richard Colpitts, superintendent of the regional schools, said Celeste always has been polite on a panel that has diverse viewpoints and had not brought up many of the issues that appear on the website for his church. Colpitts, however, was surprised by the contents of the website and said Celeste’s decision was “probably in the best interests of the board.” The Oxford Hills district comprises Paris, West Paris, Oxford, Norway, Harrison, Waterford, Hebron, Harrison and Otisfield.

Celeste said he gave up the seat because his wife is becoming more ill and he was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer four years ago. He knows his time is limited and he wants to complete a Bible translation he has been working on. “I’ve put in my dues,” he said. “It’s time for someone else to do it.” Celeste is no stranger to controversy. He began fighting for gun rights and other conservative issues more than three decades ago. The barbs tossed his way didn’t bother Celeste, he says, because his beliefs are rooted in the Bible and his love for America’s freedom and Republican government.

“I have said nothing controversial,” he said. Public schools, on the other hand, have much to defend, he said. Take dinosaurs, for example. Celeste said it has been only about 6,450 years since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, a place where people and animals lived in innocence and harmony. So when books and teachers in schools say that dinosaurs lived “millions and millions of years ago,” Celeste is more than just dubious. He is outraged. “What that is saying is that God lied,” Celeste said.

Public schools are telling Christian children, he said, that what they learn at church is wrong. Without offering proof, Celeste cited as an example his belief that dinosaurs were still flying around “out West” when cowboys first ventured out toward the Rocky Mountains. Most scientists agree that dinosaurs disappeared from Earth roughly 65 million years ago. Celeste said Christian parents ought to teach their children at home or send them to a church school, although he is open to letting them take specific classes in public schools on subjects such as chemistry or vocational training that don’t provide “lies” meant to undermine faith.

Celeste blames public education for much of what he does not like about society today. “Where are they taught guns are bad and abortions are good?” he asked. The answer, he said: public classrooms. It is tough to be a Christian these days, Celeste said.

For example, there are a lot of 14-year-old girls wearing clothing that is “too provocative.” “Why do girls want to make me want to commit adultery?” he asked. Contemplating his own question, Celeste said that even if one of those girls pranced naked between him and the television, he is so old and sick that he would just tell her to get out of the way.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.


The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??


It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.

Jon Davis #fundie #homophobia youtube.com

(=Progressive vs Homophobic Christian=)

Jon Davis: Still missed it!! Jesus addressed this DIRECTLY. Right here!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.

blind poet38: Not necessarily true. Translated into English, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But looking at the original text, the Hebrew word that is used is very vague. And Jesus never said that gay people couldn't get married, but it was just God's design that they don't get married.

Jon Davis: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" is not a word, it is a description to eliminate the confusion.
Jesus didn't need to say that "gay people can't get married", he referenced the design and that settled it. One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.
Penis is designed for vagina. *blush* Vagina is for penis. *blush* Anus is for pooping. *pffrrt*
It's not homophobia. It's basic biology.

blind poet38: If it is basic biology, how is it that scientists have found over 1500 animal species that practice homosexual acts. You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin. But the Bible really does not say that. And I am a Christian by the way.

Jon Davis: It is basic biology because that is how we procreate, and to do things differently promotes bad health (bleeding butts anyone?) and is not conducive to humankind's continuity.
Animals do all kinds of disgusting things. Dogs eat poop. Cats pee on clothes. Are you just an animal? No. Mankind was made in God's image.
As for everything else you just said ("You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin" etc) you're obviously trolling. I just quoted the text that called it "detestable". And while neither Old nor New Testaments use the term "homosexual" (a term that modern English coined) they both describe the sexual act and describe it with disgust and contempt.

blind poet38: You can think I am trolling if you want to, but you have to understand that the original Hebrew uses terminology that is not as clear-cut as people think it is when it deals with condemning homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Read the OP. Matthew 19:4-5 has no dependency upon Leviticus 18:22; indeed it goes the other way around. You're barking at the wrong argument. I myself was trolled by actually responding to it.

blind poet38: Sorry dude, I don't get your point. All I am saying is that in the original Hebrew, the word that is used is not as clear-cut as people think it is to condemn homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Now you're spamming. Stop repeating yourself. Even if it was true, it's irrelevant, and I already explained why. Now go read Romans 1:18-32 (originated as Greek, not Hebrew), study it with an exhaustive study Bible which provides insight on the original language, and come back when you've studied more than the ridiculous false "truths" and FUD you've found on the Internet.

blind poet38: You can be dismissive all you want, and that is fine. But why is it irrelevant? We are talking about homosexuality and the Bible aren't we?

blind poet38: It is obvious you have no answers to anything. I have already done the research.

AskariStudios: But God Said that all sex outside of Marriage is wrong. Since Marriage is in between only a man and a women. this makes homosexuality wrong. in no way shap or form has marriage ben said to take place between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. ONLY a MAN and a Woman.this has been stated numerous times in the bible. Not only this but in Levitcus, it is clear stated that homosexuality is an abomination. clear cut. in Jude, it its written that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves up to sexual perversion (homosexuality) and where thus made an example of. So with Just Common Logic, and the fact that through multiple translations, the same wording has shown up., its clear that the bible is against homosexuality.

blind poet38: The Bible never says that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" is quite elaborately spoken against. That you would say such a thing speaks volumes about modern society being so casually hedonistic; sex outside of marriage was universally taboo and expected to be everyone's struggle, it didn't need to be spelled out in detail like it spelled out homosexuality, it was simply referred to as "fornication".
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Fornication/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/fornication
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-arriage.html

AskariStudios: 1 Cor 7 states : "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: t“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Its clear that Paul(I do believe he wrote this) implies that Sex before marriage is sexual immorality and that do to this temptation, a man should marry.
want more proof? look up : (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7) and Hebrews 13:4.

blind poet38: The only sexual sins that are mentioned in the Bible are adultery, incest and sex with animals. Fornication means "sexual sin." Which sins? Adultery, incest and sex with animals. Premarital sex is not mentioned as a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" does not mean "sexual sins in general". It means "extramarital sex". If you want to discuss Greek or Hebrew, say so, but you didn't. Look up the word and stop speaking assertions about our English words when you don't even know your own English language.

blind poet38: Fornication does not mean "extramarital sex." That is what someone told you it means. Fornication means "sexual sin." Learn the facts.

Jon Davis: There's a fine line between idiocy and trolling. That line is knowledgable intent. I'm not sure what you're doing in your case. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

blind poet38: OK Jon, you are right. Translated into English, premarital sex is a sin, despite the fact that Solomon and David and Samson, etc etc etc all did it and were never punished for it in the Bible. But the question is in the NT,, what does porneia mean? That is not the Greek word for adultery or any specific sexual sin. It generally means any kind of sexual immorality. And what is sexual immorality in the Bible? Adultery and incest and sex with animals.

Jon Davis: what do you mean "they weren't punished for it"? OT figures who engaged in fornication took a pounding for it. Most of their stories are used as case lessons for the hell people go through when they do it.
To answer your question: Fundamentally, in the Bible there are only two types of sex: sex within marriage (one man and one woman) and sexual immorality, porneia. Read the OP in this thread if you don't understand.

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

Who wants to bet that these IQ-linked genes won't be evenly distributed across "population groups" (aka, races)? I'm willing to bet my entire bank account that the widely observed racial IQ hierarchy that we've known about for decades will line up almost perfectly with these genome-wide polygenic scores. Likewise for socioeconomic class hierarchies (aka, social Darwinism). Is the anti-racist, anti-classist, social constructionist, egalitarian left willing to do the same? Yeah, that's what I thought...

I remember getting into a really heated debate on the old /r/AltRight subreddit about 2 years ago with a couple of the mods at /r/science that claimed to be professional geneticists. They laughed at my argument that we were probably only 5 to 10 years away from being able to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. I argued that when that became a reality, all of the "social constructionist" leftists that have completely dominated and corrupted both the scientific and academic community for decades would finally be exposed as the lying frauds that they so obviously are - which, again, they laughed off as being pseudoscientific nonsense.
I linked them some blog posts like this one and some video lectures like this one from Stephen Hsu because I had been following his work for several years, and so I was aware of the pioneering research that he was doing on this topic. But they were too lazy to read the blog posts or watch the lectures, which should give you an idea of how close-minded and politically biased and motivated that sub and the larger scientific community is...
Instead of trying to understand why I thought that Stephen Hsu was on to something, they instead argued that we'll probably never be able to accurately predict IQ based on DNA alone because intelligence is only partially heritable and because the portion of human intelligence that is heritable involves several thousand different genes that are interacting in impossibly complex ways.

Lots of other geneticists and academics felt the same exact way about DNA-based height predictors because height is also only partially heritable and relies on the complex interactions of thousands of different genes. But thanks to the work of a group of researchers that Stephen Hsu was a member of, we now have a DNA-based height predictor that can predict someone's height to within an inch.

And the reason why that's so important is because we can use pretty much the same exact technique that they used to create accurate DNA-based height predictors to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. Stephen Hsu argues that we simply need to analyze the genomes of about a million people and give them IQ tests in order to create an accurate DNA-based IQ predictor. Right now researchers are mostly relying on rough proxies for IQ like academic performance and years of completed education, but that's not as good as actual IQ tests.
And another reason why the advent of DNA-based predictors for highly polygenic human traits like height and IQ is so important is because it will allow us to greatly improve the genetic health of our species (aka, eugenics). As I wrote in more detail here, pretty soon we're going to have the ability to walk into a fertility clinic with our wives and then be able to pick the embryo with the highest IQ. And then shit is really going to get wild when we have the technical know-how to utilize precision gene editing in order to safely select all of the genes and alleles linked to intelligence while also avoiding harmful pleiotropic effects, which will produce the smartest people to ever live in all of human history.

And it's fucking sad that we have to rely on based, politically incorrect Asian researchers like Stephen Hsu in order to push through the wall of leftist, social constructionist, anti-racist, and anti-classist biases that completely dominate the West's academic and scientific institutions - which is largely being caused by Jewish and gentile shitlibs. I guess that that will be one of the benefits of China's rise and mass Asian immigration into the West.

I remember reading an article that predicted that China was on track to surpassing America and the West in about 50 years when it came to producing the top 1% of scientific papers which get cited by other scientists. And while China surpassing the West will obviously suck for us overall, one of the benefits for we Alt-Right hereditarians is that both science and academia will lurch back to the hereditarian right - which will move our species forward and rehabilitate the much-maligned reputations of the pioneering Western scientific racists and eugenicists of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Remnant of God #conspiracy remnantofgod.org

NASA’s new assignments: Find aliens, prove evolution

"The National Space and Aeronautics Administration has done some amazing things for the United States over the years: the initial short flights into space, then the longer orbiting missions, the moon visits, the space station and even unmanned trips to every sidewalk in the solar system. But now it has some new goals: Find aliens. And prove evolution." –Source

First and foremost, NASA never landed anyone on the moon. All they did was win a propaganda war with the best lie. The fact we had "Van Allen Belts" back then and to this day still wrapped around our planet that would fry any human with lethal doses of radiation while passing through them using a tin foil type of 1960's space capsule proves they lied. In fact, when promoting a new space program for the planet Mars, NASA scientists recently admitted the Van Allen belts are a problem they need to work out as they cannot be flown through without killing the astronauts, and they have been caught admitting this numerous times on camera, yet no one seems to remember how NASA claimed to fly through them in the 1960's? (Also watch this video starting at 3:00) So.. why is that? Why is it no one remembers how we were 100% unable to get through the Van Allen Belts decades ago? Well besides the power behind the controlled media that knows all too well how to hide the facts and fabricate all sorts of strange things, most sheeple prefer the lie over the truth because it benefits the flesh.

For example, when our nation lied about landing on the moon that catapulted us into an unprecedented superpower status in both the political as well as financial realm. But not everyone was fooled. Sadly, the majority was and as we all know it's the numbers that count when it comes to pushing propaganda. But why is it that even when we have proof the moon landing was faked by using real science like we now see about the Van Allen Radiation Belts or simple common sense like who was left behind "on the moon" panning the camera up as the astronauts supposedly lifted off to head back to earth, or the basic reality of no blast crater under the lunar lander after they landed? It's simple, why acknowledge the lie after seeing how well America was "blessed" by the lie?

Since we know NASA is Not Always Scientifically Accurate and more politically motivated like any other government office, having them "find aliens" as well as "prove evolution" will indeed become a scientific "fact" soon because the powers that be are about promoting the lies of hell over and above the truth of Heaven. And yes, you guessed it, Rome is behind all this, and I can prove it.

#1, Rome started the UFO agenda literally centuries ago and I share the facts on this as well as some paintings from inside the Vatican of UFO's being present at both Christ's baptism as well as a tender moment with His mother. There's even a painting suggesting aliens were responsible for the virgin birth of Christ. They actually show a laser beam coming from a UFO into the womb of Mary no less!

And #2, the last three Popes have declared in writing that they believe evolution is true. See my Popes of Rome page if you want for more information on that as well as many other documented atrocities of the Popes. And so why would the Popes seek to belittle Christ as Creator and push this alien agenda?

Well, besides the fact the Popes in Rome and all their Vatican prelates have been caught red handed formally worshipping Satan inside the Vatican and then exposed to that end by one of their very own Bishop's at the 2000 Fatima Congress, they have also discovered a way to use evolution back in 2006 to make it that much easier to establish the mark of the beast. Now yes that sounds very strange and way off the prophesied direction of how the mark will be enforced. But keep in mind, they know about the remnant people of God and our prophesied mission to declare the Loud Cry and so they have to do all they can to confuse the masses away from the truth we proclaim. They know if enough people trust the truth as we preach it, their plans to glorify their dying god will fail and so they must muddy the waters to make out job that much more difficult. But take heart obedient ones, prophecy will still be fulfilled. We will do the work and many will "come out of her" just as Jesus said they would.

Misdirection has always been a favored tactic of Rome. In fact this has always been how they were able to come to power as the prophesied king of the north thousands of years ago and then merge with the church to become the Vatican they are today. This is also why a few false prophets today declare Islam to be both the Antichrist and the king of the north lately. They hope to generate a prophetic fog for the prophesied man of sin in Rome to keep the people at bay so as to move ahead on what's really prophesied to happen and it will work because most people don't read Bibles. So this means NASA will push ahead on this alien / evolution research and if the Lord tarries and Rome finds with their demographic research the majority of the sheeple trust their lies about evolution and aliens; they will then publicly announce from NASA that it is scientific fact just as the USA moved ahead when their research showed most Americans will believe their TV sets that showed they landed on the moon!

Remnant of God #fundie remnantofgod.org

Arnold Schwarzenegger to Sue Oil Companies for ‘First Degree Murder’

"Actor and environmental activist Arnold Schwarzenegger says he and a team of lawyers are set to sue major oil companies whose “product is killing people.” —I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first degree murder; I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies,” the Terminator star said." –Source

As crazy as his comments may sound, a narrative like this needs to become the norm in the mass-media if Rome is to be successful in their enforcement of a mark. And so we need to watch for big as well as the little signs like this because those of us that study Christian prophecy know that the Pope of Rome will be moved by Satan himself very soon to demand all people in the world keep Sunday holy to appease God who is sending the greatly increased global calamities that he has named "global warming." The thousands of articles about Sunday laws that keep coming in confirms that hands down. And this is all besides the fact that global warming has been found to be bad science by tens of thousands of real scientists who unlike the handful of Vatican scientists, they don't have a political agenda for everything they say and do.

As strange as all this seems to some we have to remember Satan is the father of lies and so it will always be bold faced lies that he uses against the masses. Need I remind you of the lies He told Eve in the Garden? When you step into disobedience lies become believable. Hence the reason most people trust the Pope, politicians and their apostate pastors today.

All the strange occurrences around the world from earthquakes, volcanic activity, strange weather to animals, birds, insects and fish dying in biblical numbers has been prophesied to happen right before Jesus returns and Satan needs hide this prophetic fulfillment so he can use it against those that don't read Bibles as a very effective way to control them. But Satan, who has now been proven to rule the roost in the Vatican as per biblical, prophetic, historic and even eye witness accounts; he knows that he has very little time left to do his final work and he must ready the masses to kill those Christians who refuse to bow the Rome's admitted MARK of Sunday Sabbath. And so this is why Schwarzenegger said what he did and this is also why all the movies, video games and music has become so violent lately. He's training his loyal and greatly deceived Armageddon troops as we speak. And so, as crazy at it comes off at first by Schwarzenegger, this narrative must begin somewhere so the media can build on the idea that global warming is killing people so as to convince the masses it has nothing to do with the return of Christ. It sounds nutty now yes, but they will build on this. Christian prophecy is that accurate!

So keep your eyes open and you will see Rome will push their political pawns and send their media cohorts to build on the chance to declare the prophesied death sentence upon all those that refuse to bow to the Pope's admitted unbiblical Sunday Sabbath. Once done it will become the law of the land and all that refuse to obey will be legally declared worthy of death. Their reason to kill will be that unless those refusing to keep Sunday holy die, the calamities from God will eventually kill us all. And just as we saw how they used this method of attack against our Lord 2000 years ago, they will use the very same lie again in the near future. And that lie is what high priest Caiaphas stated in John 11:50 wherein he said that "it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Then you will see all the 501c3 government pastors who built an image unto the beast in Rome join in unison to lobby for and then pass Sunday laws to supposedly appease the God of Heaven. And all those refusing to keep the Roman Sabbath will then be declared guilty of first degree murder and therefore worthy of the long prophesied death sentence by guillotine. Now do you see why there are thousands of guillotines in storage in the USA as we speak?

Yes, some that never read their Bibles or even studied Christian prophecy for that matter may think what I just said is a bit of a longshot; but before you respond with your comments in my blog or YouTube page, those in bed with Rome have already declared in writing that the Christian God is angry when you refuse to keep the Roman Sabbath of Sunday back when the Xmas Tsunami hit in 2004. They actually said that tsunami killed those 300,000 people because they weren't going to church on Sunday! And did you notice? No one balked at that statement in the churches of the world because as also prophesied they are right now wondering after the beast in loyal obedience anyway. They actually think the Sabbath is Sunday and therefore believe Sunday laws would be a good idea. And since the mortal wound has been officially healed, talk in the media of obedient Christians being guilty of first degree murder will begin as prophesied. This is what's next on the prophetic to-do list of the man of sin in Rome.

And so, as we see; a man that is no stranger to killing en masse in his blood drenched Hollywood movies, this man has obviously been chosen by Rome, the historic mother of all modern day politicians, to begin talking points towards the enforcement of the mark of the beast by declaring climate change is killing us and therefore just as the oil companies should be considered guilty of first degree murder, Rome can now build on this to proclaim the Sabbath keeping Christians who refuse to bow to the Pope will be considered guilty and then the final law will be passed to have us all killed. But those of us that study His Word and His prophetic truths know that when they do that, the Gideon band will go forth and glorify the Lord who protects them from any and all weapons formed against them just as much as He did the seven thousand who refused to bow to Baal in Elijah's day!

Remnant of God #fundie remnantofgod.org

(Note: This is only the first half of the article)

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

Darwin said “It is a truly wonderful fact— that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other—” –The Origin of the Species p 170.
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending. Some have claimed that mutations are evolution because of some moth that changed its color years ago. Real scientists discovered that the moth changed its color because of its environment. In other words, if just changing its color means they evolved, then that must mean that every time I work in the garden and get a tan I’m actually evolving?

And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what’s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.

Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.

They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.

There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren’t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.

Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova’s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, “conservation of angular momentum”, which actually means, if what’s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?

Jumping ahead a bit, let’s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so. That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven’t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?

