1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 142827

I just watched the video of that New Zealand shooting. Dude was thorough.

Chris Cantwell, Gab 7 Comments [3/16/2019 6:00:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Citizen Justin

Quote# 142733

In Washington, Regime Change Is Truly and Urgently Needed!

I am surprised that no one else is saying it, writing it, shouting it at each and every corner:

It is not Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Iran that are in dire and crucial need of ‘regime change’. It is the United States of America, it is the entire European Union; in fact, the entire West.

And the situation is urgent.

The West has gone mad; it has gone so to speak, bananas; mental. And people there are too scared to even say it, to write about it.

One country after another is falling, being destroyed, antagonized, humiliated, impoverished. Entire continents are treated as if they were inhabited by irresponsible toddlers, who are being chased and disciplined by sadistic adults, with rulers and belts in their hands yelling with maniacal expressions on their faces: “Behave, do as we say, or else!”

It all would be truly comical, if it weren’t so depressing. But… nobody is laughing. People are shaking, sweating, crying, begging, puking, but they are not chuckling.

I see it everywhere where I work: in Asia, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

But why?

It is because North American and European countries are actually seriously delivering their ultimatum: you either, obey us and prostrate yourself in front of us, or we will break you, violate you, and if everything else fails, we will kill your leaders and all of those who are standing in our way.

This is not really funny, is it? Especially considering that it is being done to almost all the countries in what is called Latin America, to many African and Middle Eastern nations, and to various states on the Asian continent.

And it is all done ‘professionally’, with great sadistic craftsmanship and rituals. No one has yet withstood ‘regime change’ tactics, not even the once mighty Soviet Union, nor tremendous China, or proud and determined Afghanistan.

Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK and Syria may be the only countries that are still standing. They resisted and mobilized all their resources in order to survive; and they have survived, but at a tremendous price.

The victims keep crying. A few independent countries keep expressing their outrage. But so far, there is no grand coalition, which would be ready to fight and defend each other: “one for all, all for one”.

Until the recent ‘rebellion’ at the UN, no one has been openly and seriously suggesting that international law should apply to all nations of the world, equally.

People talk about ‘peace’. Many are begging the brigands to ‘to stop’, to ‘have mercy’, to show some compassion. But, neither Europe nor North America has ever shown any compassion, for long, terrible centuries. Look at the map of the beginning of the 20th century, for instance: the entire world was colonized, plundered and subjugated.

Now it is all moving in the same direction. If the West is not stopped, our planet may not survive at all. And let us be realistic: begging, logical arguments and goodwill will not stop Washington, Paris or London from plundering and enslaving.

Anyone who has at least some basic knowledge of world history knows that.

So why is the world still not forging some true resistance?

Is Venezuela going to be the last straw? And if not Venezuela, that is if Venezuela is allowed to fall, is it going to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Iran next? Is anything going to propel people into action?

Are we all just going to look passively how, the socialist Venezuela, a country which has already given so much to the world, Venezuela which managed to create beautiful visions and concepts for our humanity, is going to be burned to ashes, and then robbed of all of its dreams, its resources and of its freedom?

Are we all such cowards? Is this what we – human beings – have actually become; been reduced to? Cowards and cattle, selfish and submissive beings; slaves?

All this, simply because people are too scared to confront the empire? Because they prefer to hide and to pretend that what is so obvious, is actually not taking place?

Therefore, let me pronounce it, so at least my readers do not have that ‘luxury’ of claiming that they were not told:

“This world is being brutalized and controlled by the fascist clique of Western nations. There is no ‘democracy’ left in this world, as there is near zero respect for international law in North American and European capitals. Colonialism has returned in full force. Western imperialism is now almost fully controlling the world.”

And begging, trust me – begging and talking of peace is not going to help.

During WWII, fascism had to be stopped. If not, it was going to devour the entire planet.

In the past, tens of millions have already died fighting for freedom and for our mankind.

Yes, some nations tried to compromise and negotiate with Nazi Germany, but we all know where it all ended.

Now, the situation is the same. Or worse, perhaps much worse, because the West has nukes and a tremendous propaganda apparatus: it controls human brains all over the world with ‘mass media’, and ‘education’.

And because the citizens of the West are now much more brainwashed than the Germans and Italians were in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; more brainwashed, more scared, submissive and more ‘disciplined’.

Look, seriously: are the people who are now writing those “peace essays”, in which they argue with the Western regime about who is right and who is wrong, seriously thinking that they are going to move people like Donald Trump, or Pompeo, or Abrams, or Rubio?

