[Image of a tweet shwoing the Ka'aba badly Photoshopped to look like it's on fire, with an imam's face photoshopped to look like a crying meme face, and the caption "When can we make this a reality?"]
The Last Jedi: De-Feminized Fanedit (aka The Chauvinist Cut)
Specs: 1280×720, x264, 46 minutes, MP3 2.0 audio
Basically The Last Jedi minus Girlz Powah and other silly stuff.
It would probably be easier to make a list of things that were kept instead of things that were changed. Hardly any scene got away without cuts.
The resulting movie is (wait for it ) 46 minutes long.
Yeah I know, it’s not ideal. It’s made from a CAM source (the most recent HDTC one with the Asian hard subs, which is pretty watchable). It has issues. But it had to be done.
You will probably enjoy it most when you view it less as a blockbuster movie and more as some kind of episode from some non-existent mediocre Star Wars series.
Here’s a short rundown of changes (spoilers! full list in description.txt):
No whiny/reluctant/murderous psycho Luke.
NO HALDO! She simply doesn’t exist. Her whole subplot doesn’t exist. The Kamikaze is carried out by Poe. ( = Poe dies.)
Leia never scolds, questions nor demotes Poe.
Lea dies. Kylo kills her.
Kylo is more badass and much less conflicted and volatile.
Kylo takes on more of Snoke’s guards, Rey struggles with a single one.
No bomber heroism by china girl in the beginning.
No Canto Bight.
No superpowered Rey.
Luke is not a semi-force-ghost and is smashed by the first laser cannon shot. (sorry, I just had to!)
Phasma is finished after the first blow by Finn. (Women are naturally weaker than men, she isn’t force-sensitive, and we know nothing about any exo-skeleton in her suit)
Asian chick speaks less, doesn’t bully Finn, Finn doesn’t try to escape, she is never formally introduced. She is just there and occasionally smiles at Finn or screams “Finn!”. She has no sister. Serves her right for all the heinous stuff she did.
Lots of little cuts reducing the number of female facial shots. Too many to count. (Pun intended.)
Quite a few scenes rearranged so that the flow of the shortened movie is still somewhat coherent.
Obviously it’s far from perfect. The source is not even on DVD-level. Some of the technical edits were slacked because why not, it’s a CAM source (e.g. some masks and Snoke disappearing). Sometimes there’s an extreme zoom despite the mediocre quality. There are plotholes and continuity errors and some cuts are not as smooth as they should be, especially audio transition-wise. But for what it’s worth, it can now at least be viewed without feeling nauseaus about most of the terrible big and small decisions they made in this film. Also, at least the intro sequence is now very watchable and actually much cooler without all of Leia’s nitpicking. Now it’s all one united Resistance fighting without inner conflict and that’s much more satisfying to watch. Due to the extreme shortening, the whole movie is much more fast-paced now, at times unfortuantely also rushed due to a lack of usable filler footage
For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:
Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.
Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).
The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.
Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle the line is razor-thin.
Criminalization Of HIV In Canada
Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.
First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.
I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?
In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:
[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.
The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]
In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record
To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.
Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.
Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.
Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)
THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?
I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess why because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.
Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.
Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.
HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.
[After quoting a biologist's description of what 'pharyngula' is]
25. The use of big words is often done by der schlickmeisters like Myers to impress the gullible and the un-initiated. New college students especially are often bamboozled by the intelligent SOUNDING professor on the first day. This often works on students where the teacher has an obvious academic (he can fail them) and psychological (they ASSUME he is smarter) advantage. Well let’s see: He can’t fail me, fire me, frighten me or fool me. THAT scares guys like him and is the REAL reason he pulled out of the debate no matter what he SAYS and everyone with half a brain and one eye can see it!
26. Let’s pull back the curtain.
27. Phayngula is one of the many stages of development babies go through as they grow in the womb. Any biology book will teach them. After babies are born they still go through many stages of growth so why not call it the freethoughts/infancy or freethoughts/puberty or freethoughs/senile? I bet I know the reasons he chose that name. A. Big word! B. of all the stages of growth he THINKS this one shows evidence for his dumb religion of evolutionism.