When you get time I would like to ask you to view a video of a scientific experiment wherein they show how sound waves can actually create visible light when they are directed towards a body of water. The video can be found online. It’s titled, "What happens when you collapse an underwater bubble with a soundwave?" The link is found in box #4 of this sermon’s notes. When you watch that video you will be amazed at how nothing but sound-waves pointed at water did in fact create light, just as the Bible dictates.

Genesis 1:2-3, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Ok.. Picture a sphere of water in Space. God literally SPEAKS and says, "Let there be light." That amazingly loud blast of sound causes the water to form a small bubble within it. Then that sphere of water collapses internally upon that bubble, and as we see in that video, "there was light" created at that exact moment. Better yet, the scientists also discovered there was an enormous amount of heat generated when that happened, and the method by which the heat arrives is what they deduce to this day is what caused our Sun to be formed in our Solar System. Pretty convincing argument for the creationist is it not?

Ok.. let’s talk dinosaurs. Were you aware that Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a meat eater? Yes, I am fully aware that every evolutionist, and Hollywood director insists that he was. But Christian scientists have recently discovered two things about T-Rex that proves we have all been lied to for quite some time. They found that the roots of T-Rex’s teeth were only 2 inches deep. That means, had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur in his day he would have lost all his teeth. When you compare the size of T-Rex and the fact his roots were only 2 inches deep, he couldn’t have possibly been able to break the hide of such animals as most evolutionists have him eating. His teeth would have broken off before he even broke the skin. Better yet, were you also aware that these same scientists took one of the teeth they dug up, cut it in half, and they actually found the teeth to be gorged with chlorophyll all the way to the center of the tooth. This confirms he never ate meat. Ever.

Now because this evidence is so well known now among scientific circles, evolutionists know they cannot say it’s not true. The data has been published, and they were caught in a lie. But to try and cover the lie, some evolutionists now claim his teeth are gorged with chlorophyll because he ate dinosaurs that were vegan. Problem with that theory is, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the teeth of T-Rex only had roots that went 2 inches deep, which would still make it impossible for them to eat meat. Still, the Christian scientists also offered data that showed the teeth of modern day animals that eat only herbivores. That’s right, their teeth had absolutely no chlorophyll in them.

By the way, this discovery concerning T-Rex also validates the Biblical record once again! Before the flood of Noah, which is when evolutionists claim dinosaurs roamed the earth, and they also claim no man was alive then, we have a Bible verse that declares they were not originally designed to be meat eaters.

Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Still, some claimed this to be impossible by using mankind as an example. They claimed that we as humans must eat meat to receive the proteins found in meat to grow big and strong. They claim that without meat we couldn’t gain weight or become strong enough to sustain life. Besides the fact that you can actually find much more protein in some plant life than you will ever find in meat, look around on planet earth for a moment. Look at all the HUGE animals like cows, horses, hippos, elephants, rhinos. etc. Or look at some of the ancient dinosaurs that evolutionists do admit were herbivores, like the brontosaurus or thunder lizards that were the largest mammals ever to walk the earth. All of them were herbivores! How did they get so big? How is it the elephant, giraffe or hippos, just to name a few, are so large yet they never eat meat?

Now I would like to get into a few scientific facts I found that can do a much better job and confirming what I saw. After all, I’m no scientist. So, I would like to quote a few if you don’t mind.

Owen K Waters #conspiracy humansarefree.com

The 5th Element is Aether

The legendary Fifth Element holds the key to the answer to one of today’s top mysteries in the worlds of physics and cosmology.

by Owen K Waters, Spiritual Dynamics

Scientists estimate that 84% of the matter in the universe is composed of invisible dark matter, but they have no idea what it is.

With a short venture into the world of metaphysics, you are about to find out the answer!

image
In ancient Greece, all material things were said to be composed of a mixture of the four elements of earth, fire, water and air. There was also said to be a more subtle, fifth element.

This was called the quintessence (literally, “fifth element”), implying its very delicate or refined state of existence.

For many centuries, philosophers considered that all matter consisted of combinations of the basic elements in the Greek tradition. In the early 1500s, Philip von Hohenheim boldly renamed himself Paracelsus, meaning “beyond the medical pioneer Celsus” and came out with a counter-proposal.

He declared that, instead of the old elements, all things consist of the subtle essences of elements that he called salt, sulfur and mercury.

However, this only served to confuse the situation further as both theories did little to identify the basic chemicals that combine to form the enormous variety of compounds that are found in nature.

Next, fast-forward to the Age of Enlightenment. In the late 1600s, the early scientist Robert Boyle published The Sceptical Chemist, rejecting both schools of thought in favor of the then-novel idea that materials are composed of a variety of basic chemicals which, unlike compounds, cannot be further reduced by chemical operations.

This demystified chemistry, laid the basis for its development as a science, and made possible the development of the table of elements that we use in chemistry today.

As the science of chemistry developed and accumulated physical knowledge, however, it became focused entirely on physical materials and ignored the old idea of anything more subtle.

The fifth element has been given various names in traditional Eastern thought and practices – such as prana, chi, qi, and mana – but it can be better understood by calling it vital life energy or etheric energy.

From a physics perspective, the most concise term is etheric energy, which implies a more subtle energy than electric energy.

When electric and magnetic energies combine in complementary motion, they produce physical light as well as the building blocks of physical matter. Your body is composed of electromagnetic energy. Etheric energy is actually more common in the universe than electric energy.

Its manifestation, etheric matter, forms most of the matter in the universe. Cosmologists know that it exists, even though they can’t see it (hence the term, dark matter), because of its gravitational effects on physical matter in the cosmos.

“Dark” energy and “dark” matter are roughly five times more prolific than their physical counterparts, so their influence in the cosmos is quite marked.

The gravitational effect is a result of the fact that both energies – physical electric energy and the more subtle etheric energy – share a common interaction with magnetic energy. The magnetic energy component is provided by the ever-present fabric of space, which I term the God Field.

By using the term the God field, we can reduce a common form of confusion that exists today. The God field was traditionally called the aether and, although that sounds a lot like etheric energy, the two are quite different.

image
The God field is the fabric of space. It is a subtle, fluid, magnetic energy which fills all space. It is intensified within and around matter, where its attractive nature produces the force of gravity.

Etheric energy, or vital life energy, is the primary energy of the universe. Electric energy is, by comparison, a secondary, more physical energy.

Electric energy interacts with the magnetic fabric of space to form physical light and physical matter. Etheric energy interacts with the magnetic fabric of space to form etheric light and etheric matter.

Etheric energy is a subtle, primary life energy, while electric energy is a physical, secondary energy. Both energies interact with the magnetic fabric of space, producing etheric matter and physical matter.

The great advantage with knowing about etheric energy is that this vital life-giving energy holds the key to vibrant wellness. Vital life energy or etheric energy is present in all effective healing systems.

In acupuncture, it is the “qi” energy that is enhanced or balanced in its flow along acupuncture meridians. It is the healing energy transmitted in distant healing. It is the same healing energy that is passed to the recipient in Reiki or Polarity Therapy.

Vital life energy is the essence within sacred healing oils. It is the energy that flows into a person as they practice Qigong. It is the life energy in organic foods, in water exposed to sunlight, and in the oxygen that we breathe.

Without vital life energy, we would not physically exist. With additional vital life energy, miraculous healing can occur.

Gary Sechler, Translator #fundie quora.com

What are things a Christian can tell an atheist to make them doubt their belief?

Well to be truthful, absolutely nothing, They are intelligent people, who are temporarily insane on this one point of wisdom, but God is at work in the minds of all people, and one day when God has prepared them to accept the truth, a light will go on, and the light of God will brighten their life forever. Their biggest problem is getting past the false concept that science is always right, and religion is always wrong. I think the easiest way to get them to conceive of a brighter mind in the universe than theirs is this, Genesis 1, 3,000 years ago God sat down a common shepherd, Moses and told him how the universe was created, and he wrote it down. It still stands as the only logical explanation of the creation of the universe, but it suffers because of ignorant translators. No one questions the order of life coming into this world, They question the existence of a God and His ability to do it. They question the time reported for Him to do it in. that is where the ignorant translators come in. the Hebrew word translated as day, actually originally meant a period of time, not a set 24 hour period, so it could have been millions of years. He didn’t mention dinosaurs, but he was writing for people 3,000 years ago and there were no dinosaurs 3,000 years ago, if he had mentioned it no one would have believed him until about 200 years ago. That’s it now if you are dense enough to think a common shepherd could have sat down and come up with that on his own, you deserve to be an insane atheist. Now let me prove Noah’s flood and the tower of Babbel

I don’t know of any scientists who believe there was ever a world wide flood as described in Genesis, and yet there is historical proof that there was one, and it was world wide. I don’t know of any scientist who believes the tower of Babel was the cause of all the different languages in the world, but again, there is historical proof, which is contained in the proof of the flood, that something like the tower of Babel happened. Nothing happens in this world unless God causes it or allows it to happen.

1. If there was a world wide flood, and if Noah had 3 sons, we would expect to find, in history, 3 separate stories of this flood that would be similar, but different, that came down through the following generations, one story for each son and his children. These stories, would be major stories that were recorded long before Moses wrote Genesis, possibly by thousands of years.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

2. If the Tower of Babel story is true, The names of Noah and his children and other principle characters, would be different.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

3. If this was a true world wide event, we would find similar stories in almost every culture in the world.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

4. If the Tower of Babel story is true, none of these stories would contain the same names of any character in the Bible story.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

Conclusion: since all of the above is true, this proves the existence of God, proves the happening of a world wide flood, and proves an event that can be equated with the Tower of Babel story where all the languages of the world were changed from an original language.

Noah’s name in the 3 major stories handed down by his three sons was, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Deucalion. All of these stories are known to have been recorded prior to the writing of Genesis.

In addition to these three major stories, there are over 500 other stories of a world wide flood, that have been found through out the world.

All of these stories can be found on the internet, by doing a search for “flood traditions.”

Final conclusion: there was a world wide flood, God exists, The Tower of Babel, happened.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


There's no proof that homosexuality is inborn. All of the studies often used to prove that homosexuality is inborn are fallacious. Why? Well, let’s begin with LeVay’s brain study. When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. Another problem is that out of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. Also, there’s brain plasticity which is a fact acknowledged by most scientists. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Another study often used by gay activists as a proof that homosexuals are ‘born’ that way is Bailey and Pillard’s Study. In this one there isn’t much to explain as the whole fallacy of the study can be proven with this one statement: If there was in fact a “gay gene” or “a gay combination per se” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. This observation suggests that there is no genetic component but rather social component in homosexuality. In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor in homosexuality, this result would be counter to the expected trend. The other fallacious study we will be covering here is Dr. Alan Sanders’ study of x-male chromosome. Dr. Alan Sander’s study fails for this one reason: the results exhibited on the gay men were never compared to that of heterosexual males. Another thing as to why homosexuality cannot be inborn from an evolutionary standpoint is that: Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. Besides, there's no proof that homosexuality is caused by hormonal misbalances such as low testosterone, such claims are naught but mere hypothesis and thus, invalid. In fact, low testosterone has been associated with low sex drive and infertility so, there really isn't any ground for such hypothesis. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. As you can see there's no study that even suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

Nowadays, there’s this myth that homosexuality is not harmful and an equal to heterosexual relationships; however, this couldn’t be further away from the truth. Homosexuality is a very harmful practice that results in many illnesses, it’s kind of like smoking a misbehavior that feels good but destroys your body. How can this be true? How can homosexuality be harmful when so many LGBT are such wonderful people? Well, let’s begin with how gays have shortened lifespan. Yes, homosexuals have shortens lifespan and this isn’t just my word as there are studies to back my claims. It isn't just the 1997 study that pointed to this grim truth, according to the article you attached, the 1997 study is fallacious because the lifespan of gays should have improved over time thus, so it shouldn’t be valid today. However, other recent studies have reported similar findings. Such studies include an study done by Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute and who held a poster session and presented the study at March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia. The facts of the Cameron's studies were these: the lifespan of homosexuals is 20 years lower than that of straights. They found that in the Canadian database, a decline in homosexuality was evident by the fourth decade of life. Those who identified themselves as homosexual constituted a relatively stable fraction of adults only for those aged into their mid-40s (e.g., one of every 47-48 adults). Thereafter, their proportion dropped regularly, down to one of every 234 adults in old age (65+), resulting in an overall estimate of 1.4% of adults who ‘were. In both the table and abstract done by the Cameron a precipitous decline in the homosexual population following middle age was noted. Taking a look at the statistics and studies regarding homosexuals, both old and new, it becomes evident what’s the real reason as to the reduction in homosexuals’ lifespan. Unlike what most pro-gay activist like to claims this reduced lifespans is not due to discrimination or stigmatization because these studies were conducted in countries were homosexuals are not persecuted, there's very little disapproval of homosexuality, and were homosexuals even enjoy special rights. The reason for this statistics is the nature of homosexual sex itself is harmful, and many of the harmful acts committed in such relationships are not committed by straights as often as by homosexuals. Like Diggs said the anus is not made for penetration and anal sex is extremely harmful for both homosexuals and straights. However, straights have the option to indulge in traditional sexual intercourse which is way safer than those homosexual practices. There's no such thing as safe homosexual sex for all the practices involved in their so called making 'love' ritual have been proven to be dangerous practices that often result in many illnesses. The use of a condom reduces the chances of HIV; however, it does not eliminate the risk especially during anal sex practiced mostly by homosexuals as 1 in 27 condoms will break during anogenital homosexual sex. Also, there’s no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Herpes simplex virus. The prevention of the these three STDs has not been absolutely quantified, because no one is suggesting that a person known to have one of these treatable infections have regular intercourse with an unaffected partner. Though, health professionals assume the usage of condoms reduces the risks of getting these diseases; however, as to what extent condoms prevent these diseases are unknown. Back to anal sex, this kind of sex is extremely dangerous and harmful. The use of artificial lubricants doesn’t make this practice any safer, in one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong. Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. Thus, lubricants don’t really make anal sex safer if anything it makes anal sex more dangerous. Anal sexual intercourse as Mr.Diggs noted does increase fecal incontinence as shown in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2010) done by Alayne D Markland and others which included 2,100 male participants. Anal sex is also known to increase anal cancer and it’s no surprise taking into account anal sex is done mostly by homosexuals that, gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies. Oral sex practiced amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly among homosexuals is dangerous as well. Fisting is far more dangerous than anal intercourse; results of fisting can include infections, inflammation and enhanced susceptibility to STDs. Rimming a practice done by most homosexuals which increases the risk for Hepatitis A or B, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes/genital warts, though low, the risks are still there especially when most people perform unprotected oral sex. Another illness that is very prevalent among homosexual communities is Shigella, it can be transmitted through person-to-person contact, oral-anal sex, or sucking or licking of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.Many shigellosis outbreaks among MSM have been reported in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Europe since 1999. Frottage, when done naked or simply if the infected skin of a partaker rubs against the uninfected skin of the partner, can result in STDs transmitted by skin-to-skin contact which include: Herpes, HPV, genital warts, mononucleosis, Molluscum Contagiosum, and syphilis. Also, another risk of frottage is clothing rubbing on a lesion as it can irritate it risking either a secondary infection or a disease spreading through self-inoculation. Tribadism includes the risks of frottage as well. There is almost no published research addressing the question of whether fingering is transmits STDs or not. However, common sense says it should be extremely low but still, fingering is not risk free from STDs. The usage of latex condoms does not completely eliminate the risks of STDs during mutual masturbation and other forms of sexual contacts as it is not 100% effective and there’s also the risk of developing latex allergies. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that while men with same-sex attraction make up only 2 percent of the total population, they accounted for 63% of all newly-diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases in 2010. Despite what gay activist would like to believe, HIV among msm seems to be increasing as in 2014, gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses (CDC). When into account that gays are about 1.6% or 2.3% (counting bisexuals) of the population, according to a recent survey done by the National Health Statistics Reports (2014), it can be concluded by using basic math that being gay drastically increases your chances of getting many illnesses. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 82.9% of all male syphilis cases and 61.2% of all syphilis cases in the US. In your article it was claimed that over time Homosexual’s ailments would become less common but it seems the opposite is happening as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention(2014) noted that the number of cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis is increasing among men and particularly the msm populace. A study done by Damien Stark(2007) resulted in indicating that MSM were more likely to have multiple parasites in their stool compared to non-MSM (43.5% versus 8%; P < 0.001). In a sexual health survey of MSM in Vancouver, 18% of men had been diagnosed with genital warts, 62% were infected with a strain of HPV, and screening for anal cancer detected abnormalities in 64% of HIV-positive men and 34% of HIV-negative men (suggesting anal cancer may be present). What’s more, it seems most homosexuals infected with HIV are unaware of their infection! A CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. Another study conducted by Marc Martí-Pastor,Patricia García de Olalla, and others (2015) concluded that an increase in cases of STIs was observed in 2015, most of which affected mainly msm. The Marc and Patricia’s study revealed that 66.8 % of the HIV cases were men who had sex with men (MSM), 45.5 % of the gonorrhea cases were MSM.74.2 % of the syphilis cases were MSM and 95.3 % of the LGV cases are MSM. Homosexuality increases the risk to HPV as shown by the statistics presented in the journal Cancer (2004): 60% of gay men without HIV, 90% of gay men with, have human papilloma virus infection in their anal canal. A study conducted n 2002 by Susanne L. Dibble and others concluded that lesbians are at a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. HPV (human papillomavirus) is common in WSW as HPV can be transmitted through skin to skin contact. A study published by the Gay and Lesbian Association concluded that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer. The lesbians that chose not to do the screenings do them for the same reasons straights chose not to. Since oral-genital sex is a frequent practice of women who have sex with women, genital herpes transmission with both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can occur. A National survey from 2001-2006, reported that 30% of women who reported having same-sex sexual contact in the past year, had positive blood tests for HSV-2. This finding is contrasted with women who report no same-sex sexual contact, among whom 24% had positive blood tests for HSV-2. Other diseases abundant in homosexuals include: Hepatites A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Proctitis, HSV, BV, HEP B, Giardia lamblia, Amebiasis, and mental disorders. The tendency of gay men to acquire many of these plethora of diseases, contrary to what most gay activists suggest, isn’t due to discrimination as public acceptance of gay/lesbian relations as morally acceptable grew slowly but steadily from 38% in 2002 to 56% in 2011 and is now holding at the majority level; the problems with the American LGBT community aren’t also due to lack of knowledge about ‘safe’ homosexual sex practices as since 2013 in The Real Education For Healthy Youth Act, an act that promotes homsosexual sex education by providing federal fund solely to programs that educate about ‘safe’ homosexual sex partners, has been in place. Also, there have been numerous LGBT education programs receiving federal funding before and many school districts teaching about safe homosexual sex education that date back prior the 2013. On the web there’s also a plethora of websites that cover safe gay sex available to homosexuals of any age, when you write the word ‘safe gay sex’ on Google you will get 36,100,000 results many of which cover on ‘safe’ gay sex practices with tips. So, it can be concluded that the many illnesses present on the homosexual community are more due to the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexuality per se rather than due to discrimination or lack of homosexual sex education. Homosexuality is asexual behavior, not a characteristic like a skin color, and when looking at all this statistics we can determine that homosexuality is a harmful sexual behavior such as smoking is a harmful behavior.

3# Children of gays parents do as well as those of straights

Children raised by homosexual parents don’t fare as well. Studies that indicate that children from homosexual households fare as well as those with heterosexual parents are fallacious. Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. They have also used selective recruiting instead of using random samples. And usually the reports are given by the parents instead of the kids themselves. Studies that prove kids under the care of same sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents include: Regnerus(2012), Allen(2013), and Sullins(2015). Most of these studies have random samples with numbers that are representative of the children raised in same sex households.