Do they believe that Washington is going to stop murdering millions of people all over the world? Or that the neo-colonialist plunder would stop, after the US Congress and Senate suddenly understands that it has been at the wrong side of history?

This is not some rhetorical question. I am serious: I demand answers!

Does ‘peace movement’ thinks that by amassing arguments it could stop Western expansionism? Yes or no?

Do they believe that Pompeo or Trump will suddenly hit their foreheads and exclaim: “You people are correct! We did not see this!” And call their troops, their thugs and mercenaries back?

If not, if this is not what peace movements believe would be done by North American and European leaders, then why all those thousands of wasted pages?

Would you go near a crocodile that is ready to devour an innocent child, and try to reason with it? Would you, seriously? Do you think it would stop, drop a few tears, wag its tail and leave?

Sometimes I tend to believe that ‘peace movements’ in the West are making things worse. They create false hopes, and they behave as if the empire is some entity that has a soul, and understands logic. They grossly underestimate the threat; the danger.

And they tend to analyze the Western threat from a Western perspective, using Western logic.

It somehow gets lost in interpretation that fascism, terror, and bestiality have to be confronted and fought.

One cannot negotiate with a group of countries which are already bathed in the blood of some 80% of the planet. If it was to happen, it would just be a mockery and it would simply humiliate everyone that is sincerely trying to stop the assassins.

Right now, Venezuela needs solidarity. It requires direct help, actions; not words. And so do many other countries.

Instead, it gets an endless avalanche of best wishes, as well as premature obituaries.

The Bolivarian Revolution has gotten plenty of colorful words. But what it urgently needs is volunteers, money, and internationalist brigades!

I know that billions of people all over the world are now cheering from their armchairs; in fact, doing absolutely nothing, while also spending zero. Their love for Venezuela is ‘platonic’.

I have just left Syria, where I was covering the Idlib war zone. There was not one single foreigner near me, during those days. Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley usually work all over the toughest areas in Syria, but how many others do? And most of the time we work with near zero backing, just because we feel that it is our moral obligation to inform humanity.

I am wondering, how many foreigners are fighting for Venezuela, right now?

Who is going to face the Western spooks implanted into the Caracas and the Venezuelan borders with Colombia and Brazil? A few RT and TeleSur reporters, those true heroes, yes, but who else?

Only direct action can save Venezuela, and the world.

This is no time for debates.

This is worse, much worse than the late 1930’s.

The proverbial crocodile is here; its enormous ugly mouth open, ready to devour yet one more brilliant, proud country.

It is time to stick a big metal rod into its mouth. Now, immediately; before it gets too late.

Let us shout LONG LIVE VENEZUELA! But with our hands, muscles and purses, not just with our mouths.

And let us not be scared to declare: if anywhere, it is Washington where regime change is truly and urgently needed!

Andre Vltchek, 21st Century Wire 6 Comments [3/15/2019 6:49:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 142710

This week, the Democratic Party was unable to pass a watered-down, platitudinous resolution condemning anti-Semitism, due to “fierce backlash” from presidential candidates, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the now-powerful progressive base. Rather than censuring Rep. Ilhan Omar, the intellectually frivolous, Hamas-supporting freshman representative from Minnesota, she was rewarded and inoculated from party criticism.
More consequently, the Democrats deemed Protocols of Zion-style attacks a legitimate form of debate. That’s because Omar, despite what you hear, has repeatedly attacked Jews, not only Israel supporters, and certainly not only specific Israeli policies.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who would finally bring an “All Lives Matter” resolution to the floor, told reporters she didn’t believe the congresswoman’s comments were “intentionally anti-Semitic.” No educated human believes Omar inadvertently accused “Benjamin”-grubbing Rootless Cosmopolitans of hypnotizing the world for their evil. These are long-standing, conspiratorial attacks on the Jewish people, used by anti-Semites on right and left, and popular throughout the Islamic world.
Even the Democratic Party activist groups that typically cover for the Israel-haters, like the Anti- Defamation League, have condemned Omar. Yet it was the lie that coursed through the Democratic Party’s defense of Omar.
Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren claimed that “branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has had a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians.” Either Warren believes that accusing Jews and their supporters of dual loyalty and sedition is a legitimate criticism of Israel, or she is deliberately mischaracterizing Omar’s comments to gain favor with the growing faction of anti-Semites in her party.
“We must not,” the socialist Bernie Sanders argued, “equate anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel” because such a thing would be “stifling” debate. Does anyone believe that if left-of-center Kahol Lavan were running Israel, Omar would be less inclined to smear the bipartisan squishes at AIPAC?