43. PZ, God made the world. He makes the rules (Ex. 20).You broke His rules (Rom. 3:23). He will judge you (Heb. 9:27). Denying it won’t help. Helping others NOT believe in God will make it WORSE for you (Mt. 18:6). Turn or burn PZ. Kent Hovind [Emphasis added]
["There is no religion of evolution. In the classroom, my colleagues and I teach the evidence."]
I know there is no chance that you will admit it or even understand it but any “evolution” above the level of minor changes within kinds only takes place in the fertile imagination of those who faithfully believe it does. Even the little boy could see- The king hath no clothes! You need to sue the “tailors” who sold you that dumb religious evolution suit you so proudly wear in public. Aren’t you embarrassed to believe you came from a rock? BTW-congrats on having an asteroid named after you. Is that an ancestor too?
What “evidence” do you teach in your class that would show scientifically that humans are related to bananas as you said on the DVD? If it can be shown there are some sections of the complex DNA code of humans and bananas that seem to be similar that would not prove a common ancestor. A freshman law student could see through that! It is just as much evidence for a common DESIGNER! Do you mention THAT to your students? The lug nuts from a Vet will fit on other Chevy products. Does that prove they both evolved from a skate board?
[In discussion between Kent Hovind and PZ Myers over possible public debate]
First- I was totally unaware that quote marks ” ” would scare you or anyone! I’ve never heard them called “scare quotes” in my 61 years! Is this new? I always use them for emphasis or irony. It is NOT “Rational” to believe in evolution.
BTW- I notice you used “scare quotes” here. Twice! It worked! I’m scared! :)
As stated in my 3-11 postI’ll pay my expenses to come to your turf, pay to video it, pay you as stated and give you a master copy to sell copies from for the rest of your life. I will not sell them for you. If this “counter offer” was the loophole you added so you could worm out of doing the debate at all and save face then go ahead and back out. “Rational” (hope I didn’t scare you with the quotes-didn’t mean to. I just do it for emphasis as most people do) folks will understand the real reason why you refused.
I think “fraud” may apply to a person who claims to teach “biology” yet routinely mixes his religious beliefs in class about all life forms having a common ancestor or humans being related to bananas and humans being a fish (as you stated in the “Evolution vs. God” DVD). Maybe “charlatan” is a better word for these false teachers. Maybe the courts will explain to the folks at “Rational” Wiki that words have meanings and it is not good to falsely accuse someone of the crime of fraud (unless you have proof).
The government was wrong in my case as is shown in many of the filings posted on 2peter3.com. The reason we even have appellate courts and a Supreme Court is precisely because the lower courts can get it wrong. Being convicted by one person does not prove guilt. 6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II. Does that prove they were guilty of some crime? Watch the news. Often cases are overturned on new evidence. Sometimes many years after the conviction. Simple history 101 will show many examples. I know you are rejoicing that the lower court ruled against me just as Jesus’s enemies rejoiced when he was convicted and sentenced. Well, it’s NOT over. If I DO get the case overturned and it is admitted by a higher court that the lower court erred and I did NOT commit a crime will you also admit it or will you then think the higher court erred?
The fact that these soldiers were set up to die in a no return operation is obvious they had knowledge that Obama didn’t want leaked. This is the Seals that killed Osama Bin Laden. I don’t believe this story. He is alive call me crazy but, Osama Bin Laden is our President Obama do your research. The CIA has been preparing for this since he was a boy. They have same height, bone structure, hands and ears both are left handed the Osama face was created by Hollywood. The fox is in the hen house.
Given the disposable nature of the male, it makes no sense to presume that they have the same capability of experiencing deeper emotions that the female possesses. Males shouldn’t really be capable of the same level of suffering, and it would be an inefficient allocation of resources to help them with things like rape and violence. Even in the unlikely event that they could experience deeper emotions, the allocation of resources to protect “innocent” males would be much more efficiently allocated helping “innocent” females, as their existence and health is more valuable to population stability. Why waste money for feel-good notions like “equality” or “justice”? These are simply subjective platitudes that apes made up in order to derive some sense of control over an indifferent and random world. They hold no objective value. Efficiency is at least quantifiable.