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

there's evidence that shows intervention to change ones' sexualities are actually pretty successful.Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).
In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).
Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:
Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:
Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004). Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation. These studies are not mere speculation as they have numbers to back up their results. These studies are more than enough proof that homosexuality can be changed.

#faggots #gay #homosexuality #homosexuals #lesbian #religion #statistics #yaoi #yuri #antigay #boyslove #homophobe #homophobia #lgbt #misconception #myths #science #study #truths #boys_love
Once again God is right and humans are wrong.

I. R. Coon #racist niggermania.net

Well, back from my "exile". As what I mentioned in some of my posts, I work for an Antarctic research program as a field guide. And than in the Nordic winter, I work in Antarctica, a White continent, and... nigger free. But also here, divershity is slowly rearing its Ugly head. Here is one of my experiences.

In November, I took the MOD (RAF) flight from Brize Norton, to the Falklands, to board the ship that would bring me to my destination, a research station on the Antarctic Peninsula. But, when I came on board, I encountered this sow, who seems to be the token niggeres of the "Survey". I kept my distance, not wanting to be involved with its antics. It showed all the shenanigans of a typical nigger (TNB): obnoxious, egoistical, thinking it knows all, telling it has a higher positions than what it was etc etc.

As an example: One of the luxuries we have: we can drink alcohol on board, but one time the beakers (Scientists) had a party, and that went quite wrong, result: a few days no beer in the bar. So result: the sow, which had a bottle of whine, entered the lounge, with a smug smile on its mug, from: "look at me, i've has whine 'n shite" and starting to drink it, while we had to do it with soft drink. With other words: how to irritate people.. Another example: it was working for estates, but it presented it self as Head of estates...

Seasickness and other "important" stuff. We had gash duty, which meant that on a rota, we did some small cleaning onboard, like restocking the bar, helping the catering crew while we are on board. And with this sow, it happened a couple of times, that it felt seasick and didn't had to do it's gash duty. So, I managed to survive that beast on board, and was really looking forward to the season. The only big shock for me was yesterday, after a couple of months, nigg free, when I arrived in London: niggers everywhere, so that is a some culture shock than.. Glad I'm back in Llanberis..

J. Warner Wallace #fundie coldcasechristianity.com

Why I’m Not a Theistic Evolutionist

I’m delighted to get the chance to teach at one of my favorite local churches in about a week. The topic will be Genesis 1:1 and what is, in many ways, the most important verse of Scripture: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I’ll be talking about some things we can know with certainty (related to God’s creative work in the universe and in biological organisms) and some things that we know with a bit less certainty (as I review many of the ways Christians have interpreted Genesis 1 through the ages). While I am respectful of some of the efforts to understand precisely what Moses was trying to communicate in this text, there is one view of creation that I find difficult to accept. From my perspective, theistic evolution appears to be a contradiction in terms.

I’m not the first person to notice this, but I’d like to explain why so many of us have difficulty embracing this view of creation from a simple survey of the definitions. When scientists and theologians are allowed to define their own respective terms, they provide definitions that seem diametrically opposed. The textbook definitions illustrate the problem:

ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn] “Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.”

The changes occurring as a result of evolution are caused by three forms of unguided (or random) interaction (mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift). The unguided nature of these mutations (and the environmental circumstances that come to bear on them) is foundational to the definition of evolution. This quality of randomness is incompatible with a theistic view of the universe. Theists believe an all-powerful Creator is engaged in the process that brought everything into existence. This creative Being actually creates stuff and the act of “creating” is not an unguided process:

cre·ate [kree-eyt] “To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.”

The definition calls for a unique and specific creative act of guidance that is specifically differentiated from an evolutionary or “ordinary” (“natural”) process. This aspect of guided creativity is foundational to the nature of the Being proposed by Theists. The problem, therefore, seems to arise with any attempt to synthesize or unify these two divergent terms. Think about it for a minute; theism is all about guided creation, evolution is all about unguided causation. When we put the two ideas together, it’s the equivalent of saying:

the·is·tic ev·o·lu·tion
“The creatively guided, specific, process of unguided, random causation”

See the problem? In order for this term to make any sense at all, someone needs to modify or surrender their term. Evolution has to take on an aspect of guidance and direction, or theistic creativity has to allow for the random lack of guidance. I doubt that either side is willing to compromise on the very attributes that lie at the foundation of their claims. So while there may be a number of ways to interpret the precise meaning of the Genesis account, I doubt that theistic evolution is one of them.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

image
Messenger Elijah Muhammad

Meet Elijah Muhammad (pictured above). He’s the founder of the Black Muslim Nation (religion). Elijah Muhammad was born in October of 1897 in Georgia to William and Marie Poole. He grew up poor with 7 brothers and 5 sisters. His father was a Baptist preacher. It’s hard to imagine Elijah Muhammad growing up in a Baptist home and then becoming a Muslim (one who adheres to the Islamic Faith), but he did. Genuine Muslims and Baptists believe each other are going straight to hell. Elijah Muhammad was a devout Muslim and believed that only Allah was God, not Jesus.

The Black Muslims have an official web site at “Muhammad Speaks Website.” The following quotes are taken directly off their web sight:

The following article was transcribed from a video-taped lecture of the 1973 "Savior's Day" Lecture given by Elijah Muhammad titled: A Savior Is Born, February 26, 1877—-“Brothers and Sisters, I'm so happy to see your smiling faces, who have come here from far and near to help us give thanks to Almighty God, Allah, Who came in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, To Whom Praises is due Forever.”

Elijah Muhammad met W. D. Fard in 1931 for the first time and believed that Mr. Fard was literally Allah incarnate, with a message for Elijah to spread to all nations. Here are Elijah’s own words:

“In Detroit one day in the latter part of 1931, our leader met with Master W.D. Fard --THE SAVIOUR--Who was teaching among Blacks at 3208 Hasting Street. Our Leader immediately recognized the POWER of THE MESSAGE and THE MAN (MASTER W. D. FARD) Who said that He was God in Person. Our Leader, right away, accepted the Truth of the Message and the giver of the Message, seeking more insight, more wisdom, knowledge and more understanding.”

image Master Fard Muhammad

Elijah Muhammad claimed that Mr. Fard had a black father who purposely married a white woman so their son would be white (to allow him to sneak into the U.S.A. unnoticed and liberate all blacks). Elijah believed that he was the last great prophet that Allah (W.D. Fard) would send before the end of the world. Here are Elijah Muhammad’s objectives:

“I am doing all I can to make the so-called Negroes see that the white race and their religion (Christianity) are their open enemies, and to prove to them that they will never be anything but the devils' slaves and finally go to hell with them for believing and following them and their kind.”

So it’s clear that one cannot be a Christian and a Black Muslim. Elijah Muhammad (as do all Muslims), rejects the deity of Christ (that He is God). They don’t believe Jesus was ever crucified, nor do they believe that Jesus can forgive sin. They say God has no Son. They claim Jesus was a prophet of Allah, no more. Both Islam (Muslims) and Black Muslims reject the Bible (Word of God) on the claim that it is distorted and corrupt, they claim the Quran (also Koran) as God’s only Word. The Quran is nothing more than an Anti-Jew, anti-Christian book filled with jumbled words and much contempt for Jesus Christ and His Word. It’s important to recognize
that orthodox Muslims (followers of the Islamic religion) are not the same thing as Black Muslims. Nearly all Muslims reject Elijah Muhammad and his foolishness. Elijah was first a Muslim and then simply started his own false religion in addition. Muslims do not recognize Elijah Muhammad as anything except a nut. However, the two religions do have quite a bit in common—mainly that Elijah Muhammad was an Islamic Muslim.
Elijah Muhammad foolishly claimed that the Bible prophesied of his coming in Deuteronomy 18:18 and Malachi 4:5.
Let’s hear what this prophet says about white people:

“The Yakub made devils were really pale white, with really blue eyes; which we think are the ugliest of colors for a human eye. They were called Caucasian.”

According to Elijah Muhammad, Yakub was a black scientist that created the white race in a laboratory by separating one of his own black germs; hence, all white people came from a black man. Elijah adds,

“The black nation is only fooling themselves to take the Caucasian race otherwise. This is what Jesus learned to their history, before He gave up His work of trying to convert the Jews or white race to the religion of Islam.

The Holy Quran (Surah 49:13-15) throws a great light on the truth of the creation of this pale, white race of devils. Black people have a heart of gold, love and mercy. Such a heart, nature did not give to the white race.”

Wow! This is religious science-fiction at it’s best folks.
If you want to know the sickening truth, visit their site at muhammadspeks.com Beware, this is a hate site in our opinion.

Muhammad was a racist, full of hate and resentment for all Christians and white people. This is wrong, and two wrongs don’t make a right! Racism is a sin, period! The Bible says, “For ALL HAVE SINNED—” (Romans 3:23). All men, of all races, of all religions are sinful and wicked. The Jews (whites) were enslaved for hundreds of years by the Egyptians, enduring cruel treatment and hard labor in the time of Moses. Elijah Muhammad is wrong to teach that white people are devils, WE ARE ALL DEVILS WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST!

Elijah Muhammad had a strong influence over multitudes of blacks because of his message against the cruelty, killings and slavery which was inflicted upon them by many of the whites. He offered a message of hope. Sadly, he rejected Jesus Christ and led many multitudes down a wrong path to Islam (Allah worship). His influence is still great today even though he died in 1975. His foolish teachings concerning the white race are ludicrous and simply indicate the bitterness and anger he was never able to resolve in his own sinful heart. He was a man without Christ!

Malcolm-X (or Malcolm Little) first converted to the Black Muslim religion while in prison. Upon his release in 1952, Malcolm-X became a minister of the Black Muslim religion. In 1963, he and Elijah Muhammad split up due to their differences. Malcolm converted over to orthodox Islam and denied his affiliation with Elijah Muhammad’s Black Muslim religion. Two years later in 1965, Malcolm-X was murdered.

Louis Farrakhan is also a Black Muslim and is well known for organizing the “Million-Man March” in Washington D.C. He follows the unscriptural doctrines of Elijah Muhammad, as do all Black Muslims. Below is the death announcement of Messenger Elijah Muhammad:

“On February 25, 1975, at the age of 78, Elijah Muhammad died in a Chicago hospital, reportedly, of congestive heart failure -- with no aid from white people, he left behind, an empire, estimated to be worth $60,000,000, which included LAND and cattle holdings in Michigan, Georgia and Alabama, along with grocery stores, restaurants, mosques, schools and newspapers, homes, clothing stores and many other things.”

All this wealth and Elijah Muhammad couldn’t take a dime of it with him. He left this world at 78 without Jesus and went straight to hell-fire and damnation. He didn’t go to hell because of his sins, but for his unbelief in Jesus Christ. All Muslims (Islamic and Black) reject Jesus Christ as their Savior. They say they will accept the Jews and Christians—"If they reject Christ." Will you reject Jesus Christ, God’s son? Call on Jesus now, friend, to forgive your sins.

Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D. #fundie disqus.com

Wyatt O'Keefe:

Have you ever noticed how evilutionists, when backed into a corner, attempt to retort their deficiencies by saying that they don't have an answer? Like, where did the Big Bang come from? Evilutionist: "ummm, we don't know, but you know, secular scientists are working on it..." LOL!

In the same vein, we can tell the evilutionist relative to his supposed "gotcha" questions, that the creation scientists are working on it. How did the kangaroo get to Australia? We don't know, but creation scientists are working on it!

Now here's another thing: did you know that tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars go to support secular research in the US? And because of anti-Christian discrimination, creation researchers do not get a dime of this public money! So, in order to be fair, the evilutionist/secularist satanists that ask such questions need to petition their legislators to allocate scientific funding to creation research, pronto! If only 1 billion dollars a year, a very small fraction of our nation's research budget (which is mostly wasted), would go to creation research, the pagans wouldn't have to wait very long to receive their answers!

In the same vein, I encourage every Christian to contact their congressmen, and let them know that we need funding for real research that delivers real answers that even the satanists (Matthew 12:30) are inquiring about!

In the name of our Savior,
Brother T

Thomas1961 #fundie forums.carm.org

I guess courage was not distributed equally to all through the evolutionary process and money is needed to sweeten the pot for such an important topic to be publicly discussed.

Numerous articles by scientists have appeared in the last 10 to 30 years challenging various key aspects of the Darwinian theory.

700 scientists who dissent from neo-Darwinian evolution and have signed a statement of dissent “There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.” The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others. (DissentFromDarwin.org) “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/links.php

The evolutionists know once creationism is acceptable and taught alongside evolution theories their house of cards crumbles. So they are fighting with all they have to prevent this.

The god that atheists don't believe in, does not exist, as many have noted they are arguing not against Christianity but their wrong view of it. It would be advantageous for atheists actually took the time to know the Christian worldview and what the Bible actually means, not just what it says before they leap into arguments against it. But if they did this they may risk conversion.

Mike King #conspiracy #wingnut tomatobubble.com

Much butt-hurt emanating from Sulzberger's Slimes and the rest of the Piranha Press over the Chinese government's decision to scrap the two-term limit (5 years per term) for its appointed President, Xi Jinping. The tsunami of condemnation from the great and the good who occupy the high places of "the free world" has been so intense, that it only took hours after the announcement for Sugar and me, er, "The Editorial Board" of The Anti-New York Times to grant expedited trademark privileges for the term "power grab" -- ("Xi power grab" already returns 513,000 results for Joogle Search)

Before we dig into a few select excerpts from Sulzberger's scribblers, let us note, with gleeful approval, that the evil, deceitful, seditious Slimes, both the English and Chinese as well as both the print and cyber versions, was banned in China back in 2012. (here) And with "strongman" Xi's latest "power grab", it doesn't look like "the paper of record" will be allowed to corrupt young Chinese minds anytime soon.

Meyers: There was a time, not so long ago, when a Chinese leader setting himself up as ruler for life would have stirred international condemnation for bucking the global trend toward greater democracy. Now, such an action seems fully in keeping with moves by many countries in the other direction.

Translation: What Meyers (cough cough) is really saying is: "Damn it. We are losing our grip on too many countries!"

Meyers: The surprise disclosure on Sunday that the Communist Party was abolishing constitutional limits on presidential terms — effectively allowing President Xi Jinping to lead China indefinitely — was the latest and arguably most significant sign of the world’s decisive tilt toward authoritarian governance.

Analysis: Notice how selective these Globalists are in their condemnation of "authoritarian governance." The President of their beloved and revered Brussels-based European Union and also the EU "Council of Ministers" are non-elected and rule by decrees from which member states cannot escape without sanctions or threats of sanctions.

Meyers: The list includes Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, all of whom have abandoned most pretenses that they rule according to the people’s will. Authoritarianism is also reappearing in places like Hungary and Poland that barely a quarter-century ago shook loose the shackles of Soviet oppression.

Analysis: Again, note the hypocrisy and selective application of standards. The Frumpy Frau of Germany has run that oppressed nation with an iron fist since 2005 and will likely stay in office until 2021, before handing over the reins of Germany's apocalyptic horses to her hand-picked successor -- an even homlier hyphenated hag named Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. And yet, we never seem to hear complaints about Angie's "power grab", do we?

The "authoritarians" Xi, Putin, Sisi and others don't give a rat's ass what the Jew York Slimes has to say. And that is why Sulzberger's scribblers are "concerned." 2 & 3. Unlimited terms are 'OK" if the "authoritarian" in question is a Globalist libtard. After 16 years as Boss Lady of Bolshevik Germany, the Frumpy Frau will likely be succeeded by her hand-picked cronie bitch, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (yikes!)

Meyers: There are many reasons for such moves by Mr. Xi and others ... but a significant one is that few countries have the standing or authority, morally or otherwise, to speak out — least of all, critics say, the United States.

“I mean, who is going to punish him internationally now?” asked Susan L. Shirk, the chairwoman of the 21st Century China Program at the University of California, San Diego.

Analysis: Let me get this straight, Professor Shirk (cough cough). You want Xi to be "punished" for his "authoritarianism" ™, but lament the fact there is no one who can do it. We wonder, bitch, when the "democratic" ™ USA terror bombed the innocent populations of Serbia and Iraq into submission, and unleashed proxy terror armies upon Syria and Libya, did you and your fellow eggheads ever call for Messrs' Clinton, Bush and Obongo to be "punished internationally?" Hmmm?

Meyers: “Thirty years ago, with what Xi did, with what Erdogan has done, there would have been an outpouring of international concern: ‘You’re getting off the path,’ and so on,” said Michael A. McFaul, a political scientist and diplomat who, ... wrote extensively on building democracies.“Nobody is making that argument today,” he added, “certainly not Trump.”

Translation: What "political scientist" McFaul is eally saying: "1990's China and Yeltsin's democratic Russia used to fear us. Now they won't obey and Trump is sympathetic to their nationalistic authoritarian tendencies."

The way in which history links to the present is really fascinating. Way back in the 1930's, The Great One (that's Hitler for all you newbies and normies) was on to this trademarked "democracy" vs "authoritarianism" jive talk. Tell it, Great One, tell it:

1. Hitler: "Yes, Germany, before us, was back then a democracy, and we had been plundered and squeezed dry. No, what does democracy or authoritarian state mean to those international hyenas? They don’t care at all. They are only interested in one thing: Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or no? Are you stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And when a democracy is stupid enough not to stand up, then it is good. But when an authoritarian state declares, ‘You are not going to plunder our people, neither from the inside nor the outside’, then that is bad."

2. Academic egghead Susan Shirk wants Xi to be punished, but doesn't know how it can be done.

Meyers: President Trump’s administration on Monday brushed off questions about Mr. Xi’s move. “I believe that’s a decision for China to make about what’s best for their country,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary.

Analysis: Add a few check-marks to the "plus side" of Trump's ledger.

Meyers: Even the Russia that emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Union adopted a democratic constitution and instituted free elections. ...

Analysis: Democracy was imposed upon Russia by western Globalists who thought they could control the political parties.

Meyers: Whatever the chaos of Boris N. Yeltsin’s era in the 1990s, democracy was taking root when Mr. Putin came to power — in a relatively free and fair election, no less.

Translation: "I don't care if Russians were starving and freezing to death during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin years. At least we had control over Russia's internal politics back then."

Meyer: “(Western liberal democracy) is no more,” Brad W. Setser, a Treasury official during the Obama administration who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in a message after news emerged of Mr. Xi’s move.

Analysis: So, the notorious Council on Foreign Relations -- founded in 1921 for the purpose of recruiting ambitious politicians, journalists and academics to work towards creating an eventual world government -- isn't too happy about "Xi's move." That alone, boys and girls, is reason for all of us to give a great big round of cyber-applause for "China's Hitler" --- Heil Xi Jinping!

1. Trump is being mocked for his indifference towards Xi's "power grab". 2. The Globalists were pleased when their control over Russian "democracy" brought death, poverty and starvation to Yeltsin's Russia. Note the sub-headline from Time Magazine (July, 1996): "The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." But now that the "authoritarian" Putin has brought stability and growing prosperity to Russia, it is bad. 3. The CFR -- whose original Director was Paul "Father of the Federal Reserve" Warburg, has been at this dirty game of foreign intrigue for nearly 100 years!

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today about the president of China's recent power grab.

Boobus Americanus 2: That Jinping is becoming the Hitler of China.

image

Sugar: And why exactly iss that a bad thing, Boobuss?

Editor: Halloween is not till October, Sugar.