Omar has mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu (who, incidentally, is in every way more of a genuine liberal than either Sanders or Omar) once in her Twitter feed, and then only to use this very talking point to defend her comments. As a political matter, no major party in Israel is going allow an independent Palestinian state run by theocrats and terrorists to exist, so Omar and her allies will never be appeased.
Of course, no one argues that Omar’s speech should be curtailed or stifled. The same can’t be said of her defenders, however, who not only falsely claim criticism of her tropes is “chilling speech,” but also decided to transform this 38-year-old firebrand into a helpless, childlike victim.
“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America,” said Sen. Kamala Harris, who, like many Democrats, tried to dilute criticism of anti-Semitism in a torrent of phobias. “But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”
We shouldn’t exaggerate the prevalence of hate crimes in America, which is low, but it’s certainly worth pointing out that Jews are the target of 60 percent of those crimes—a far larger percentage than anyone else. In New York City, there have been at least 36 hate crimes against Jews so far this year so far. Shouldn’t Harris be more concerned about Omar’s rhetoric?

As Gad Saad noted yesterday, Omar’s brand of Israel criticism “is almost ALWAYS a cover of existential and definitional Jew-hatred.” This anti-Israel sentiment—opposition to the idea of a national Jewish state—is the most consequential form of anti-Semitism that exists in the world today. It has done more to undermine Jewish safety than all the dog whistles and white nationalist marches combined. Yet, many Democrats have now seemingly joined Corbynites and leftists around the world perpetuating this radicalism.
The normalization of Omarism is a long time coming. Omar’s defenders have been praising and participating in the Women’s March, led by Louis Farrakhan acolytes who believe Jewish people bear a special collective responsibility “as exploiters of black and brown people,” since Trump was elected. But it goes even further back.
When leaving the CBC meeting, “members formed a circle around Omar and Marcia Fudge literally stuck her arm out to prevent reporters from asking her questions. Then a few members hugged Omar, including Al Lawson.” It is unsurprising that Omar, who has great trouble answering simple questions, has the CBC running interference for her hatred. At least seven members of the CBC—a group seemingly immune from criticism—have coordinated and worked with Farrakhan, the anti-Semite preacher who believes “satanic” Jews are “termites” who “deserve to die.” Liberals keep telling me Farrakhan is just a conservative boogeyman, and yet his contingent is growing as Omar and allies like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez join the ranks.
Democrats’ allies in media quickly came to Omar’s rescue, as well. The Washington Post ran three articles after Omar’s initial comments this week. All three defended her. “Want to combat hate? Stop the hazing of Ilhan Omar and start listening” wrote Wajahat Ali and Rabia Chaudry. Not only shouldn’t Jews censure Omar, the authors argued, they should shut up and listen to her wisdom. In the progressive worldview, Jews, who are successful and predominately white, should put up with a little bigotry for the common good.

As Rep James Clyburn (D-SC), who once also shared a stage with Farrakhan, noted, Omar should be given a free pass because she fled Somalia. “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” he explained. It’s personal to hate Jews when you fled Somalia? The number of people defending Omar on the risible grounds that Muslims should be immune from criticism isn’t surprising when you realize that identity politics demands strict adherence to the hierarchy of victimhood.
When New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg (whose article in the aftermath of Omar’s dual loyalty remarks asked if Jewish people had too much power in Washington) and Glenn Thrush (who may or may not be taking diction from the Democratic National Committee) authored a piece about the resolution fight, they spent a large chunk of their space letting everyone know that President Donald Trump—whose daughter converted to Judaism and who moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and who stopped coddling the world’s most dangerous anti-Jewish terror-state—had also used anti-Semitic tropes.
While it’s not worth again debunking the fact that Trump never said neo-Nazis were “very fine people” or pointing out that most of the Jews at the Republican Jewish Coalition laughed at his jokes, it is worth mentioning that Democrats have embraced the worst kind of “whataboutism.”
NBC’s News’ Chuck Todd, in his “I’m obsessed with” segment, offered a jaw-droppingly misleading lecture accusing both parties of having an anti-Semitism problem by comparing elected officials like Omar and Tlaib — who have been embraced by their party, take part in policy making, and now widely defended on the mainstream left — to a fringe Nazi murderer who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, whom not a single Republican supports and has nothing to do with the GOP. The very fact that Todd was forced to shoehorn these comparisons is revealing.
In truth, Pelosi’s first watered-down resolution would have passed with most Republicans voting for it, and a number of Democrats defecting. This would have been embarrassing. So she promised to dilute it, and even that wasn’t enough for Democrats. Now, leadership is poised to pass some pointless resolution condemning all hatred.
Omar, an intellectual lightweight, is certainly a problem for America. But the fact that Democrats apparently believe what she says is fine is an absolute disaster.