Since people didn’t respond to it properly last time, here it is again:
I’ve long believed that there are numerous liberal policies that have contributed to the moral decline, and collapse of marriage and family, in the US and UK especially. Here are some changes that I’d like to see. Feel free to tear into it if you think you have better ideas.
6. Sex-Reassignment- Sex change operations and hormone replacement therapy are banned. If a person wishes to go to another country to obtain such services, they will surrender their US citizenship. This does not apply to people who are born with gender irregularity or ambiguous genitalia. Those situations will be dealt with by parents and medical professionals. Whatever procedures and therapies are necessary will remain available for those affected individuals.
7. Alternate Lifestyles in the Public Arena- Alternate lifestyles such as homosexuality or transgenderism in one’s private life will not be made illegal, but expression of those lifestyles shall remain private. Further, propaganda portraying alternate lifestyles in a positive light will be banned. Fines and penalties for disseminating propaganda, written or verbal, or public displays to or around children below 18 will be doubled.
Corporal punishment will be re-instituted in public schools and will be enforced by the Principal, at his/her discretion, but will be used only after 2 other attempts to change the offensive behavior have failed, including parental notification.
I think you’re misunderstanding what Natalie (and most experts on racism) mean by “racism.” Racism is prejudice plus the institutional power to act on it. For many reasons, as well as the ones Natalie mentioned, “anti-white racism” in *modern Western society* is absurd. I don’t know what happened to you, so I can’t comment on it except to say that, while it may have been racially motivated, I think you need to ask yourselfwhat it institutionally condoned? Are there institutional barriers that prohibit you from seeking or getting justice for this crime? As you, as a white man who was the victim of this act of violence, at risk of being institutionally discriminated against for being white? Was the violence an incident of racial discrimination by an institutional force? If not, than it was not racist. It may have been prejudiced or race-motivated. That criteria does not make it racist.
An email sent to Mikey Weinstein of the MRFF:
Michael Weinstein. You and the mfrr have nothing better to do than bully and fight the Christian soldiers who built this nation. From the wreckage of the indian savages? And made it the only shining light of the world? Have you forgotten history? Our soldiers are made strong because of their faith in Jesus Christ and Christianity. When America’s soldiers are strong America is strong. I am such a soldier. Proud of my Savior and the USA. One among many in my unit who know you for what you truely are. A bunch of us at chapel watched some of the speeches you gave. On you tube. We all noticed how much you resemeble the devil. Seriously you do. And you have the devils slippery powers of false persuasion too. You and the devil both hate Christ. You and the devil are the losers. You will both have hell as your home for all ages to come. Your life is totally a waste. Mr. Weinstein give it up and surrender to the Word of Christ. Our fighting forces fight with Jesus as our Lord and leader in all things. Deal with it. You try to mess with that and you totally deserve to suffer. Your fallen childrens deserve to suffer. Your fallen wife deserves to suffer. Your fallen parents deserve to suffer. All your fallen friends of the mfrr deserve to suffer too. And they will.
Subject: Fear Christ-Michael Weinstein
Date: October 14, 2012 7:38:44 PM MDT
Good evening Michael Weinstein. I am a classmate of yours from the USAF Academy Class of 1977. I have written to you before. I am a Spirit-filled born again Christian. My wife is a spirit-filled born again Christian and my children are as well. I came to the Lord during my years as a cadet at the Academy. A number of your classmates have asked me to convey a simple message to you. It is a two part message. First, we ask you to reconsider coming to our 35th reunion next week. Yes, we found out you are coming. And second we ask you to believe in and fear the Power of Prayer if you refuse to reconsider.
I didn’t know you well at the Academy but well enough to see the darkness of spirit within you. You hate the followers of the Lord. You elevate Christ’s enemies over our Savior. Gays and Muslims and atheists are the object of your love. I even recall your love of the perverted Muslims back then. You dressed up as a cadet as a Muslim. You wore the attire of Yasser Arafat and gave a fiery speech as this same terrorist.* Supporting his terror against those who follow Jesus. Don’t try to deny this Michael Weinstein. You thought we would forget that? I watched that speech in the lectinar in Fairchild Hall. I and others remember feeling your powerful spirit of evil that very day. You have only gotten stronger in your walk with satan as the years have past. Haven’t you.