Acyutananda #fundie disqus.com

Acyutananda:
I'll reproduce here a comment I made under the recent "Science/Philosophy Distinction" post:
The funny thing is that the scientists who say life doesn't begin at conception don't disagree about science with those who say it does. If they were all to sit around a table and discuss one point in time of human development after another, they would closely agree about the processes going on at each point.
They are disagreeing about nomenclature, about words. It's a semantic debate. If they were to agree to freshly coin all the words they will need for the embryology field, they could probably easily coin some words and assign them the definitions that will be most useful for their scientific purposes, and come to an agreement. But since they persist in using existing words, and existing words, such as "life" and "human," have associations with implications (implications which those scientists understand) for perception and private behavior and public policy, the scientists' nomenclature preferences will be underlain by their different philosophies, and a faction of scientists with one philosophy will want to use different words than a faction of scientists with a different philosophy. The pro-choice side will want us to view the scientific reality (upon which there is no disagreement) through a word filter that will make the pro-choice side look good and feel good, rather than a filter that will make the pro-life side look good and feel good.
Moreover, many existing words, including "life," have multiple meanings that simply invite the unscrupulous to obfuscate. For example:
"The final quote from Robert Wyman (a neurobiologist) makes the most bizarre claim I've ever seen a pro-choice person make. Life doesn't begin at fertilization, they claim, it began billions of years ago. And that is somehow supposed to show that we can't know when an individual human life begins."
I agree that that is what Wyman was trying to show. But to some extent he evades being caught and pinned to the wall, by applying what seems to be intentional obtuseness.
It would matter not at all whether viruses were alive if we didn't reify and virtually fetishize our own categories. A failure to answer that question (are viruses alive?) wouldn't prevent us from acquiring a finely-detailed, even god-like scientific understanding of viruses, if we're otherwise capable of acquiring it.
Just as knowing whether or not an embryo is a person, or a human being, matters not at all, as long as we understand what kind of life it would have if it lives, and understand that if we kill it, we deprive it of that life. Science.

Bessie:
Google offers the people $98 per/hr to complete easy jobs off a home computer .. Labor only for few peroid of time daily and spend greater time with your loved ones . Any one can also apply this best post!!
last Wednesday I got a gorgeous Ford Mustang just after making $14252 this-past/six weeks .without any doubt it is the coolest job however you could now not forgive yourself if you don’t view it.
!me022p:
http://jobs.net-careers.online/?bo0618
??a?v?v???d?i??d?y?a?x?r???q?d??n??b???k???t???l?m?f??a???q?m?g?u?l::::!xe8

Acyutananda:
Bessie, I don't mind your lack of interest in the issue I raised. Thanks for at least not exhibiting misunderstanding of the issue.

Victor Hafichuk & Paul Cohen #fundie thepathoftruth.com

What is Richard Brown smoking? Mr. Hafichuk did not say that “creationism should be exempt from the rigors of science.” He said that those teaching evolution should walk the talk, and put up some hard evidence before opening their mouths. There is not one single incontrovertible piece of evidence that supports evolution. NOT ONE. And Brown has the nerve to talk about science? His explanation of thermodynamics is pure deceitfulness. It is common knowledge among scientists, including ones espousing evolution, that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics, whether in open or closed systems. Honest scientists admit that the organized complexity of biological organisms requires two additional factors besides an open system (sun providing energy). These are: a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy to maintain life. Evolution has no answer or explanation for the presence of either, the development of which contravenes the second law of thermodynamics. The formation of ice crystals from water does not answer this conundrum. Snowflakes simply represent water’s movement towards equilibrium at a lower energy level. They are not an example of matter forming itself into more organized or complex systems, but are the result of the intrinsic nature of the constituent elements forming repeating structures with minimal complexity and no function. Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine puts it this way: “The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.” Brown has put up a smokescreen to obfuscate the truth. He has employed sheer bravado to cover over the absolute bankrupt and totally unscientific whimsy called evolution (it cannot even be called a theory because it is entirely unprovable). Why the determined doggedness to maintain and promote blatant error? Because Brown, along with all mankind, would rather not answer to his Creator. He wants to continue as a free agent, doing what is right in his own eyes. It is the sheer arrogance of the spirit of rebellion that says to God, “Who are You to tell me what to do? I know better!” Enamored of this ungodly position, Brown becomes the consummate fool, espousing and promoting an idea that for pure ridiculousness has never, and shall never be matched. Man, made in the image of God, insists on being the son of amoeba. How great the fall!

-- Paul Cohen

Victor Hafichuk’s reply to Richard Brown, also sent as a letter to the editor:

Contemplating the controversy of evolution, I was on my lawn one day. I had spread compost on it. Everywhere I looked, I saw organic material until I spotted a fruit sticker that had not broken down in the composting. It was something obviously foreign. I realized that I could distinguish something man-made, of specific and deliberate design, versus what was natural. What person in his or her right mind could declare that the deliberate, descriptive fruit sticker could have evolved from nothing, or even on its own from something? Yet, with the God-given intelligence granted, we have discovered that the natural substance I put on the lawn has biological, intelligent, living organisms and countless design features that put the fruit sticker to shame, though we obtained the materials for making the sticker from that which already existed. I had a scientific experience, but not to be appreciated without the gift of reason. Science has observed and verified God’s creation. True science proves creation everywhere in everything, all the time. However, as monkeys cannot manufacture Lego toys in a lab, not having the reason or intelligence, though granted all the time, components, equipment, and even an enormous amount of guidance, so man who denies his Creator cannot discern the obvious. Without God, he has little reason. Without reason, he is an idiot, truly. Richard Brown dismisses teaching creationism in science class, stating that creationism cannot be substantiated by scientific principles. I may not have made my point amply clear to him, that being that anything unsubstantiated by sound scientific principles should not be permitted in science class. Evolution has not one verifiable fact. It defies all science, not to mention reason, yet its proponents call it “science.” As he has challenged creationists to “put up or shut up,” so I have challenged him to dispense with theory and tell us what sure facts there are to defend the “theory” of evolution. He has not done so. He has used big words, made himself sound like one who understands science, and even creationism, but neither he nor any one else has provided any conclusive proof to defend their ludicrous theories. My point is to address his hypocrisy, point out his sophisticated ignorance, and throw his challenge back to him. You say creationists are without substance. Show us yours. I know I can be as stupid and ignorant as any person, and could believe in evolution. I acknowledge that it is by the sheer grace of God that I can hear, see and understand. For that, I am so thankful, especially when I witness examples of such darkness in thinking as that of credulously entertaining evolution theory.

-- Victor Hafichuk

Click HERE to go to “Exposing Evolutionists.”

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMES DELINGPOLE #fundie breitbart.com

Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum

If, like me, you love the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, here is a question I can guarantee you’ve never asked.

Never once — as you’ve circumnavigated the blue whale or gawped at those marvelous Teddy Roosevelt-style dioramas in the mammal halls or admired the T-Rex’s jagged 6-inch gnashers — have you paused in deep thought and mused to yourself: “Gee. I wonder if the guys who pay for all this stuff are Democrats or Republicans?”

The reason you’ve never had this thought is because you’re not stupid. Or at least, not that stupid.

You understand — because it’s so obvious that even one of the stuffed primates in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals could grasp this basic point — that the collections in the American Museum of Natural History have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They have to do with science, which is something completely different.

Science is about studying what is. Politics is about what ought to be or what might be. Science is about objectivity. Politics is about subjectivity.

They really don’t mix and when people try to make them mix it’s a disaster. To believe otherwise, you’d have to deny all the evidence of history, know nothing about the scientific method and be really, really thick.

Thicker than a pickled cuttlefish in a jar of surgical spirit; dumber than a lobotomized mollusk; more basic than an amoeba with severe learning difficulties.

o bearing all this mind, what should we feel towards the bunch of 182 self-proclaimed “scientists” who have written an open letter to the AMNH demanding that it cut its links with trustees and donors whose politics they find objectionable?

My suggestion would be: a mix of pity, embarrassment, and disgust.

Plus, maybe, a judicious soupçon of horror that such imbeciles could have been given tenure at any academic institution where the teaching of impressionable young adults is involved even at all, let alone where it’s financed by hard-working U.S. taxpayers.

So that means you, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University; and you, Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University; and you, Kerry Emmanuel, Cecil & Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and you, many of you others among the 182 signatories of this bizarre, outrageous, and embarrassing letter.

You have these ritzy sounding titles which seem to confer on you an aura of gravitas and scientific distinction. But by putting your names to this spectacularly dumb letter — of which more in a moment — you have relinquished all claim to be taken seriously as voices of scientific authority. You are all, basically, frauds.

Why? Because what you are engaging in here patently isn’t about science. Nor is it, as you profess, about the well-being and credibility of the American Museum of Natural History. No, this is about low-down, dirty political activism. It’s Antifa with a PhD.

Let’s examine in more detail what these fake-science terrorists are demanding in their letter.

Headed “Open Letter from Scientists to the American Museum of Natural History,” it begins with a paragraph wreathed in apparent high-mindedness and dispassionate concern.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) is a treasured and influential institution. Museums must be protected as sites that build understanding, help the public make meaning, and serve the common good. We are concerned that the vital role of science education institutions will be eroded by a loss of public trust if museums are associated with individuals and organizations known for rejecting climate science, opposing environmental regulation and clean energy initiatives, and blocking efforts to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Pretty soon, though, it shows its true colors:

Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation, political kingmakers and the financiers behind Breitbart News, are major funders of climate science denial projects such as the Heartland Institute, where they have donated nearly $6 million since 2008. The Mercer Family Foundation is also a top donor to the C02 Coalition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, institutions that assert that an increase in C02 emissions from fossil fuels will be a great benefit to plant and animal life on Earth.

Yup. Like I said this has nothing to do with science, let alone with concern for the integrity of the AMNH. This is a political hit job co-ordinated by a bunch of malicious, embittered second-raters. They’ve been losing the scientific argument on climate change for years, so instead they’re fighting back in the only way they know how: using dirty, underhand guerrilla tactics.

To give you an example of how desperately feeble their case is, here’s the Twitter thread that supposedly prompted the letter:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774167276220416/photo/1

This is so obviously a put up job it’s embarrassing. Read the label for yourself. In vain will you find anything “shocking” or “saddening.” It’s restrained, sensible, factually accurate: a model, in fact, of what the displays at the American Museum of Natural History should look like.

But Busch — an environmental economist, by the way, not a palaeoclimatologist or a geologist: so it’s not like he’s bringing any special expertise to the party — pretends to have been triggered by that stuff about warm cycles and ice ages.

Talk about nitpicking. Talk about chutzpah! Talk about cry-bullying! What is this guy’s problem?

First, we are indeed living in an “interglacial period” — it’s called the Holocene — which is what you call the warm bits between ice ages.

Second, these interglacials do indeed move in roughly 10,000 year cycles.

Third, given that we’re around 11,700 years into this particular interglacial, it is indeed quite possible that — as the label very sensibly concedes — we could be due for another ice age.

Yet even though all the stuff on the label is unexceptionable and factually accurate, Busch claims to be so appalled that he has been forced to throw his toys out of the pram on social media and demand a retraction.

On what basis?

Here — in his follow up tweet — is his attempt at a justification:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774372197330945/photo/1

Oh great. A single paper, published in Nature — an organ notorious for disseminating parti-pris studies pal-reviewed by climate alarmists on the scaremongering global warming gravy train. A paper, furthermore, which is dependent on the kind of computer models — “our simulations” — which have been repeatedly and comprehensively falsified by real world observations.

So, to recap: a climate activist on Twitter cooks up a #fakenews story in which he claims, on no evidence, that the American Museum of Natural History’s scientific integrity is being corrupted by right-wing donors; though the story is factually inaccurate in almost every conceivable way, this #fakenews incident is then used as the pretext for an open letter to the museum by 182 other climate activists demanding that it take action to deal with this non-problem.

Their letter claims:

Last week thousands of people shared a Twitter comment by environmental economist Jonah Busch, PhD, who pointed out misleading information on climate science in an Exxon-funded exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. To its credit, the AMNH’s response was swift: it committed to updating the outdated information to reflect the best available science. But the initial online public anger showed that trust in the museum is undermined by the museum’s association with climate science opponents.

It concludes by demanding:

We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees.

This is outrageous. Allow me to spell out why.

The signatories of that letter make a big deal of the fact that their primary concern is the museum’s credibility.

But what could be more damaging to a museum’s credibility than if it were to fire some of its most generous, committed trustees, to cut off part of its income stream, and to change the factually accurate labelling on its exhibits purely to accommodate the petulant demands of a shrill bully mob of left-leaning academics who have rejected science in favour of political activism?

As Homewood notes:

This attempt by a gang of self appointed, second rate scientists to exclude people from jobs with public bodies, or indeed any sort of association at all, simply because of their politics, is extremely dangerous.

It is the sort of behaviour one would normally associate with communist and fascist juntas, and needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Yes, indeed.

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.

John Derbyshire #fundie johnderbyshire.com

Asians in America, and most particularly Chinese in America, are in danger of getting themselves a reputation as the whining minority. From a tiny number of instances of "discrimination," many of them of very questionable significance, "Asian-American" activists are building a case for special treatment like that accorded to blacks, homosexuals and so on. They are, they want us to believe, victimized. They are, they claim, "distressed" by words they find "demeaning."

The Wen Ho Lee case has been a godsend to these nuisances. The FBI went after Lee just because he was Chinese, they tell us. Well, of course they did! If vital national secrets go missing, and if it becomes known that the Chinese have got their hands on them, and if one of the people who had access to them is of Chinese origin, then of course he is a prime suspect! Who on earth should the FBI be scrutinizing in such a case? Hungarians? If the lab employee has, in addition, been downloading classified material to unauthorized tapes, which he has then lost, he really shouldn't be too astounded to find himself in leg irons.

Is it really such a secret that China's intelligence agencies target Americans of Chinese origin when trying to recruit spies? Where is the outcry against this "racial profiling" by Chinese intelligence agencies? Nobody from the Chinese government ever tried to recruit me as a spy. However, if I had a Chinese name and worked at Los Alamos for many years — during which years I made trips to mainland China — I should be astonished not to have been the subject of approaches. I happen to think, and have argued before in this space, that Lee is the victim of a bureaucratic cover-your-rear operation; but part of the blame for his misfortunes is his, and a much bigger part is the Chinese government's.

You can't sell any of this to the "Asian-American" activists. They have convinced themselves that they are "oppressed" — that they are at the receiving end of a plot to — to what, exactly? Turn them into chattel slaves? Deprive them of the vote? Force them to work as cooks for railroad-laying teams? I don't know what they think, and they probably couldn't tell you themselves. Probably they just want designated victim status, and the cash benefits that go with it. And they want to whine.

The campaign for designated-victim status plays into one of the great cultural weaknesses of the Chinese, in fact: they are, as a nation, awfully fond of self-pity. Much of Chinese literature is unreadable on this account, from the epic whining of 3rd-century-B.C. poet Qu Yuan (he had lost the favor of his monarch and been exiled) to Lin Daiyu snivelling herself to death in the 18th-century classic novel Red Chamber Dream. The mid-20th-century Chinese writer Bo Yang (author of The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture) used to ask his students at Peking University to keep diaries of their social interactions with classmates. One of the most frequent patterns he found was that classmate A would write: "Classmate B was openly rude to me today. After I have been so nice to him! After all that I have done to help and encourage him! I am so wronged! It is so unfair!" — and that classmate B's diary would say exactly the same thing about classmate A.

You find the same thing with the endless whining of official Chinese sources about their mistreatment at the hands of foreign countries in the past. "You forced us to sign 'unequal treaties'!" they pout indignantly. Apparently the treaty forced on the government of Tibet (pop. 6 million) by the government of China (pop. 700 million) in 1950 does not count as "unequal." And for all the bellyaching about "foreign imperialism," no foreign power ever treated the Chinese as badly as they treated each other. If there is a prize awarded in hell for killing Chinese people, the easy winner for the 20th-century division must be Mao Tse-tung.

A foretaste of the coming great Wen Ho Lee whine-o-rama was provided by novelist Gish Jen, who is of Chinese ancestry, in an Op-Ed in the 9/15/00 New York Times. How to restore faith in the American dream? Ms. Jen whimpers. Well, I mix with Americans of Chinese origin every day — I am, in fact, married to one, and the father of two more — and they are living very well. None of them is poor; none of them is in jail; none of them is the victim of anything at all, so far as I can see. Like Ms. Jen's ancestors, they have attained not only the American dream, but the Chinese dream, the great dream of all Chinese people throughout history: to escape from Chinese government. None of them is "oppressed" in any degree at all. It is true that none of them works at a nuclear-weapons research lab; but the right to do such work is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

In fact, when we are faced by a power like China, which is violently anti-American in its propaganda to its own people, which has deployed a full triad of nuclear missiles, many of them aimed at us — whose government officials have, in fact, openly threatened us with nuclear attack — I think our own government is perfectly within its rights to deny employment in classified facilities to persons who have connections in China. This may cause some hurt feelings among U.S. citizens; but do hurt feelings really outweigh the rather obvious dangers of a contrary policy? Ms. Jen: "Since the Wen Ho Lee case began, the number of Asian and Asian-American scientists applying to work in our nation's weapons labs has declined dramatically." Well, good. I think our nation's security problems have therefore diminished in proportion — for which benefit, putting up with all that whining is a small price to pay.

Hunter Lewis #conspiracy mises.org

CDC, PHARMA, And Mainstream Media On The Same Team

Unfortunately this team seems to be covering up a possible risk to children, especially black children.

For years, some parents of autistic children have claimed a link between their children’s condition and vaccines. One vaccine in particular has been mentioned: the MMR (Mumps, Measles, and Rubella).

The Center for Disease Control of the United States has consistently denied any MMR/autism connection. In congressional testimony and elsewhere, it has cited a 2004 study of its own published in Pediatrics.

Now one of the authors of that study, William W. Thompson, a senior scientist employed by the CDC, has admitted that critical data from the study was suppressed. Thompson released the following statement through his lawyer: “ I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”

It’s Hard to Believe in Vaccines Contaminated by Crony Capitalism

The larger problem here is that the government either develops a new vaccine itself and licenses it to a private company or subsidizes the development by a private company. It then receives payments for testing the product as well as possible licensing fees if the product is approved. The same government promotes the vaccine to the states and often ensures that it is mandated for school children.

This system is obviously fraught with conflicts of interest. The party that develops the vaccine should not do the approving. The approving agency should not receive payments depending on approval. This situation would not be hard to fix if government would embrace a few obvious and much needed reforms.

It would help us get the reforms if the mainstream media would come out of its foxhole and report on the problems. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and other mainstream outlets have refused to touch the CDC researcher’s startling admission. Why? A possible explanation is that the mainstream media today is completely dependent financially on drug company advertising. And it is drug companies that make vaccines.

The Recent Cover Up

So how serious was the cover-up of data relating to black children described by the CDC’s Dr. Thompson? How much increased risk for autism was associated with the vaccine?

One scientist, Dr. Brian Hooker, sought the complete study data for a decade and finally got it with the help of Congress. He reported that the raw data suggested a 340% increase in autism among African-American males vaccinated at the recommended age. Others have already challenged this number, and it is still unclear exactly what the newly revealed data will show.

“Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker over the phone: “It’s the lowest part of my career, that I went along with that paper.” Thompson revealed that he did not know Dr. Hooker was recording the conversation but did not deny making the statement.

We must also keep in mind that the controversy so far is about the age of vaccination. Children vaccinated before 36 months are being compared to children vaccinated a little later. What is really needed is a study of children given the MMR and other vaccines versus children who have not received the shot at all. For whatever reasons, the government has not done this.