David Harsanyi, The Federalist 44 Comments [3/8/2019 11:49:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 142541

(Note:A series of quotes on this guys page ranting about the late night Amber alert that culminated in the murder of a missing girl. Some of these tweets were posted after her murder.)

@Scott_Gilmore
and did this amber alert help ...NO! It s up to the police to look for the child not 99.9999999999 percent in bed... at least we should be able to opt out saint scott..

@Scott_Gilmore
really ... when .00000008 percent affects us all then we have a problem.

@AMBERAlertONT
STOP THESE ALERTS...WHY SHOULD 99.99999% OF THE POPULATION SUFFER AND BE AWOKEN BY THESE ALERTS. THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY...MAYBE NOTIFYING SIGNS ON HIGHWAYS OR SOMETHING..THIS WAS INSANE LAST NIGHT!!!! STOP IT

@AMBERAlertONT
I do NOT APPRECIATE RECEIVING AMBER ALERTS...CAN I OPT OUT. LAST NIGHT I WAS AWOKEN A FEW TIMES ON MY CELL AS WELL AS MY TV WHICH I USE TO FALL ASLEEP. THERE SHOULD AT LEAST BE A TIME LIMIT WHEN THEY CAN SEND THESE OUT NOT MIDNIGHT! ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ONLY ..

@peel_pa
I DONT APPRECIATE THE AMBER ALERT TONIGHT. Why should ALL OF ONTARIO BE NUISANCED BY THIS NOT ONCE BUT AT LEAST 5 times... i want thus changed!!!!!!

Motherpuker67, Twitter 6 Comments [3/15/2019 6:41:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 142469

Chicago (CNN) -- Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollet paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

The men, who are brothers, were arrested Wednesday but released without charges Friday after Chicago police cited the discovery of "new evidence."

The sources told CNN the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.

Smollett told authorities he was attacked early January 29 by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." He said one attacker put a rope around his neck and poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

The sources told CNN there are records that show the two brothers purchased the rope found around Smollett's neck at a hardware store in Chicago.

CNN's attempts Saturday to reach both Smollett's representative and attorney were unsuccessful.

Smollett identifies as gay and since 2015 has played the gay character of Jamal on the Fox TV drama "Empire."

What happened

According to Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, the actor told detectives he was attacked by two men near the lower entrance of a Lowe's store in Chicago. Police were told the two men yelled "'Empire' fa***t" and "'Empire' n***er'" while striking him.

The day after the incident, police released surveillance images that showed two silhouetted individuals walking down a sidewalk, and police said they were wanted for questioning.

The two men were arrested Wednesday. Police on Friday said the men were being viewed as "potential suspects" and that detectives had "probable cause that they may have been involved in an alleged crime."

But by Friday night they had been released, Guglielmi said, "due to new evidence as a result of today's investigations."

"And detectives have additional investigative work to complete," he added.

One of the men has appeared on "Empire," Guglielmi said. A police source also told CNN on Friday night that the men had a previous affiliation with Smollett, but did not provide additional details.

Jussie Smollet, CNN 6 Comments [3/15/2019 6:35:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 142381

Behind the Scenes, It’s Clear Chicago Media and Police Doubt Jussie Smollett’s Story

I can’t recall a large crime story where there was a bigger gap between what the police and media are saying publicly, and what they expressing behind the scenes, than the saga involving the recent alleged hate crime against actor Jussie Smollett. Similarly, there may not be a story where you can tell more by what has not happened, in comparison to what actually has occurred.

The current public stance of the Chicago police is that earlier this month, at 2 a.m. on a very cold Chicago night, Smollett was the victim of what appears to be a heinous hate crime where he was physically attacked by two men, and humiliated due to his race, homosexuality, and possibly his opposition to President Donald Trump. The Chicago media, in official reports, has largely treated that narrative as legitimate, while chronicling the complete lack of suspects and corroborating evidence as more of a frustration than any indication that something else might be going on here.