A number of your classmates, myself included, have had enough of you. We thought you weren’t coming to any more reunions. But then we watched your website and saw you’re giving another one of your Christian hate speeches at UCCS the first night of the reunion.** So you’ll be in town? Clever of you to make sure your name doesn’t appear on the AOG registry for the reunion. Our friends of friends there have confirmed that you intend to be there anyway.
Your darkness and evil is unwanted. You shame our class and our alma mater. You shame the Christian heritage of America, You have the hell-spirit of the devil within you and I have seen and felt it. Eye witness, personally. You use your evil powers to pull the wool over the eyes of the innocents. Just as scripture warned and foretold (2 Corinthians 11:14-15, John 8:44, James 4:7).
No longer Michael Weinstein. Your time has past. You are helpless to the Power of Prayer (Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, Mark 9:29).
On behalf of our classmates, I ask and beg you to publicly announce that you are withdrawing from the speech at UCCS. And that you and your wife Bonny will not be attending our Class of 1977 Academy reunion. We will give you until this Wednesday night to do this. If you refuse to do it then we will pray the Psalm 109. We will pray at home and at church. Our families will pray it together. We will pray to the Lord to stop your poison. We will pray the Psalm against you and your wife and all those who give you sanctuary and protection in Colorado Springs.
Let me be clear. None of us will harm you or your wife. That would be illegal and wrong. It is not our place to mete out the justice and punishment you and your followers deserve and have earned. We won’t have to. The Lord will. It is our God-given right to pray for His intervention and protection from your evil. Even under the Constitution you worship as an idol in place of the Son of God.
Reconsider and know the Power of Prayer. Fear the Power of Christ, Michael Weinstein (1 Peter 1: 17-21).
Is there really such a thing as an utterly authentic atheist? I think so. I have a dreadful feeling that there exists a sort of human sub-species who have lost their spiritual capacity completely. These authentic atheists do not profess belief in God, nor even disbelief. Instead they seem entirely deaf to such ideas. They do not hate the Church or say the Bible is a fairy tale. They do not spit out bigoted remarks that blame the Pope for the holocaust or missionaries for murder. They do not attack the arguments for the existence of God, say the universe is random, or call Rick Warren a simpleton. They do not rage against God, any more than someone born blind has dreams in color. These are the authentic atheists. They plod through life eating, working, shopping, breeding and sleeping, and God never seems to flit across their consciousness. Members of this sub-species may be sparkling sophisticates or ill-bred boors. They may be the decent and moral folks next door, or they could be despicable murderers. In a frightful way, it doesn’t matter. If they exist, perhaps they have bred and spread like the alien bodysnatchers, and exist in our midst like spiritual zombiesindistinguishable in the teeming mass of humanity except to those few who see them and tremble.
[on young girls being sold as wives to old men:]
Typical perspective fails to acknowledge, is the part of the mothers, in arranging the marriages, be they underage or not, arranged, or forced and fails to acknowledge the role of mothers in spending or consuming the reward (they are housewhores themselves remember so are quite used to spending other people’s money).
As with so-called honour killings’ we know that it is the female elders, desperately trying to keep up with the Jones, regarding what class of family their off-spring should marry, mothers who deem it a crime against the family’s honour when their off-spring choose a mate from the wrong class, then it is the young men of her clan who are ordered to carry out the honour-killings. Pure back-seat driving, and backward victim-femalist thinking, to pretend the women who are financially served, are not the ones calling the shots, stabbings, and burials in order to maintain the whoriachy they’ve grown accustomed to.
Responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies primarily with the queen whore mother, then the obedient father, the wannabe whore daughter, and finally, the blamed for everything son.
Well, money does change hands, between men, to be spent on the upkeep of these idle women who will concurrently provide sex but that’s what being a whore is all about, and the women AND GIRLS are smart enough to have worked this out.