The CDC has instead claimed that the case against vaccines in general is closed. Quite apart from Dr. Thompson’s startling new testimony, there have been reasons to doubt this. For example, a review of the literature in Immunotoxicoloy by the respected researcher Helen Ratajczak has raised many questions. Dr. Thompson agrees that there are still questions that need answering.

“I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.’ “

At least one observer has compared the CDC’s refusal to publish pertinent and potentially alarming data related to the health of black newborns to the Tuskegee Experiment.

In that infamous case, black males were cold-bloodedly denied treatment for syphilis without their knowledge in order to study what would happen to them.

The controversy over the 2004 paper has also given rise to new charges. One of them is that the CDC knows of potential harm to newborns from flu shots administered to pregnant women, but won’t publish the data or review its recommendation of the shot. These allegations are too new to assess and like the MMR controversy should be studied by objective scientists, if they can be found.

Worries about the CDC have also circulated for years about its handling of the HPV vaccine for genital warts. This vaccine, developed by government scientists and licensed to Merck, is intended to prevent cervical cancer. The head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, who gave it to Merck, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Ted Deveer #conspiracy returnofkings.com

Is The US Government Planning A Fake Alien Invasion?

I’m Ted, I read old books, and my interest in Stanley Kubrick has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with my interest in conspiracy theories, not at all, no way. And I like my privacy.

As utterly insane as it sounds, it seems possible that the US Government is preparing to try to convince the world that there is an alien invasion about to happen, in the largest “false flag” since 9/11.

You’re probably bursting out laughing now and asking yourself, “Why would Roosh allow such a crackpot to write an article?” and I’d like to preemptively respond by (a) asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt for the course of these 1,000 words, (b) noting that this is just a hypothesis that we will see proven or disproven over the next months, and (c) making clear: I don’t believe in UFOs or alien lifeforms but I do believe that the media puts on large-scale coordinated shows in conjunction with the government.

Here are five reasons why I think the show—which I’ll call the “Aliens (Bio)attack!” Show—is likely to happen over the next months.

1. The US government is suddenly talking about UFOs

First, in December, the NY Times had an expose which argued that (a) the Department of Defense has videos taken by Air Force pilots of what it believes are UFOs (the video is included in the article at that link); (b) the DoD has some of the materials collected from these UFOs secretly that they are studying; (c) the DoD has a secret department dedicated to tracking UFOs; and (d) many high-level people within the DoD, who have access to classified intelligence that we don’t have access to, believe in UFOs.

This leads me to one of only two conclusions: either aliens exist or the US Government wants us to think that aliens exist. I’m going to make an assumption—that may or may not be true but it’s just a belief I have—that either aliens don’t exist or if they do they’re not in contact with the US government.

I’m a bit too scientific, not to mention too skeptical of what the government tells us, to believe in extraterrestrial intelligence. If you believe the US government is in contact with aliens, then click away—the rest of this article isn’t for you. This leaves me with only one conclusion: for some reason, the DoD wants us to think aliens exist. Why would they want to do that?

2. The media is excited to spread UFO theories

Second, this article is part of a deluge from the mass media of alien articles over the last months. And we know that the US federal government has deep ties to the press. Just days before the NY Times expose, Newsweek published “Alien Life: Europa Plate Tectonics could be Feeding Life on Icy Jupiter Moon” (Dec 5th 2017) and “Do Aliens Exist?” (Dec 8th 2017), presciently predicting the trend of the month. Google Trends shows how it’s suddenly being spoken about online non-stop out of the blue.

Incredibly, the CIA’s official Twitter account is now tweeting with instructions on how to take photos of UFOs. In October, NASA claimed that a cylindrical asteroid-like object that they can’t identify is flying 100,000 mph in our solar system, but it is from another solar system, the first time ever an object is in our solar system that originated in a different one. It has apparently been named Oumuamua, which doubly-presciently means “messenger” in Hawaiian.

All the articles before the expose and the official CIA tweets about it make it harder to argue that it’s just a cool topic for the media to talk about since the expose; it must be deeper than that.

3. Aliens make for a great external threat that can get citizens to rally behind the government

Third, it makes sense for the government to do this, from their eyes. It’s a way to unite the entire country (or world) against a common enemy, while also an excuse for a power grab. And an easy way to steal more money—oh, we need vaccines against alien viruses, my friend’s company happens to make them and it will cost $10 billion—but we need it!

Plus, if the deep state is in a war against the President, as seems to be the case, then the deep state probably needs to activate some pretty extreme contingency backup plans it had been planning for a long time. Break glass in case of emergency.

4. Alien-obsessed Blink 182 singer is deeply connected to the CIA/NSA apparatus

Fourth, there’s a weird connection with Tom DeLonge, the singer of Blink 182. He just created a UFO-seeking company whose board and advisors are all the first rate CIA/NSA operatives. And he goes on Joe Rogan’s podcast and has a bizarre interview in which he seems to know nothing about UFOs or his new company.

The best synthesis of DeLonge’s weird behavior—creating this UFO company, somehow getting all these top CIA/NSA operatives as his advisors, yet knowing nothing about any of it—is that he’s a front man, trying to use his huge following to bring more widespread acceptance to his “belief” in aliens.

5. The “aliens attack” plan was long ago revealed through code name Project Blue Beam

Fifth, there have been conspiracy theories in which people have been whispering about this for decades. Just Google “Project Blue Beam” or “Serge Monast” and many articles, from decades ago, will discuss these multi-decade plans. A good starting point is a speech Monast gave summarizing Project Blue Beam 20 years ago, shortly before his mysterious death.

Another good starting point is RationalWiki’s page about it, which—although it argues this is a fake conspiracy theory and doesn’t exist—is an excellent summary of the idea. Plus reading and considering both sides of any debate with an open mind is essential to intellectual honesty.

How will it play out? I have no idea. But I’m willing to put forth a testable hypothesis: over 2018, we’re going to see more and more media about aliens, including more top scientists (“Stephen Hawking”—name in quotes on purpose) and Hollywood celebrities believing in UFOs and that they’re coming. This is testable using Google Trends to track what’s being discussed online. All this chatter led by the Mainstream Media will build up to some sort of attack, likely a bioattack, that may or may not happen in 2018.

Lets see how this plays out, but regardless of whether it happens or not— we live in interesting times.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

Evolutionists continue to promote the false claim that the Earth is old because their fish to mankind belief system falls apart without it. Yet there's much evidence the Earth cannot possibly be anywhere near that old.

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

#2 Bent Rock Layers

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

#8 Short-Lived Comets

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

1) Net gain of 19 billion tons of sediment per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would only need a few million years, not billions of years.

2) Rock doesn't bend, it cracks and breaks. Yet rock layers of the same thickness, thousands of feet thick, that evolutionists claim each layer took millions of years to be deposited are BENT, not cracked or broken.

3) It's scientific fact that red blood cells cannot survive more than a few thousand years. Yet they find them in bones mistakenly claimed to be tens of millions of years old, proving those bones are merely thousands of years old.

4) The sun is getting hotter, meaning it was much cooler in the past, too cool at the ages evolutionists claim for life to have been possible on earth.

5) The strength of the magnetic field has been decaying overall - the earliest records are only 1820's or so. As some put it "Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today." This alone puts the age of the earth at best to be 20,000 years.

6) Helium defuses so rapidly there would be no helium after, at most, 100,000 years, more so in hot areas where it defuses even faster. The deepest and therefore the hottest zircons (387 degrees F) contained far more helium than expected. All measurements are in agreement that all the helium should have leaked out long before now in the claimed age of the universe.

7) The Earth was not supposedly formed when the imagined big bang happened. After a few hundred thousands of years, with a half life of 5,730 years, there should be none left, yet it’s found in abundance in “ancient” fossils.

8) Comets burn up merely being anywhere near a sun, not just entering in an atmosphere. Scientists know comets cannot last millions of years, so they invent “oort clouds” as one “rescue device” where these imagined clouds make new comets.

9) Again an imagined “the land became sea and vice versa” as a rescue-device, realizing the salt accumulation in the oceans would mean we could now walk across the oceans because the salt would be so thick.

10) DNA breaks down quickly even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree it should not last more than a million years. Yet we find it in bacteria dated at 250 MILLION years. (A false dating of at LEAST 250 times the true date).

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?

Skeptics often claim, “The Bible is not a science textbook.” This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.

With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, “Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?” The answer is yes.

The Hard Facts

A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:

“And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19–20). The Bible is clear that representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals and birds were present on the Ark. A technical term used by some creation scientists for these kinds is baramin—derived from the Hebrew words for created kind. Within these baramins is all the information necessary to produce all current species. For example, it is unlikely that the Ark contained two lions and two tigers. It is more likely that it contained two feline animals, from which lions, tigers, and other cat-like creatures have developed.
Another lesson from Genesis 6:20 is that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. Therefore, this preservation of the world’s fauna was divinely controlled. It was God’s intention that the fauna be preserved. The animals’ recolonization of the land masses was therefore determined by God, and not left to chance.
“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
The dog kind diversifying

As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.

Modern Recolonizations

One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.

Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.

Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americas—over a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood period—an assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.

The rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood.

As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3

Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oard’s studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.

Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossils—fossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.

One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.

Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.

We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.

It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.

The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.

Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
Recolonization Theory

The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).

More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5

Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earth’s previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor6, and another by Holt7.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Conclusions

We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.

Starting from our presupposition that the Bible’s account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.

Itasca Small #conspiracy windturbinesyndrome.com

image

Once again, Dr. Pierpont has done an exceptional job in warning the wisely concerned residents of Cesme, Turkey, with valuable facts that should alarm everyone in their community, and everyone anywhere in the world who has the opportunity to read her letter. The links within the body of the letter are well-worth following for those who want to learn the truth about Industrial Wind Energy.

The video of infrasonic vortices created by IWTs in a blizzard is a one-minute “picture worth a thousand words!”

The excerpt from Professor Salt and Professor Lichtenhan’s paper includes the following:

“No one has ever evaluated whether tympanostomy tubes alleviate the symptoms of those living near wind turbines. From the patient’s perspective, this may be preferable to moving out of their homes or using medical treatments for vertigo, nausea, and/or sleep disturbance. The results of such treatment, whether positive, negative, would likely have considerable scientific influence on the wind turbine noise debate—.”

I’m sure they mean well, but, are they suggesting that a procedure intended to be temporary, albeit over six months or so, might be an acceptable alternative?

WE ARE THE VICTIMS HERE!

Why should we be the ones to even consider surgery when we’re not the criminals causing the problem?

The wind industry has known that their monstrous machinery causes adverse health effects since at least the 1980s. Now, these professors seriously consider the possibility that we could be forced to resort to repeated temporary, otherwise unnecessary, surgeries on the unlikely chance that we could stay in our homes to continue being subjected to this MAN-CAUSED DESTRUCTION!!!

We’re already lab rats and guinea pigs to mad pseudo-scientists, businessmen, government officials/agents, etc., who have NO concern, sympathy, empathy, nor compassion for THEIR VICTIMS!

Why on God’s Green Earth should we have to even think that we might have to resort to “such treatment?”

The industry knows full-well what they are doing to us. I believe they take sadistic pleasure in the power-trip it gives them, knowing they are torturing untold numbers of humans and animals with 21st Century versions of the “rack” — and getting paid handsomely to do it!

Ahh, but, whether the surgery proved positive or negative, the scientific influence upon the debate would be considerable! And the rats and guinea pigs will either feel better and live longer, or feel no different and die sooner. Yes, but, the debate would be considerably “influenced!” Researchers would have new fodder with which to experiment for the next few decades while we suffer and die. . . .

[Hmm, I guess such surgery could create a lucrative market for ear-surgeons and their entourages — if it worked — considering all the people who will eventually be needing relief as long as the IWTs keep-on turning across-the-globe. . . . Even the veterinarians could jump on the bandwagon and insert tubes in their patients’ eardrums!]

No human being should ever be asked to allow “Band-Aid” surgical procedures in his ears, just because he can’t or won’t move away from the MAN-MADE CAUSE OF HIS AFFLICTION.

WE’RE NOT THE ONES WHO NEED TO MOVE!!!

WE ARE ALREADY VICTIMS OF AN UNSPEAKABLE CRIME!!!

WE SHOULDN’T BE FORCED TO MOVE OR SUFFER AND DIE!!!

AND WE DON’T NEED DR. FRANKENSTEIN EXPERIMENTING IN OUR EARS!!!

Dr. Kelley, et.al., found: “Further, there is evidence that the strong resonances found in the acoustic pressure field within rooms [in people’s homes] . . . indicates a coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances at 5, 12, and 17-25 Hz, resulting in a sensation of whole-body vibration (p. 120).” And, Dr. Pierpont’s study independently showed: “I discovered the same thing in my research. What Kelley refers to as a ‘sensation of whole-body vibration,’ I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD): . . .”

I would really like to know if the entire cascade of adverse effects to my body that nearly killed my adrenal glands, and by extension, my life, were all caused by the vestibular effect. (Along with being in all of Dr. Pierpont’s risk factor classes, I am one of those who could perceive infrasonic waves when they passed through my body unimpeded even before the IWTs invaded.)

It would be extremely helpful to know if anyone is known to have non-functioning vestibular organs. If so, is he physically affected by infrasound? Because, I believe the infrasound that can so drastically agitate the inner ear must also directly affect the other cells and organs in the body through the “. . . coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances . . .”

If the infrasound is coupled to human body resonances outside the Inner Ear, the overall effect is a combination of vestibular effects and the direct vibratory effects on other organs and cells at the same time. If the vestibular organs were non-functioning, it seems that symptomatology would occur but be somewhat different — as was mine with already weak adrenals. If this is true, then, tympanostomy tubes might reduce the adverse effects, but not “Band-Aid” the WTS in a meaningful way. Stressing the other organs and cells would still cause bad effects and overdrive/destroy the adrenals. (If I’ve forgotten something from Dr. Pierpont’s book, I apologize — my memory has not fully recovered from the effects of the infrasound.)

Nikola Tesla studied infrasound extensively and concluded that it is destructive to living cells. This was a monumental discovery, and now, decades later, it should be considered along with the ESSENTIAL discovery by Dr. Pierpont that the inner ear, and its influence, is significantly impacted by wind turbine infrasound. The proof is blatantly evident that Wind Turbine Syndrome is real. The only reasons the turbines still turn and we continue to suffer, are the evil ulterior motives of the perpetrators, and the indoctrination of the masses.

Further, Dr. Pierpont says: “Wind industry advocates likewise argued that only downwind turbines created noise, that is, low-frequency noise. Dr. Kelley and his research team effectively debunked that falsehood, . . .”

In 1987, Dr. Kelley, et.al., reported that: “low-frequency acoustical loads radiated from both individual turbines and groups of upwind and downwind turbines. . . .” I can attest to this fact in my own community’s experience. Our symptomatology increases and decreases as our predominantly SW winds — upwind to the turbines most of the time — shift through the compass directions, with the 2.2MW turbines northwesterly to southeasterly across the center of the circle. The worst times are when the wind is out of the NW. It is at least approximately 10.5 – 13 miles ENE to the nearest IWT.

Also, “Moller and his colleague, Christian Sejer Pedersen, demonstrated that ‘the larger the turbine, the ongreater the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) produced.’ ” And, that: “The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (2 MW), and the difference is statistically significant.”

If the difference between “low-frequency noise” of 2.3 – 3.6MW and 2.2MW turbines is statistically significant, and the 2.2MW turbines at least ~10.5-13 miles distant, forced me and others from our homes — and are adversely affecting others — then, just imagine how far and how seriously the larger ones will destroy lives!

Yes, Dr. Pierpont, the setbacks must be more than 2km; 5km is a start and may well be enough for now, in the particular conditions in Cesme. But, I will rejoice when more researchers believe there are those of us in different localities who are being victimized by IWTs at much greater distances. . . .

If the evidence in Dr. Pierpont’s letter does not convince the reader that there is something rotten in the wind industry, and in all the governmental, pseudo-scientific, and media support for it, NOTHING WILL.

Many people worldwide are like blind sheep, believing the lies out of ignorance and trust. However, if truth is presented and they still reject it, their willful blindness becomes guilt, as they aid and abet the crime.

The biggest truths about Industrial Wind Energy are:

THERE IS NO SAFE DISTANCE FOR WIND TURBINES ON PLANET EARTH!!!

WIND ENERGY WILL NEVER SAVE THE PLANET!!!

Itasca Small
Wind Energy Refugee

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

Contrary to the common talking point that eugenics is "thoroughly debunked pseudoscience", eugenics is actually one of the most important ideas in all of human history. There's nothing pseudoscientific about the idea of improving the human gene pool. Virtually all scientists, academics, intellectuals, and progressives in the late 19th and early 20th century supported eugenics for a reason: it's the logical conclusion of Darwinian evolution.

We all recognize the importance of keeping the gene pools strong and healthy in other species, but we make an exception for our own species because we think that we're somehow immune from the accumulative effects of dysgenics. Reality check: we're not.
After the Nazis tried to implement their utopian Aryan society through utilizing extremely brutal forms of eugenics, the Western world decided to not only turn their backs on eugenics, but we went in the exact opposite direction by actually celebrating dysgenics.
The left encourages mass 3rd world immigration and miscegenation and embraces various forms of Marxism and egalitarianism, and the right demonizes birth control and abortion and embraces Christian universalism. Adopting 3rd world kids and dating outside of your race has almost become a fashion statement on both the left and the right. And the right has become even more dysgenic by viewing handicapped babies as a blessing from God. At least the left still has enough common sense to abort their handicapped fetuses. That's why down syndrome is almost completely non-existent in Iceland now.

Now, I'm not saying that we should become like the ancient Greeks and practice infanticide by tossing our handicapped babies off of a cliff, or like the early 20th century American progressives by forcibly sterilizing the feeble minded, or like the Nazis by gassing the mentally ill and other undesirables. But we need to start rethinking our opposition to eugenics now that we have enough scientific understanding and technical know-how to implement the utopian promises of eugenics without violating anyone's basic human rights.

We can all agree that countries like Switzerland and Japan greatly benefit from having an average IQ score that's about 30 points higher than the average IQ score in Nigeria and Kenya, right? Well, imagine if we could create a society that had an average IQ score of 130, 150, 180, or even 200. And imagine if we could locate the genes and alleles that make people extremely conscientious. And imagine if we could locate the genes and alleles that allow people to live long, healthy lives and break world records in sports. And imagine if we could humanely remove the genes and alleles that make people prone to criminality. We'd be able to create the most advanced civilization that ever existed within just 3 or 4 generations. And every generation would be a significant improvement over the last generation.

And we could accomplish this utopian vision without forcibly sterilizing or killing anyone. All we'd have to do is subsidize contraception and early-term abortion and make genome sequencing, embryo selection, and precision gene editing mandatory by law. Crime would disappear; productivity, GDP, and technological advancement would sky rocket; political corruption and bad governance in general would be a thing of the past; health care costs would plummet; everyone would look like supermodels; et cetera.
And leftists should support this utopian sci-fi vision as well because we'd finally be able to solve inequality and transcend the primitive tribalism that has defined our species for millennium. We'd also finally be able to fix the underlying genetic shortcomings which have held back the lower classes and brown people over the last several decades. And we'd actually be greatly diminishing human suffering by curing genetic diseases.