Behind the scenes, however, based on conversations I have had with multiple people covering the story, there is a radically different take on what really did happen to Smollett. In short, there is near unanimity among police sources that Smollett’s story is very likely not true. And that even the media outlets still regurgitating the current “party line” don’t really believe it.

In my experience, most people are very bad at reading the tea leaves in these types of situations, and it often leads to very inaccurate interpretations of what is really going on. This case has several important elements which, if you know what to look for, make evaluating the actions of the police and news media really rather easy.

The first thing you need to understand about this situation is that, because of Smollett’s persona and the nature of his allegation, no one in law enforcement or the news media wants any part of publicly questioning his story. Everyone knows that if they make any sort of negative implication against a black, gay, liberal, celebrity, victim of a horrible hate crime, that they will be roundly and severely attacked, regardless of whether they turn out to be correct.

As a conservative, I look at this as his Political Correctness Force Field. Smollett’s protection here is literally about as strong as it gets, especially in Chicago, a city that has a large black population and is extremely liberal.

So, in this hyper-sensitive media environment, any sort of deviation from the accepted storyline by the police or the news media, much like if your seven-year-old kid is showing subtle signs they no longer believe in Santa Claus, must be given exponentially greater significance than it normally would. Here, both the police and news media in Chicago have provided plenty of those types of veiled indications, both publicly and privately.

Among other things, the police have made it very clear they have not yet found any proof of an attack, despite having almost all of Smollett’s movements on surveillance video. They have disclosed that Smollett would not give over his cell phone to verify his timeline of events. They even published photos of “persons of interest” that they had to know were going to be universally mocked for being obviously irrelevant.

In my view, none of those important revelations would have been made public in the way that they were, unless there was extreme suspicion within the police force that Smollett’s story was not fully accurate.

By extension, media figures would not be being told by their police sources, as I have been told is currently happening both routinely and with vigor, that the authorities are acting on the assumption that they will never find any evidence to fully substantiate Smollett’s story. This isn’t just happening via idle speculation either, the police are doing so with great specificity, even including an alternative theory for what really happened (current attempts to find the origin of the rope found around Smollett’s neck long after the event was over are believed to be the most likely game-changer, if there ever is one in this case).

As for the Chicago media, a couple of local television reporters are apparently using Twitter as a confessional for information about the case that their stations currently fear to air. Rob Elgas of the Chicago ABC affiliate, and Rafer Weigel of the Fox station (which carries Smollett’s show Empire) have continually updated the developments, or lack thereof, in a way that paints a much different picture from the one that viewers would see on an actual newscast.

It is very obvious that if one major news outlet in Chicago had the guts to be the first to openly discredit Smollett’s story, the others would soon follow the leader. But because the risk of being wrong in this situation (see Smollett’s PC Force Field), there is just no incentive to take that dive until and unless the police finally make a definitive statement.

I have written previously about my skepticism about the case, and speculated that this story would quickly disappear because there is no way it would get conclusively solved, and no one in authority will have any appetite for the perils of debunking a story from someone like Smollett. However, Weigel tweeted out some rather candid thoughts yesterday which gave me slight hope that maybe we will actually get to the truth of this matter (though, if that truth is indeed as those closest to the story suspect that it is, the news cycle created by that shocking disclosure will probably be exceedingly short).

John Ziegler, Mediaite 3 Comments [3/15/2019 6:24:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 142787

[Serious] Secular humanism is one of the main reasons why this society hates incels

I will continue with the analysis of the modern West and why it is so hateful towards the incels.

The secular humanist mentality that is prevalent in the West is that humans are masters of their own destiny and if you do something wrong, you need to find a solution and fix it. This is the mentality of the modern Western society and it is from this position that incels are judged in the sense that you need to stop complaining and find solutions, usually followed by either a some generic useless advice (just do this, just do that) or straight ridicule.

Once you examine secular humanism a bit more, you realize that it comes from arrogance. In reality, human beings are not in control of everything and never will be.