A survey I will dig out of necessary shows Muslim women across Arab nations report a range of issues they are concerned with, but traditional gender roles are not something they complain about. They like being whores.
[A women's prayer group called up Mikey of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation with their caller ID blocked. After he hung up on them, they emailed this to him, again failing to name themselves]
Mickey Wienstien, we called you on the weekend to advice you that our womens prayer circle at our church will be ending your wickedness against Christ Jesus and his anointed of the USA in our military. In America which is Jesus’ country we can pray all we want for anything we want. you hung up on us and were rude to our leader. but will that stop us or Christ Jesus? No it will not and never could have, wicked Mickey. Our prayer circle has never failed to acheive our hosts granting of the scripture we pray. for direct intervention against you as you are a true demon to America. Luke 9:1 We will not stop our prayers until you stop the evil you do with Lucifer on a daly basis. Luke 9:1 But not against you Mickey. We know by your internet site and your book who it is to be. Now for our prayer, we pray that the women who work in your MFRR and the women in your family will befall fast moving breast cancer which can not everbe cured. We pray this for Leah Bruton, and Becki Miller, Patricia Corigan, Chris Rodda, Edie Disler, Vicky Garrison, Kristin Leslie, Melinda Moeton and Joan Slish. And you evil clan too, we pray this for Bonnie Wiensten and Amanda and Amber Wienstein and the woman lawyers Cariline Mitchel and Katherin Ritchy and all women of all who work at with for Military Freedom Against Religon Foundation. know that we pray and pray hard all the days until you stop your destruction of our American army and accept Christ Jesus as Lord and join His army.
Tim Lennox: “It would only take five or 10 getting killed and broadcast on CNN for it to send a clear message not to fool, or not to step foot rather, in Alabama.’ Is that an accurate quote?”
Harry Lyon: “That’s an accurate quote. You have have to get tough on things like this. We’re losing 35 to 50 soldiers a day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a tough proposal, but the legislature would have to approve it.”
Lyon: “If I were an illegal alien in Alabama and I read that in the newspaper, I wouldn’t wait around for laws to be passed, I would be going back to my homeland. They broke in here, they violated our laws. It’s no different than breaking into your house.”
Lyon: “Now, I can assure you that proposal would fly right through the Alabama legislature if one of these illegal immigrants were to blow up the Galleria, OK?”
Lennox: “Well, but there’s no indication that any immigrants in Alabama, illegal or otherwise, have done anything along these lines”
Lyon: “Well, there’s no indication about 9/11 until the buildings came down.”
Lennox: “I mean, are you suggesting that this is a real concern of yours?”
Lyon: “Absolutely. These people are not here legally, they are here illegally. What do they care about the laws of Alabama, or the United States? Slap in our face.”
Let it again be entered into the record that I defend Maoist suppression of religion, and am ultimately in favor of a communist state which mandates atheism by force, although I believe successful implementation of such a program will take several generations, the first of which should focus on suppressing clergy rather than all believers. [Emphasis added]
"How do you know that a god is the source of logic?"
He told us.
"How do you know that a god is the only possible source of logic?"
He told us.
"How do you know that this god is the Christian god?"
He told us.
"I contend that you know none of these, and only argue from abject ignorance and lack of imagination."
Prove your claim please.
"Prove me wrong."
The very concept of proof presupposes God. Proof requires logic, knowledge and truth, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
We say that God is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
["What does your “spirituality” have to do with Darwin and ToE [Theory of Evolution]?"]
Absolutely nothing. Darwin just wanted to demonstrate his deep love for his ape brothers and sisters, much like most of you do. During his famous voyage, he must have had many opportunities to try out various sexual positions with both male and female apes. I guess he tried birds and small animals like rabbits as well. But maybe he killed them. So, the only succussful mating he could have achieved would have been with his primate ape brothers and sisters. This is how TOE came about
“A decade ago, it seemed the side of darkness had conquered,” said New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, noting that time has proven that “the side of angels, not demons” has prevailed.
“There were no atheists here on 9/11 in New York,” he said. “My message today is that God has the last word.