Eugenics is also the most logical and effective solution to climate change and a long list of other serious environmental problems. I'm a former far-left environmental extremist, so I'm very aware of the fact that human overpopulation is almost always the root cause of most environmental challenges. I'm also very aware of the fact that exponential human population growth is a looming crisis that barely anyone has the balls to talk about because they don't want to be viewed as creepy misanthropes and Bond villains. But the fact remains that our planet's dwindling natural resources simply can't sustain a population of 10+ billion people, especially if standards of living and consumption levels in the 3rd world continue to rise. So, if we have to dramatically reduce the human population, then selecting for the best and brightest simply makes sense.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Hinduism is one of the Devil's religions! I say that kindly, but truthfully, because I care about you and don't want anyone to go to Hell when they die. The Holy Scriptures given through Israel have been proven accurate by historians, archaeologists, scientists, astronomers, and experts from nearly every field. Only a fool would ignore such overwhelming conclusive evidence of a divine Creator, God and Savior!

A demon's favorite activity is to make people feel comfortable in their religion, without ever being born-again by faith in Christ Jesus. And may I say, that includes every religion. No religion can take a person to Heaven. We are not saved by following a religion; but rather, by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ! According to John 3:3 (our text verse above) in the Holy Bible, God's inspired Words, a man must be born-again if he is to enter into the Kingdom of God. Clearly, as you will see, the false religion of Hinduism does NOT recognize the concept of being born-again in Christ Jesus. In fact, Hindus reject Jesus as being the Christ, the Savior of the world. Thus, Hinduism is diametrically opposed and incompatible with Bible Christianity. I say this, not to be unkind, but truthful.

[...]

Biblically, Hindus are idolaters, because they worship a host of gods other than the true and living God of Israel (not the present-day Illuminati-controlled state of Israel, but true Old Testament Israel and Jehovah).  As you will discover in the following information from the New World Encyclopedia, Hindus worship umpteen different gods, none of them of which died on the cross for their sins as did Jesus Christ . . .

[...]

In sharp contrast to what Hinduism falsely teaches, the Holy Bible tells us that there is only One God, and He is the Savior . . .

The Holy Bible teaches in Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”

And again we read in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 44:8, “Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

Isaiah 45:5, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.”

Isaiah 45:21-22, “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”

Hinduism is Satanic, because Satan uses such false religions to blind the minds of men (2nd Corinthians 4:4), to hinder them from seeing the simplicity that is in Christ (2nd Corinthians 11:3-4), so that they might be saved (Romans 1:16).

My intent is not to be unkind, but the reality is that the entire culture of India has gone down a path of apostasy and false religion. Instead of worshipping the God of Israel Who spoke the universe into existence by His omnipotent power, wisdom and words, they succumb to worshipping four-footed beasts. Here is one of my favorite Bible verses from Leviticus 11:3, “Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.” I like my steaks medium-rare! Amen! If Hindus want to stick a straw up Bessie the cow's vagina for a refreshing summer's drink, knock yourself out; but I'm having ribeye steak and a Coca-Cola for dinner! Needless to say, I won't be converting to Hinduism. Kindly, if you're involved in that satanic mess in Hinduism, please repent and believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ before it's too late. Life is short, eternity is forever!

Sue Bohlin #fundie #homophobia probe.org

Sue Bohlin looks a common myths concerning homosexual behavior that are prevalent in our society. These myths prevent us from looking at homosexuality with a biblical worldview and from dealing with this sin in a loving and consistent manner.

In this essay we’ll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas’ excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement.{1} While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn’t just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.

10% of the Population Is Homosexual.

In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average “Joe College” student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual “civil rights” movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}

Kinsey’s figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it’s valid. It’s not.

People Are Born Gay.

Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data’s not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene “linkage” studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn’t have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay’s famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn’t sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn’t know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn’t make it a normal condition.

Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we’re born with something doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s not true that “God makes some people gay.” All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.

What’s Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?

There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention, like being “best friends” with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God’s plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.

Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really “best friend” status, and that does not require legal protection.

Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine “family” any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.

The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won’t make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very “other” beings–the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn’t work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.

Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.

Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn’t specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?

This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John’s gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don’t record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.

We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God’s created intent for human sexuality: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). God’s plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.

The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay theologians argue that the term “abomination” is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.

Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh’s people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today doesn’t mean none of it does.

The argument that the word “abomination” is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn’t hold water.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}

Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.

Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1). The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don’t believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the “Judge not” verse.

When Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another’s sin. There’s no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn’t necessarily judging.

Imagine I’m speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, “You broke the speed limit back there, ma’am.” Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: “Hey, you’re judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'” The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He’s not judging my character, he’s comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It’s not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That’s judging.

The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

Romans 1:26-27 says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it’s not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.

But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between “true” homosexuals and “false” ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn’t the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men “inflamed with lust” for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.

Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.

I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of “internalized homophobia” and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.

San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report’s numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that’s over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, “I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”{16}

The report’s conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}

Gibson didn’t use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson’s report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: “The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.”{18}

That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it’s not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it’s wrong and harmful behavior.

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

I've been red-pilled about IQ since I was 14 and I just turned 30. So I've been following this particular topic for about 16 years now. I've also been an IQ evangelist for about 9 years now. I was the anonymous asshole in the comment section talking about racial differences in IQ scores.
I've been banned from hundreds of websites, forums, and subreddits for writing about this ugly aspect of science. I felt like a crazy person that was shouting complete nonsense into the wind because almost everyone would automatically dismiss my views. I also felt like I was getting absolutely nowhere and was completely wasting my time and energy on trying to normalize a scientific finding that the masses would never accept.
I was also keenly aware of the tiny number of brave scientists and academics from previous generations who had spent their entire lives trying to normalize the idea that some races were inherently more intelligent than others and had paid the price for committing that heresy by being socially ostracized. It was even more discouraging when you realized that these men were giants in their fields (Eysenck is the most cited psychologist in history), and yet almost nobody would listen to them. They had essentially wasted and ruined their lives because they dared to acknowledge what the data was telling us about racial differences in intelligence. So, if they couldn't get anywhere, then what chance do I have?
Yet, like a true religious zealot, I kept spreading the race realism Gospel wherever I could. That's the power of knowing that you're right and knowing that you've uncovered the key to understanding human inequality. You just can't help trying to spread ideas that you know in your bones are correct and extremely important.
After years of depressing online activism, I finally started to notice an uptick in people talking about this issue over the last fews years. I started to see a very small but growing number of people acknowledging racial IQ differences in the comment sections of right-wing blogs. And, like you said, in the last couple of years I've noticed a huge increase in people talking about this issue. It's rare now to read a news article or social media post about race where someone doesn't bring up racial IQ differences in the comment section.
After we red-pilled Sam Harris on this issue, I knew that we were on the verge of entering the mainstream and that our eventual victory was inevitable. After all, he's a modern liberal icon and a Jew. If anyone should be biased on this issue, then it should be him. That we won him over is proof that the data really is on our side and that the common argument that racial IQ differences is "thoroughly debunked pseudoscience" was a dishonest talking point that was concocted in order to combat the reemergence of scientific racism.
We IQ evangelists are on the ascendance, and our momentum is on the verge of receiving a massive boost now that the cost of human genome sequencing has plummeted. We've already discovered some of the genes and alleles that are linked to intelligence. And we've already discovered that these genes and alleles aren't evenly distributed across racial groups and largely mirror the racial IQ differences that we've known for decades.
The case for racial differences in intelligence being quite real and largely genetically caused is only going to get stronger and stronger as we discover more and more of these genes and alleles. 10 years from now, anyone that denies racial differences in intelligence will be viewed in much the same way that young Earth creationists are viewed now: willfully ignorant and delusional ideologues that are rejecting science because it debunks their mostly deeply held beliefs.
Who knows how the left and the world in general will react to this paradigm shift. Will the masses become race realists and more open to the rest of our ideas? Will the ranks of the pro-White movement increase dramatically now that they know that science is on their side? Or will the scientific and academic community and the media continue to ruthlessly crack down on race realists and continue to pump out egalitarian propaganda to a receptive public? Or will the left evolve by arguing that precision gene editing and embryo selection has made these racial IQ differences irrelevant? Only time will tell.
I'm not as optimistic as you are, but that's probably because I'm pessimistic by nature.

oystla #conspiracy lenr-forum.com

"Scientists are not easy to convince, not not generally subject to mind control. That is, some may so be, but there are lots of them and it needs only a few to find a new extraordinarily useful discovery like LENR for this to become accepted."

Haha, you are way too naive. You think scientists are not like the rest of humanity - prefers to follow the pack, don't like changes etc. Etc.

"The whole point about LENR is that whatever conspiracy theory you like, it is strongly in the interests of individual scientists who have actually discovered it to publicise this."

Well.......If you want to publicise a new discovery, it has to be Peer reviewed and accepted by "real journals". Since cold fusion one Month after the press conference in 1989 was concluded pure "pathological science", there was no Journals that would publicise and no peers to review papers. And That's been the story ever since.

Or to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?

"It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked."

Yes it is credible. Yes, LENR is openly described, but not in what is considered "real journals". So physcists lacks the interest and willingness and funding to investigate, since consensus is "nothing there".

The swedish physcist Stephan Pomp said it something like this : I see no Cold Fusion papers being publicised in credible real Journals, therefore I will not investigate the phenomenon.

So there we have Catch 22: the physics community will not investigate since papers are not published in " real journals", and CF researchers can not get their papers published, since all know it is pathological science and thereforee there are no one to peer review

whale.to #conspiracy whale.to

[Cell phone (also Tetra & Power) towers are safe is a well proven lie (1, 2) (so they know) to go with numerous other long standing lies where the truth has been suppressed, such as the 200 year old vaccine one (see), while the towers have been placed as if they were as safe as small trees, often deliberately right next to schools (see) when safer placements are easily available (see Gorebridge for example, where the TV and Police masts are way out of town). Their main function appears to be the spread of DOR, part of the Covert genocide agenda. Shown a larger tower spec, an electrical engineer put it's output at 576 KWH. Transmitters at microwave frequencies normal only require a max of 1.0 watt, not kilo watts.1 The normal tower has 5 thumb thick cables running up the mast from the power supply. One tower in central Birmingham next to a Mosque had 12 such cables, when something no bigger than a pencil would do the job. There is one mast/unit per 2,000 people, and you can drive across open untowered country to find one in the town edge among houses as if their range was miles, and not many thousands a satellite can deliver from, and according to someone who visited Russia he couldn't see any towers at all, so satellites must be delivering those signals.
Tetra is another highly suspicious addition (1, 2, 3), along with the deaths of 22 Marconi scientists suggesting a mind control function in addition to disease inducing. Their big brother surveillance function has been revealed (1, 2) which is another red flag. You would be a damn sight more surprised if they weren't up to another poisoning agenda at the very least, to go with all of their other poisonings, and assorted nefarious plots. Eg HAARP, Aspartame, Fluoride, Chemtrails, and a spectacular breaking of cover with Depleted Uranium. Not forgetting 911, drugs, wars....
Luckily any diabolical plot has been zapped by Orgonite which kills all DOR, what looks to be the only, or main danger to humans WinkWink. ]

RetroSpriteResources #fundie retrospriteresources.deviantart.com

Guys, you'll never believe it! I figured out how to get swallowed by a giant, beautiful anime girl without spending years in college learning how to make portals!

https://sta.sh/01opbmnrkxe8

See this girl? Her name is Yukari and she can make her own portals using magic. Now, you might be thinking, "How can she help me? In order to ask her for help, I would have to use my own portal to get to her in the first place and that would defeat the whole purpose, right?" WRONG!

She regularly uses her powers to bring humans to her own realm. For what reason? To eat them! And she's giant AND anime! It's like this girl was created for me! And since she obviously has great spiritual purpose, I'm going to start worshiping her as my new Goddess!

So since all works of fiction already exist, just in other dimensions, this means she's out there right now in hyper nova using her powers to bring humans from our dimension to eat AND I COULD BE NEXT! :D

Honestly, when you think about her, it becomes obvious why people mysteriously disappear at random here on Earth. Did you think people just simply vanished for no reason? LOL! Yukari got them, liberals!

And before you say that works of fiction don't exist in other dimensions, don't forget this guy:
https://sta.sh/02c89jk0izq5

In case you don't know, he's an artificial brain created by scientists and he's smarter than any and all humans. I know because I watch his Youtube channel and it's very intelligent and mind-blowing. Even more so than the genius atheism-destroyer OGFurious.

https://sta.sh/0am6we01kob

Anyways, the brain said on his Youtube channel that there are an infinite number of universes, each with different laws of physics. Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsWfGz—

This means that all fictional creatures including Yukari exist somewhere out in hyper nova.

https://sta.sh/0mijmsp635s

And I can end up as her snack, but I need help.

Surely, Yukari has quite a large amount of humans to choose from and the chances of being eaten by her are fairly low, so I want to know how I get her attention so I can go in her stomach next.

No negative comments will be tolerated.

Peace! Make America great again!

Caamib, Elliot Rodger, various incels #sexist pastebin.com

(Caamib's translation of an article about an interview between him and German news magazine Der Spiegel in 2014)

Male, single, life-threatening

The man who killed six people in Santa Barbara in May, was a member of an obscure community: So-called Incels live involuntarily as single, and some develop a hatred of women, which can be fatal. Who are these men?

Written by Takis Strangler

Marijan says there are people in his community who hate the summer. In summer they have no choice but to see more of the women, their skin, their bare knees, tight clothes and their breasts. Marijan says he does not look at women, and he was trying to avoid places where he has to see naked female skin. He says: "If you're hungry but cannot eat, you're not going into a street fully loaded with cakes."

Marijan, 26, from Zagreb wishes a girlfried, and because he’s unable to find one, he experiences his life as a torment. He is lonely, but in his loneliness he is not alone. His community meets on the Internet.

He belongs to a group of people who answer to the moniker "Incel", which is the abbreviation for the English term "involuntary celibacy”. Marijan frequents forums in which an own culture of solitude has developed.

People who gather there are almost always men, a few hundred in total. How many there are exactly, can be difficult to estimate, there are English, German, Dutch, Australians and especially Americans.

One of them wrote in the past year on an internet forum: "One day the Incels will realize their true strength and number and overthrow the oppressive feminist system. Imagine a world in which the WOMEN FEAR YOU. "

The author of these lines was student Rodger Elliot. On 23 May this year, Rodger (22), from Santa Barbara, California, recorded a video from himself. He put the camera on the dashboard of his BMW and sat behind the wheel.

He said: "This is my last video. Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day on which humanity will experience my retaliation. Which you all will experience. In the past eight years of my life, since I reached puberty, I was forced to endure loneliness, an existence full of rejection and unrequited desire. All just because women never felt attracted to me. In the last years I rotted in solitude. "

Now and then Rodger laughed in the camera, a handsome young man with black hair and white teeth. Through the window of his car palm trees were visible.

A short time later, he killed three fellow students in his apartment. Forensic scientists examine which weapon he used. The wounds of the corpses are not clear. The police secured fingerprints on two machetes, a knife and a hammer.

When the men were dead, Rodger took his Sig Sauer P226, his Glock 34 and two semi-automatic pistols, and went out in the neighboring community of Isla Vista. He knocked at the house of a sorority. Nobody answered him.

A few steps further on he shot two students. He went into a snackbar and shot and killed a customer. Then he climbed into his car, drove through the town and shot at passers-by, injuring 13 people.

He rammed his BMW into a cyclist, slammed into a parked car and killed himself with a shot in the head. Rodger left a few videos and a 137-page manifesto. In it are phrases like: "Women are like a plague. They are like animals, completely controlled by their animalistic instincts, and corrupt feelings and impulses. "

Many men who became lone gunmen have, as Rodger had, a sick relation with women in general. Eric Harris, one of the boys involved in the 1999 at Columbine High School shooting in the United States, killing 13 people and killed himself, wrote in his diary: "Maybe I just need to have sex. Perhaps that would change this shit. "

And his accomplice Dylan Klebold wrote: "I do not know what I do wrong with people (especially women) - it is, as if they hate me and scare me. "

During a shooting rampage in Winnenden in 2009 Tim Kretschmer killed eight female students, three female teachers and a male student in his former school.

In the same year the American George Sodini shot three women and wounded nine more, before taking his own life in a gymstudio. Previously, he had written in his blog:

"Women simply don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the United States (is my estimate) - and I find none "!

These gunman leave questions:

Why people had to die? Exists there a connection between the murders and the loneliness of the perpetrators? What has this incel community from the Internet to do with the murders?

Rodger can answer no longer, and even if he could, he could hardly give any clear answers. But there are people who understand a few of his thoughts. Because they share his anger at women and his loneliness. One of them is Marijan (not his real name). You can reach him on his blog, thatincelblogger.wordpress.com.

After a few emails he agreed to meet, in Zagreb, Croatia, his hometown.

Before a pizzeria near the Cathedral a handsome young man, tall, with jet black hair and a three-day beard is waiting, he wears a white, loose T-shirt and cropped trousers.

While shaking hands he does not look one in the eyes. As he sits at a table, in the back, in a quiet corner of the restaurant, he says: "I'm going to look bad in the article, but what have I got to lose? "

He says he was angry after Rodgers rampage. The whole world again only talked about tougher gun laws. But no one thought about other reasons that drove Rodgers to his rampage. No one had thought about incel.

Marijan talks much and long. He doesn’t allow a lot of questions. It is less a conversation but rather a series of lectures, which he conducts with great precision.

Sentence after sentence, lecture to lecture, he leads the listener deeper into his world, deeper into the darkness in which there seems to be no happiness, only immeasurable hatred.

Excerpts from lecture one, subject: Women.

Women are simply designed robots with the desire to procreate. Young women in past generations always had help from their grandmother. She helped with finding a man. She said: This is a good type, he will take care of you. These grandmothers were replaced with the magazine Cosmopolitan. Today women want to marry up. They want improve their station. I would not say that we Incels hate women. But if you were rejected 50 times, then you develop negative feelings, which is normal.

Excerpts from lecture two, Topic: seduction game.

Women can now provide for themselves, so their preferences have changed from breadwinners to seducers. A minority of men has sex with the majority of women. The successful men are the Bad Boys. If you want to have a woman today, you need to become a Bad Boy and lose your ethics.

Excerpts from lecture three, theme: a better world.

I want a society in which a group of men cooperates in total trust. Each man gets a woman. The women are fairly distributed. People are monogamous and marry as a virgin. If a man wants sexual diversity, he goes to a prostitute. Feminists would be made prostitutes in this society. When a man tries to seduce multiple woman, he is killed instantly.

Marijan and other Incels meet on various forums on the Internet. the forum, that Elliot Rodger used, is now closed. Another is a relatively moderate forum called love-shy.com. The members speak there about topics such as pick-up lines, plastic surgery and other ways to escape their despair.

The users of the forum had opened a discussion about Elliot Rodger. On the first page a moderator writes that he condemns the deed and that Rodger did not reflect the philosophies of loveshy.com. The moderator announces that all posts glorifying the deed will be deleted.

One user writes on one of the later pages: "I think about Elliot Rodger ... why didn’t he just rape a slut at gunpoint? "

Another user wrote: "I was always taught to respect women and not to be sexually aggressive. That was a bucket full of shit. All what they really want is a muscle man who fucks them in the ass instead of fucking a real person with feelings”

A user writes on one of the last pages about Rodger: "He is a martyr, in the real sense of the word, one must give him that. "

On the forum Marijan calls himself "Dante Alighieri”, as the medieval poet. Dante started his poem “the Divine Comedy” with the words: "Halfway through the path of human life I found /myself in a devious dark forest/ Because I strayed from the right path."

On the morning after the first meeting Marijan wears the same clothes as on the day before. He says he did not sleep well, because the conversation had him stirred. In the café he ordered a chocolate cake and tells his life story.

Marijan grew up in a middle class family, he has a brother, and both parents were employeed. In school he had many years of little contact with girls. As he started to get interested in girls, they were alien to him. He was afraid of them. "My brain has not developed normally, " Marijan says. He was "love-shy". The American psychology professor Brian Gilmartin invented this term in 1987. The men who suffer from this condition complain about their complete inability to enter into a romantic relationship.

Some men report panic attacks, when they are alone with women, some break out in sweat, others can hardly move anymore when they think of a date, to which they look forward to. Marijan developed a morbid fear of women mingled with a steadily growing demand for a relationship with a woman.

He says: "My standards are very low, as long as the woman is not overweight or is unhygienic. And I have trouble with bad teeth. "

At 19, he met a girl through an SMS Chat. She was 16 and said to Marijan, that she wanted to sleep with him. She showed him how she likes to be kissed. The girl became Marijans girlfriend. He was happy for a moment.

Then she went on vacation over the summer to an island. Before parting, Marijan was angry because he did not want her to go, and told her that maybe they should become just friends.

The girl went anyway. Marijan sent her many SMSes and self-written poems. When she returned, she told him that she no longer liked him. Marijan could not cry for three days. Then when he finally cried, he didn’t go to the university for months and stuffed himself full with chocolate. He didn’t get over it, says Marijan. After one year he wrote on an Incel forum on the internet that he was planning on shooting himself and the girl. The owners of this forum contacted Interpol. Marijan got a visit of the Croatian police.

He testified that he no longer wanted to kill. The policemen nevertheless arrested him and charged him with the suspicion of murder threats and put him in pre-trial detention. After a month a judge released Marijan because he hadn’t threatened anyone directly. The judge said, so tells Marijan: "Maybe you’ll meet another woman just outside the court."

It was followed by two years without a kiss.

As Marijan turned 24 years old, he wrote on an Internet forum that he was a male virgin and looking for a woman, that would deflower him. A Croatian woman contacted him, visited him in Zagreb, slept with him and then said that he was pathetic , as he tells it.

In the years after he managed to bed three other women. "One of them was crazy and
a total bitch, "says Marijan. When she left him for another, he remained lying in bed for months, he says. He thought about suicide, and spent five days in a psychiatric ward.

Later he earned a degree in Medieval History at the Zagreb University. But he never wanted to work, because, as he says, he didn’t want to pay taxes that will reward sluts.

Today he says he no longer dates because he never want to feel disappointment again. He’s been alone for a year.

Most gunmen send out signals before their deeds, signals which could have been interpreted as warnings in retrospect. Allusions, threats, videos on the Internet.

Some gunman stuck a note on the school toilet wall, on which was written: "Tomorrow you're dead." Some men start wearing black clothes and leather jackets before they act. Elliot Rodger wrote his fantasies on blogs.

Marijan says: "There are a lot of broken people waiting to die. And he says:" I do not know when I will snap. " This English word "Snap" has several meanings. It can mean break, tear or explode. Marijan says: "I think Incel that can cause people to shoot or kill with a bomb. "

He smiles, it seems as if he enjoy the moment. Psychologists and psychiatrists that deal with school shootings, try to explain why men kill women, but women almost never kill men. Testosterone was one reason, the researchers say, and gender roles are also to blame, since men are more likely to resolve conflict with force and women are more likely to retreat. At the end they still lack a satisfactory explanation.

The FBI, the American Federal - police, writes in a report about shootings at schools that offenders are often focused on perceived injustices. One goes through life and picks out everything, that offends them. Every stupid comments of a classmate is remembered, each breakup with a girl finds his place in the collection of misery, until someone thinks the whole society is against you.

Many gunman also like to play videogames, where it’s the goal to shoot people’s head off. And many suffer from a narcissistic disorder.

But correlation does not equate causation, so no handy formula like this one can be derived: loneliness + computer games + narcissism = rampage. There are many lonely, narcissistic gamers who never shoot people.

In the life of a crazed gunman something happens, that the psychiatrists and psychologists cannot explain. Evil is sometimes greater than a simple explanation.

The assassin who tried in 1981 to shoot U.S. President Ronald Reagan, said when interviewed: "You know a few things about me, sweetheart, for example, that I’m obsessed with fantasy, but why don’t you understand, that fantasy in my world becomes reality? "

Another gunman from the USA heard voices that told him: "You have to kill all. You have to kill the whole world. "

According to Wikipedia: "The trigger of a rampage is a combination of an advanced psychosocial uprooting of the offender, the loss of professional integration through unemployment, demotion or transfer, increasingly experienced insults and partnership conflicts. "

After all, what Marijan tells about himself, he has few friends, no job, no partner, and he experiences his life as an insult, which becomes greater each passing dayl. Those looking for long enough, will realize that the template fits him.

The last meeting with Marijan is in the evening and takes place in a restaurant, again at a table away from the other guests. It is a warm evening, but Marijan sits down inside the restaurant, the place where no one else sits. He says that he wished that women have the right to vote taken away.

Then he says that he once tried to kill himself with sleeping pills, but one and a half days later he had woken up. His eyes light up with pleasure when he takes on the theme rampage. Then he unleashes the bad thoughts from his mind in the world. He says: "I will cause dissatisfaction. I want to make people angry. I do not think that I'm going to kill people. " After a moment of silence, he says: "I want to spread a little panic. "

He again starts talking about similar topics as on the first day, always it comes to women, and always it comes to himself, he says: "I've started to see women as the filth that they are. " A little later he says: "I do not like people."

This article attempts to explain about the Incel community and the research leads to different men, who identify as Incel. One dreams of to find a farm where Incels can live together. The farm dwellers could agree to import women from Mexico and divided them amongst themselves. One sat with radiant eyes in a small German town and told of how he overcame his fear of women by simply spending more time with women. He looked happy and said it was probably a good idea if the Incel forums were monitored by psychiatrists to ensure that the users can find professional help.

Another hopes to, finally, in his mid-twenties, to kiss a woman. A few of these men seem lost. Nobody seems dangerous. And in end it became clear that there is no Incel community. There are only a few lonely men.

Many men from the Incel community can simply find no partner and look for help on the internet. For them the forums can perhaps save them. For other men the forums offer the opportunity to cultivate their hatred in a group.

For 20 years, such people would remain in their hole, alone with their bad thoughts. Probably a man is difficult to love when he is full of hatred. While carrying these thoughts, it’s possible to want to kill everyone around you and yourself. The potential gunman becomes Incel. And not the Incel a potential gunman.

Elliot Rodger was in his mid twenties when he died, he had visited several therapists, he had been bullied at school, he had his own blog on the Internet.

Marijan is mid-twenties, he has visited several therapists, he was bullied at school, he wrote his own blog on the Internet. One was a mass murderer. The other meets with a journalist and eats chocolate cake.

Rodger left us with the question:

Why did six people have to die? There is no logical explanation. His 137-page manifesto that he wrote before he became a murderer, ends raving about the prospect of killing people. It shall be the punishment for not getting a woman who loves him. Rodger has named the work "My fucked-up world ". He writes that he will retaliate and punish everyone. The last sentence of the manuscript is as follows:

"Finally, I can show true value to the world. "And in the penultimate sentence Elliot Rodger, 22, a young man from California, who had his whole life before him writes: "And it will be beautiful."

Marijan wrote recently a new entry on his blog. He analyzed why he is lonely: "I finally understand the depths of madness and sexism in our society. All the betrayal, the whole heartless and horrible behavior of women were seen as my fault. That is hatred. "

Chateau Heartiste #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Dating Market Value Test For Men

Here is a system for determining your dating market value if you are a man. Dating market value is a measurement of how you stack up against other men in the competition for attracting female interest. Be honest with yourself taking this survey. It will give you a fairly accurate assessment of the quality and number of women you are capable of attracting for a sexual relationship. Girls, you may take this quiz for your boyfriends to see if you are slumming it or about to be cheated on.

1. How old are you?

under 25 years old: 0 points
26-34 years old: +1 point
35-45 years old: 0 points
45+ years old: -1 point

2. How tall are you?

under 5’9?: -1 point
5’9? to 5’11”: 0 points
6' to 6’4?: +1 point
over 6’4?: 0 points

3. What is your BMI?

(Go here to calculate your BMI. I know BMI doesn’t account for very muscular physiques, but since most men are not Lee Haney, it is adequate for this survey’s purposes.)

under 20.0: -1 point
20.0 to 24.0: +1 point
24.1 to 27.0: 0 points
over 27.0: -1 point

4. How much do you bench press?

60% or less of your body weight: -1 point
61% to 80% of your body weight: 0 points
81% to 170% of your body weight: +1 point
over 170% of your body weight: 0 points

5. What does your hairline look like?

Full head of hair if you are over 35: +1 point
Full head of hair if you are under 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are over 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are under 35: -1 point
Bald (age irrelevant): -1 point
Bald but you are dark-skinned: 0 points

6. How much money do you make?

under $40K and you are out of college: -1 point
$40K to $70K out of college and under 40 years old: 0 points
over $70K out of college and under 40 years old: +1 point
under $40K and you are college age or younger: 0 points
$40K to $55K and over 40 years old: -1 point
$55K to $90K and over 40 years old: 0 points
over $90K and 40 to 55 years old: +1 point
over $200K (age irrelevant): +1 point

7. Do you have a car?

No (under 21yo): 0 points
No (over 21yo): -1 point
Yes (under 21yo): +1 point
Yes (over 21yo): 0 points
No, but you have a motorcycle (age irrelevant): +1 point

8. Are you good-looking?

(Self-assessment is somewhat unreliable, so if you are uncertain of your looks post your pic on hotornot and wait a week for your score. Or get opinions from unbiased and blunt friends. Hashing out the biometric details of what makes a male face attractive would require another lengthy post, so for now these two methods are acceptable substitutes.)

On a 1 – 10 scale:

0 – 4: -1 point
5 – 7: 0 points
8 – 10: +1 point

9. Have you ever played a leading role in a team sport?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point

10. What is your occupation?

(Since I won’t list every single high status job in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Handbook, you’ll have to make a judgment call on your own job. It’s a safe assumption that most people know a high status job when they see it.)

High status (doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, executive, professor, business owner, successful artist or musician or writer, professional athlete, etc.): +1 point
Neutral status (engineer, programmer, accountant, salesman, mid level manager, scientist, military officer, well-paid tradesman, etc.): 0 points
Low status (low paid blue collar, admin, construction, janitor, struggling web designer, help desk, etc.): -1 point

11. How many friends do you have?

0 to 3: -1 point
4 to 20: 0 points
over 20: +1 point

12. How many friends have you met through the internet that you have never seen in person?

0 to 2: 0 points
over 2: -1 point

13. When was the last time you went to a house party?

Within the past month: +1 point
Between one month and one year ago: 0 points
Over one year ago: -1 point

14. Have people besides your family called you funny?

None: -1 point
A few have: 0 points
Nearly everyone who knows me: +1 point

15. What is your IQ?

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 110: 0 points
110 to 130: +1 point
130 to 145: 0 points
over 145: -1 point

16. At a party, which happens first – you approach someone or someone approaches you?

I approach someone first almost every time: +1 point
I occasionally approach first: 0 points
Someone normally approaches me first: -1 point

17. Have you ever been in a serious fight where real punches were thrown and you felt like you wanted to kill your opponent(s)?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point
Yes, with a girl: -1 point

18. Have you ever been arrested?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point
Yes, for child pornography or public exposure: -1 point

****

It’s best to answer the following four questions based on your past experience with similar scenarios. Who we really are is not what we wish we were but what we have always been.

19. You are on a second date with a girl. You go to kiss her. She turns her cheek to you and says “Slow down, I’m not that kind of girl.” You reply:

(A) “Sorry.”
(B) “Yeah, well, no prob.”
(C) “This could be trouble ’cause I’m that kind of guy.” *smirk*

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

20. You’re chatting up a pretty girl you just met in a bar. After a few minutes she asks you to buy her a drink. You reply:

(A) “Sure.”
(B) “I’m not an ATM.”
(C) “No, but you can buy me one.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

21. You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability. You respond with:

(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

22. The pickup has been going well. Later in the night she leans in and begins making out with you passionately. You feel like a king and your jeans suddenly feel much tighter. Do you:

(A) immediately grope her boob in return.
(B) continue making out with her for as long as she wishes.
(C) kiss for a little bit then push her gently away and look distracted for a second.

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

And finally, the critical thinking portion of the quiz. The following questions are based on the progression of a single pickup attempt.

23. You go to a bar. Twenty feet away are a pretty girl, a fat girl, and an average guy talking amongst themselves. The pretty girl briefly eye flirts with you. In reponse, you:

(A) eye flirt back and forth a few times before approaching 20 minutes later.
(B) immediately approach in a direct fashion maintaining strong eye contact with your target.
(C) immediately approach but from an indirect angle, looking around the room distractedly on the way over to your target as if you might see an even prettier girl somewhere else, and finally delivering your opener from over your shoulder.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

24. Who do you address first?

(A) the pretty girl.
(B) the fat girl.
(C) everyone.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

25. After getting the whole group engaged in conversation and having a good time, your target blurts out “Hey nice pink shirt! Are you gay?” You:

(A) say “No, I’m not gay!”
(B) ignore her.
(C) say “OK, who brought their little sister to the bar!”

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

26. In the middle of the conversation you have to pee. You say:

(A) “I have to go to the bathroom. I’ll be right back.”
(B) “Excuse me.”
(C) nothing. Just go.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

27. You’ve managed to get her outside your front door. There is obvious sexual tension. You want to close this deal. You say:

(A) “So, um, ah, see you around.”
(B) “Why don’t you come inside?”
(C) “I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go inside and taste DC’s finest tap water. But you can only stay for a minute, I have to get up early.”

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

****

SCORES

There are 26 points to earn or lose based on the questions asked. The scoring breaks down as follows:

-26: Why are you still alive?
-25 to -20: You’re an omega. Celibacy has its charms.
-19 to -15: You actively repulse girls. Your kind will usher forth the sexbot revolution.
-14 to -10: You’re always getted foisted onto the warpigs.
-9 to 0: Lesser beta. You don’t immediately disgust girls; they just don’t notice you. With much painful effort you can redeem yourself.
1 to 9: Classic beta. You catch some girls’ eyes, usually the ones you don’t want. Try not to make fatty fucking a lifestyle.
10 to 14: A few attractive girls in the bar will be intrigued by your presence. But you need game to close the deal.
15 to 19: Congrats, you have crossed the alpha Rubicon. A lot of cute girls will be pleased when you hit on them. But you can still fuck up by being yourself.
20 to 25: You’re a natural. Many hot girls check you out and forgive your occasional pickup blunders. You always have a look of sexual satisfaction on your face.
26: Super Alpha. Booty sticks to you like bird shit on car roofs.

(Submitter's note: Compare and contrast Dating Market Value Test For Women)

CB_Brooklyn #conspiracy checktheevidence.co.uk

Imagine utilizing free energy technology in daily life. No more petroleum-based fuels; no more outrageous oil and gas prices. Humanity would definitely benefit from this. The technology for water powered cars has been in the news, such as in this NBC-affiliate clip. This FOX-affiliate clip reveals the development of this technology for the military. From the FOX clip we learn that Radio Frequencies are key to this technology. As you read further you’ll discover another building block of free energy: Tesla Coils. So why are these technologies suppressed? Basic Answer: Control.

The Global Elite plan a New World Order with an enslaved “police state” culture. How might this be done? One way is the Patriot Act. Another could be the 800 FEMA detention camps fully constructed, staffed, and awaiting prisoners. What else might they do? They could slow the economy. Control over oil and gas makes accomplishing this easy. All they have to do is notch those prices up little by little, and the average citizen gets poorer and poorer. Not only do these increases affect the gas pump and home boiler, they affect food manufacturing plants, public water supplies, and other necessities as well. Raising oil/gas prices is the Global Elite’s way of destroying our way of life.

But they can’t raise prices without a reason, so they concocted one: Peak Oil. That way, people assume the increased costs and fuel limits are natural with no way around it. But Peak Oil is a hoax. In the 1970s, a huge oil field was discovered in Alaska that could fuel the United States for 200 years, but its existence has been classified. Those is power have planned their New World Order for some time, and didn’t want an Alaskan field getting in the way. Instead, they approached the Saudi’s for an “oil deal”, a way of ripping them off and entrapping the United States. Information regarding this is linked later in this article; much from a video presentation by Lindsey Williams, a former “insider” turned whistleblower.

It is all too common for those in control to suppress and weaponize new technologies.

Suppression can be accomplished simply by spreading choice phrases such as “raygun nutcase”. Even the production of sci-fi TV/movies helps associate these weapons with “science fiction”. As one example, the body cloak technology portrayed in the film “Predator” is very real, and was reported in Time and WIRED magazines. It is pretty well known that these technological advances are light years ahead of what is publicly admitted. This technology is far from sci-fi and has existed for many decades.

The first microwave oven was built in 1947 by Raytheon, a major defense contractor. What advances could they have made in the past sixty years? A look at the documentary “Star Wars in Iraq” reveals weaponry based on these technologies. So what’s “crazy” about it? What would people sixty years ago have said about cell phones? “Wacky”?? How about The Wizard of Oz on an ultra-thin shiny little disc? ”Nutjob”?? What about embedding spy chips on insects? ”Insane”?? Technology has come a long way in the last 100 years.

The first major free energy scientist, Nikola Tesla, knew the direction his research would someday take. In 1915 he said “I have not thought it hazardous to predict, that wars in the future will be waged by electrical means”. The Star Wars in Iraq video proves him right.

Of course, the Global Elite need the public at large to consider free-energy “crazy”. They want this “black op” technology as their secret weapon to use against us and they attack those who speak up. One example is well known pioneer of free energy research, John Hutchison. After he and Dr Judy Wood publicized their paper “Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect”, Hutchison ran into problems with the Canadian authorities. Another is Dr Eugene Mallove who, after writing an open letter to the world requesting free energy research funds, was killed. This “2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had a special tribute to Dr Mallove. A number of mysterious deaths are connected to free energy suppression.

9/11 Truth is an extremely important issue and only those who really care are ever involved. But 9/11 is just one of the issues that absolutely need attention. Other issues are equally as important. One thing the Global Elite do not want revealed is the existence of free-energy technology. This technology has the capability of revolutionizing the world by removing oil/gas as main sources of fuel, but instead has been weaponized and used against us. Directed energy weapons and weather control are among the dangers we now face.

**Might this technology have been used on 9/11? What if the “truth movement” was steered by those affiliated with free energy technologies, including those who discredited it decades past? What if pictorial evidence shows resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

**Might this technology have directed recent weather-related events towards populated areas? Have powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, and volcanic eruptions shown an increase lately? What if hurricanes and tornadoes have natural characteristics of the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

Not many know that a major hurricane - Hurricane Erin - was in the Atlantic Ocean in September of 2001. In fact, Erin was closest to NYC, and at its largest size, on 9/11 itself. But the TV news networks had little reporting on this hurricane. Contrary to Erin, however, 2005’s Hurricane Katrina had virtually 24 hour coverage, even before it hit land. Interestingly, the National Hurricane Center projected Erin to be stronger than it projected Katrina to be four years later. So why didn’t the media cover Erin, say, on September 10, when its speeds clocked Category 3 status? Shouldn’t they have prepared the upper-east coast for this major storm?

This NASA photo taken on 9/11 reveals the proximity between Erin and New York. Weather reports at JFK Airport indicated rain! This animated graphic shows how, the day after 9/11, Erin made a sharp right-hand turn (over 90°) away from NYC and back out to the Atlantic. (Note the previous graphic displays only the location of the eye of the storm. See this photo for Erin’s full humongous size.) An astronaut in the International Space Station commented on the WTC smoke plume, but made no mention of the monstrous hurricane next to it. How come? Those interested in learning the secret between hurricanes and Tesla Coils should see Dr Judy Wood’s new paper “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. She presents evidence suggesting Erin was part of the mechanism used to turn the Twin Towers to dust. The paper is chock full of photos and analysis and is highly recommended.

Those who control the energy control the world.As prices for oil, gas, food and other types of energy go higher and higher, one must ask themselves what they are to do. What holds for the future?Did Bush do 9/11? Or was it Clinton? 9/11 was orchestrated by those affiliated with energy companies. The “truth movement” should not involve the “democrat vs republican” distraction but instead push to remove them all. There is only one group controlling the world - the Global Elite - and they must all be removed from power.

meamsane #fundie christiannews.net

Law is rooted in religion, therefore, there is a moral aspect to law. Since there is no higher law than God's, All Societies throughout history have had laws that govern society as a means of restraining evil and bringing about justice, peace and order, I.E. an objective moral truth. (Rom. 13:1-7).

Medicine and Science also must rely on an objective moral standard, otherwise there would be no ethics to govern what they should do or not do.

Homosexuality has been around for a long time! So what? So has religion. Ask a Baboon how he feels about his homosexuality, and I bet he would not understand a word of it or know what that is. Scientists should be really careful in trying to ascribe human moral imperatives to the animal kingdom. I.E. the animal kingdom has nothing to teach us about morality!!!

Peter Vajda #fundie creation.com

Peter Vajda, Ph.D. is a research scientist with the Division of Geophysics at the Earth Science Institute, at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, Slovakia. He studied geophysics at the Comenius University, Bratislava, specializing in paleomagnetism, and obtained his doctorate at University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, researching the earth’s gravity.

These days, people think scientists do not believe in God or the Bible, but Peter is one of many researchers who shatter those ideas. He is a successful scientist who believes the Bible completely.

Dr Vajda (a Hungarian name pronounced VIE-da) is the internationally acclaimed head of the Department of Gravimetry and Geodynamics at the Earth Science Institute. With more than 60 papers to his name, he has presented at conferences all over the world including in South Africa, Canada, Fiji, USA (including Hawaii), and in several European countries.

His research interest is primarily geophysics, with a focus on the earth’s gravitational field, its observation and interpretation. One important application of his research is studying magma deep inside volcanoes by carefully measuring the strength of the gravity in the surrounding area. It helps scientists understand how dormant volcanoes re-awaken, and the threat of impending eruptions. This helps keep people safe from volcanic explosions.

Peter grew up in Slovakia (formerly part of Czechoslovakia) in an orderly, happy home. His father lectured in physics at the university, and his mother taught at college. Peter recalls that his parents loved him, and the family enjoyed outdoor activities together, including hiking, swimming, skiing, snowboarding, and mountain climbing.

It was his passion for the outdoor life and the beauty of nature that prompted Peter to study mathematics and physics. “My idea was that I would do lots of field work and expeditions.” Peter recalls, “I was a satisfied atheist. I firmly believed that the world and life came into existence through evolution, although I knew nothing about it. And I thought of myself as a good person who never hurt anyone.”

Things started changing during his time in Canada. A friend introduced him to the Bible, which he began reading in the evenings. Within a few days he was ‘hooked’. As he read, he realized he was selfish, used people, and hurt them. That made him think there was something wrong with his heart, which started him reflecting on life.

“I began reading the Bible in Genesis,” Peter explained, “and the amazing thing is that, although I was an atheist and evolutionist, I did not dismiss it. As I read, the truth came through that the heart of man is corrupted. This matched my own experience. It left me wondering, ‘Why didn’t my parents tell me this? Why didn’t they teach me this at school’?”

When he read about animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, he felt he needed to get a flawless lamb to sacrifice somewhere to make him clean. “Eventually I reached the New Testament and discovered the solution—Jesus Christ died on the Cross 2,000 years ago as my sacrifice.”

Peter explained, “I knew the Bible was right about the corruption of man’s heart so I concluded it would be right about the cure.” Eventually, he got on his knees and asked God to save him. Peter recalls, “And God did. With time, I realized there were new things at work in me. I had new values in life. I had new desires. I discovered that God is alive and personal.”

Surprisingly, Peter’s evolutionary beliefs were no obstacle to him reading the Bible. At that time, the origin and history of universe were not at the forefront of his thinking. Rather, he was consumed by the issue of righteousness and justification. Evolution did pop up about two years afterwards. The context concerned the origin of death. According to evolution, death is a natural part of life on Earth, and has been around for hundreds of millions of years. But, according to the Bible, there was no death originally. It came into the world through the disobedience of the first two people, Adam and Eve.

Peter explains, “Then and there it hit me. I realized it was either/or. I immediately accepted the biblical account for the origin of death, based purely on the authority of the Word of God. For me the Bible stands infinitely higher than human speculation. My attitude was that the ultimate truth is the Word of God. He has all wisdom; He was the only ‘eye witness’ of the history; He reveals the truth to us.”

That decision began a quest to understand where and how the evolutionary explanation was wrong. “I was especially motivated because I work professionally in research in academia, and the majority of the people I knew considered it fact. I wanted to know every possible detail about the errors with evolutionary thinking.”

He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. In this regard, Peter remembered his research work for his Master’s degree1 in Bratislava. He was studying paleomagnetism, the past magnetism of the earth, allegedly reaching back over millions of years. He recalls how, even as an atheist, he was deeply concerned about all the unknowns in trying to recover information about the deep past. He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. He recalls thinking, “How can we know? How can we be certain?”

Peter quipped, “I eventually escaped from paleomagnetism to work in physical geodesy and geophysics, specifically gravimetry. I was very happy. Now I could research things that were verifiable by empirical science based on facts—on actual observations.”

The past is in accessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role. Recalling this confirmed for Peter that we cannot discover the origin and history of the earth using ‘science’. “The past is inaccessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role.”

He said, “God had already explained this in Job 38:4, that the only genuine knowledge about origins is His Word. He was there, and He has revealed this knowledge to us. Not only does He know the history of the earth because He witnessed it; He actually did it—Himself.”

One topic Peter initially found tricky to resolve was radioactive dating and the age of the earth. This, too, became clear when he recognized the difference between empirical knowledge and speculation. “The empirical knowledge, what is actually measured, is the ratio of isotopes. The age is a questionable interpretation based on untestable assumptions. Further, the value actually selected is chosen to match their naturalistic philosophy. Although they don’t want to say it, the ages they quote are taken on faith.”

In his quest on evolution he was greatly helped by the abundant creationist literature that addresses these ‘scientific’ issues. “I was thrilled as I discovered that when we begin with biblical assumptions the outcomes beautifully harmonize with the true history of the world.”

Peter thinks that laypeople would benefit from understanding “the spatial (3D) inverse problem in earth sciences”. This refers to the problem of reconstructing the three dimensional (3D) structure and properties of the interior of the earth using just two dimensional (2D) observations from the earth’s surface.

Peter explained that it is not possible to reach a unique solution because many different 3D models can equally well fit the 2D surface data. “Consider how much more uncertainty we face when we add the time dimension and try to reconstruct the deep past of Earth’s history—essentially a 4D problem. The uncertainty and ambiguity is greater by more than one order of magnitude,” Peter said. “This intrinsic uncertainty means that the materialistic, atheistic evolutionary claims on origins and history are ultimately religion, and their acceptance a matter of belief.”

On the positive side, Peter refers to many scientific evidences that give insights into and confidence in the Bible. In geology these include the abundance and preservation of fossils, the horizontal and vertical extent of sedimentary layers, their deformation, and the interfaces between them. Even more compelling are the evidences from biology: the impossibility of chemical evolution, the insurmountable problems with biological evolution, and the overwhelming evidence of design.

Peter said, “I find the origin and history of the cosmos and life to be the most interesting and ultimate of questions in the human quest for knowledge. And I am convinced that the Bible reveals the true history of the universe, and can be depended upon absolutely.”

Ross Olson #fundie creation.com

When I discuss the creation/evolution controversy, there are all sorts of interesting responses to the evidence. People are basically unable to answer the powerful logical and scientific case for creation. So, many eventually say something like this:

‘But if creation is true, why don’t all scientists believe it? All scientists agree that evolution is true.’ Others do not say this outright, but it is an unspoken criticism which they see as an automatic veto of anything that seems scientifically unorthodox.

Can the majority be wrong? Most people admit that the general public may be in error. But they doubt that the majority of scientists could be wrong. This implies that science is somehow different from other human enterprises, and that scientists are immune to the foibles of non-scientists.

History shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time. It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is. In fact, often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.

Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) found that by washing his hands between the time he examined dead bodies and the time he delivered babies, he could prevent certain illnesses in mothers and babies, and save many lives. He was appalled by the heavy death rate in Vienna maternity hospital when he worked there. He introduced antiseptics, and the death rate plummeted from 12 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Even though Semmelweis should have been declared a hero for this simple but powerful discovery, he was not. He was not even asked for his data. Rather, his idea was soundly rejected by his colleagues, and he was forced to return to his home in Budapest. Germs had not yet been discovered, and the physicians of that day had no theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenon Semmelweis was talking about. Even so, the idea would have been easy to test and was clearly of great potential importance. But they did not even consider it.

If we had quizzed the ‘dirty hands’ doctors at a particularly frank and honest moment, they may have said: ‘It just doesn’t make sense. If I can’t see it, it must not be real.’ Or, ‘What I don’t know can’t hurt me (or my patients).’ Or worse yet, they might have said, ‘If I admit to this, I will have to accept responsibility for untold past preventable suffering.’

Our past decisions may prejudice our ability to evaluate the present. A scientist who has based his career on calculating what happened during the first few moments of the ‘big bang’ will find it difficult to be open to evidence that the ‘big bang’ never happened. Great learning does not always make a person more honest and accessible, but it may increase the complexity of his or her rationalizations.

A young graduate student who believes in creation, but also knows that rejection of evolution would jeopardize his degree and career, may try to work out some intellectual compromise, whether it fits the data or not. (This is essentially a form of protective colouration which makes his beliefs invisible in that environment.) He is then likely to spend the rest of his professional life ‘agreeing with himself’. He may even ridicule those more forthright than he, partly because they prick his conscience.

Many scientists hold firmly to evolution despite the evidence. They know that without evolution they must consider themselves responsible to a creator. Their need to reject that possibility is so emotionally powerful that they hang on to evolution tenaciously.

Most of us assume the best about our fellow humans unless forced to think otherwise. Have you ever read a newspaper account of an event you know by personal experience, and found the story inaccurate or incomplete? You then probably wondered about the accuracy of other stories in the paper. Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions.

Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.

At one time or another, most children probably say to their parents (in support of some questionable activity), ‘But everybody’s doing it!’ Good Christian parents invariably say, ‘No, they’re not! But even if they were, you’re not, because it’s against what God wants for you, so it’s wrong.’ We should therefore become a bit wary if someone says, ‘But everybody knows—’, or ‘All scientists agree—’. They probably don’t. And even if they did, it might still be wrong.

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react —

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Jayson Veley #wingnut naturalnews.com

Once upon a time, cartoons were about coyotes that blew themselves up with sticks of dynamite and cats that would always be outsmarted by mice. But we live in a much different time now, and cartoons, much like virtually everything else in American society, have been infected by the cancer that is progressivism.

The Magic School Bus is a cartoon from the mid-1990s about a class of students and their teacher who go on all sorts of crazy adventures — from exploring the Milky Way to navigating through the human body — in their shape-shifting school bus. Although the show officially ended in 1997, it has been shown for educational purposes in classrooms across the country for years thereafter. Now, the popular video streaming service Netflix has launched a reboot of the series called The Magic School Bus Rides Again, and as you probably could have guessed, it is not without its fair share of liberal indoctrination.

Episode 10 of the series reboot is called “The Tales Glaciers Tell,” and if you think that an episode with a title like that is completely free from political bias or indoctrination, then you are sadly mistaken. In it, the teacher takes her class to a glacier and informs them that man’s inventions are causing pollution that is destroying the planet, and unless we do something about it, Earth will continue spiraling into a slow, miserable death. As a solution, the students in the episode are instructed to ride their bikes instead of riding in cars and to decrease the amount of electricity they use on a daily basis.

It doesn’t stop there, however. Two episodes later in episode 12, which is titled “Monster Power,” the students become terrified when they learn that they might be eaten by a pollution monster unless they use clean energy. Because everybody knows that the first thing kids want to see when they sit down for Saturday morning cartoons is a pollution monster threatening to come after a bunch of school kids unless they adopt an environmentally-friendly lifestyle.

But The Magic School Bus isn’t the only kids show that is working relentlessly to brainwash young people with far left rhetoric. Earlier this year, Netflix launched a reboot of the popular 90s show Bill Nye the Science Guy called Bill Nye Saves the World. In the very first episode of the reboot, viewers are warned about the dangers of climate change, and that unless we take immediate action, cute and innocent pandas will die off. (Related: Bill Nye has been slammed by real scientists for blaming hurricanes on climate change.)

Of course, those who understand the left and the games that they play know that the messages conveyed in both The Magic School Bus reboot and the Bill Nye the Science Guy reboot are just scare tactics, but to young, unsuspecting children, the threat of manmade climate change is very scary and very real. They don’t have any experience in politics, they don’t know that there are people out there who will lie to them for political gain, and chances are they can’t even pronounce the word propaganda let alone understand what it is. (Related: Climate change science implodes as the IPCC climate models are found to be totally wrong.)

The sad truth is that the liberals know full well that young people are easy targets, and that with just a few political messages injected into TV shows and cartoons, they can create an entire generation of left leaning, tree hugging leftists. Aside from potentially boycotting programs like The Magic School Bus and Bill Nye the Science Guy, the only real solution to this relentless liberal indoctrination is for parents to step in and teach their children the truth. The future of our country is on the line, and it is our responsibility to make sure that our children grow up knowing the difference between fact and political fiction.

Flouride Action Network #conspiracy fluoridealert.org

THREE REASONS TO END WATER FLUORIDATION:

Reason #1: Fluoridation Is an Outdated Form of Mass Medication

Unlike all other water treatment processes, fluoridation does not treat the water itself, but the person consuming it. The Food & Drug Administration accepts that fluoride is a drug, not a nutrient, when used to prevent disease. By definition, therefore, fluoridating water is a form of medication. This is why most western European nations have rejected the practice — because, in their view, the public water supply is not an appropriate place to be adding drugs, particularly when fluoride is readily available for individual use in the form of toothpaste.

Reason #2: Fluoridation Is Unnecessary and Ineffective

The most obvious reason to end fluoridation is that it is now known that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth, not from ingestion. Even the CDC’s Oral Health Division now acknowledges this. There is simply no need, therefore, to swallow fluoride, whether in the water, toothpaste, or any other form. Further, despite early claims that fluoridated water would reduce cavities by 65%, modern large-scale studies show no consistent or meaningful difference in the cavity rates of fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

Reason #3: Fluoridation Is Not a Safe Practice

The most important reason to end fluoridation is that it is simply not a safe practice, particularly for those who have health conditions that render them vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects.

First, there is no dispute that fluoridation is causing millions of children to develop dental fluorosis, a discoloration of the teeth that is caused by excessive fluoride intake. Scientists from the Centers for Disease Control have even acknowledged that fluoridation is causing “cosmetically objectionable” fluorosis on children’s front teeth–an effect that can cause children embarrassment and anxiety at an age when physical appearance is the single most important predictor of self-esteem.

Second, it is known that fluoridated water caused severe bone disease in dialysis patients up until the late 1970s (prior to dialysis units filtering fluoride). While dialysis units now filter out the fluoride, research shows that current fluoride exposures are still resulting in dangerously high bone fluoride levels in dialysis patients and patients with other advanced forms of kidney disease. It is unethical to compromise the health of some members in a population to obtain a purported benefit for another — particularly in the absence of these vulnerable members’ knowing consent.

And, finally, a growing body of evidence reasonably indicates that fluoridated water, in addition to other sources of daily fluoride exposure, can cause or contribute to a range of serious effects, including arthritis, damage to the developing brain, reduced thyroid function, and possibly osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in adolescent males.

In recent years, communities throughout the United States and Canada have started to reassess the conventional wisdom of fluoridating their water. Many of these communities, including over 50 since 2010, are reaching the obvious conclusion: when stripped of its endorsements, well-meaning intentions, and PR-praise, fluoridation simply makes no sense.

Europe reached this conclusion a long time ago. It is now time for the U.S. and other English-speaking nations to follow suit.

Colleen Pater #fundie unz.com

I suppose I should take solace that the enemy has bad intelligence, Its still disturbing though how they always reach the conclusions they want and are so clueless.
Its hard to define the alt right because the media hysterics and cluelessness led a lot of non cuckservative and cuck lite people to think it was they who were meant by alt right. And before that the White nationalists and neonazis had slid in under the altright brand as a remake.Then theres quite a lot of non cucked right who are clear they are not alt right but the left will insist are because they actually think anyone to the right of, Che? is a nazi, well who knows it changes so fast. These would include the paleos, the teas the BB, the neoreactionaries, and others.

Whats going on is simple, Liberalism is at the end of the road.Its ridiculous absurd. Its been creating ever more bizarre reasons why it never works as predicted for decades,centuries.While many wise people even hundreds of years ago could see the inherent evil, it took this long for it to get to the point even some kid on the street will declare the empire has no clothes.Liberalism is not only very explicit about its intentions to genocide whites, its begun to eat its own. Its lost all discipline, and cant help constantly exposing its genocidal tendencies.
Worse its all happening while other trends are working against it. there debt thats so absurd it cant even be rationally conceived, as a result of the liar loans to make minorities equal through free houses theres now and the subsequent crash and QE theres not a quadrillion in credit default swaps out there more than ten times the amount that caused the crash.The internet shorted out the lefts stranglehold on thought and now they are reduced to stalinist suppression tactics, immigration mostly illegal or quasi illegal throughout the white world has been so absurdly bad in every single possible way its become crystal clear that was the design, its also clear the left and global corporatists have merged, while this may have had strategic advantages its optics work against the lefts marketing, and this is a huge problem the left is increasingly exposed as a naked grab for power by any means possible. its constantly in alliances and positions that are illiberal, whether championing islam, enforcing speech codes, having its largest power brokers be the billionaire class, and opposing democratic self determination like Brexit,Catalan,Trump,Scotland etc.
And its very foundations are being rocked by reality.Democracy is increasingly shown to be more like a cultural quirk than the end of history.The all men are created equal expansion has come up against the reality the certainly are not.To keep the truth from coming out on that and all sorts of supposed truths science has been whored out to such shocking extents that besides it being taken about as seriously as fake news its increasingly alienated scientists who for now try to keep their heads down to eat but are seething in many quarters at the commie humiliation tactics. This of course is just another undermining factor in the lefts always dubious claim to be the side of reason.
Leftism was bound to be tried, enough things had not caught up to new information that reasonable people thought perhaps; perhaps black people oughtn’t be slaves, perhaps they could be cultivated to the standard of the whites, perhaps women needn’t be under men’s authority, perhaps every stupid person with a pulse ought to be allowed an equal voice in the decisions of a nation, perhaps its wise to discard thousands of years of human wisdom and wing it, perhaps nations needn’t be ethnically homogenous, perhaps a secularized christianity will work better,and thousands of other experiments.
Every last scrap of it has by now been proved patently untrue so many times and then retried and failed so many times its a joke,
Halloween is the 500 anniversary of Martin Luthers little tantrum.Leftisms done stick a fork n it

Next page