To illustrate the difference between the Western secular humanist mentality and non-Western non-secularist religious mentality: I remember an interview with some European jihadi fighter who said that American soldiers get PTSD from wars while the true religious Muslim soldiers don't suffer from it because from a religious viewpoint, if you tried to do something with good intentions then you shouldn't feel guilty about yourself even if you came up short. On the other hand, the Western man, under the influence of the secular humanist mentality, will start blaming himself for his mistakes and his position in life. A Western secularistic atheist soldier who came out of cruel war will inevitably start blaming himself that he went through bloodshed and traumatic events, while a religious soldiers like medieval crusaders would see it as God's divine providence (a doctrine which asserts that God is in complete control of all things) and God's will. This is also the reason while medieval Christian soldiers were so much mentally tougher than the modern Western soldiers, the Christian warriors of the past went through gruesome medieval battles yet remained sane and found strength in religion, but these modern NATO soldiers seem broken. On the other hand, when you look at the religious jihadis today, like the Taliban for example, they have amazing will power and faith in what they're doing.

Now, I don't want to turn this into an argument about religion as such. You might say that religion is a cope, but you even from this perspective you can probably see it as a good cope for those who believe in it.

Either way, the more important thing is to understand how this reflects on social level, because this is what is the most relevant for us.

For the Western secularist society and in the eyes of secular humanism, you (as individuals) are the root of your own problems. The West doesn't believe in things like God's providence and at the same time it believes that the modern West is a wonderful progressive society. So in their eyes, who could be blamed for your problems but you yourselves as individuals?

Western secularism is a very peculiar ideology because while it technically stands only for separation of state and religion, it does this from the position that the state is superior to religion, thus making the State the new religion. You can observe this easily, whenever people point out that state and religion should be separated, the latter is seen as negative, while the state is never questioned. They basically mean that the state should be protected from religion and not the other way around (Western secularists, for example, don't have a problem when state institutions start meddling into "backward" religions and punish religious people for "hate speech" and things like that - where is the separation here?).

Western secularism worships the state, its institutions, its ideological norms (muh freedom, muh equality), its laws. It also worships progress and science and this material world the West created. Secular humanism is basically the key mindset behind it, as it believes that through these instruments, an ideal rationalistic society will eventually be implemented, or at least, we will get as close to is as possible. They believe that we're on our way there.

So whenever you, as a man, complain in the West that something is wrong not because of you and your individual failures but because of some factors out of your control - yet alone if you directly blame the state and society for it, like many incels do - the Western society doesn't want to hear it. The position of Western secularist ideology is: "We (as in, our state with its institutions) gave you this wonderful progressive society with freedom and equality, if you can't make it, then YOU are the problem because YOU didn't work hard enough for it." That's why this society is so aggressive towards incels because the incels question the fundamentals of this secularist state-worship and institution-worship.

The only people who can complain in the West are groups that do it in the context of the ruling ideology of "freedom" and "progress" like the feminist women, LGBT, "minorities" etc. because they argue that their problems will eventually be solved as we become more "progressive". They don't blame the modern society as such, but rather say that this society isn't modern enough. So they fit in the narrative and strengthen the secularist state.

But when incels blame the society for the problems, this is where the secularist West doesn't want to hear it. The West doesn't want to give legitimacy to a group of men that blame things that are out of their control for their problems because then it would give up on its own legitimacy. So this is why, at first, the Western society tried to respond to incel problem by trying to help (this is how the inceldom first started to be discussed in the 90s) and when they saw that they couldn't do anything to solve it, they started ridiculing it and mocking it and at the same time trying to repress it (we're in this stage now in the 2010s).

A response of a non-Western, non-secularist traditional religious society to the incel situation would be very different. In a traditional religious society, people in incel position (those who can't find wives) would be seen as the less fortunate. They wouldn't be blamed for their problems, or at least no exclusively. For example Catholic Church always gave advice to people who couldn't marry (who were basically 'incels') to accept celibacy as a blessing (basically they should become 'volcels'). Again, I'm aware that many of you wouldn't like such advice either, but the key difference is that in a religious society, you wouldn't be personally blamed for your inceldom and you wouldn't be ridiculed or attacked for it. It would be seen as God's divine providence and something outside of your control. IMO this would be a much better position than being seen as an evil outcast.

I think the main reason why many of us are so resentful of this modern society is because of this BS secular-humanist-like advice of "find solutions and fix it" and "it is your own fault" type of mentality which inevitable leads to mockery and attack on basic human dignity ("no woman likes incels because they're evil/losers/lazy/have bad personality"). In reality, love and relationships in this modern dating world are a perfect example of something that is not in your own control. You can't force people to like you, it's as simple like that. If there is one thing you can't possibly have any control over, it's this. It's basically in God's hands - if you're religious. And if you're not religious then you can explain it by losing the genetic lottery. It all comes down to similar things, basically - it was something out of your control.

Like I said, whether you're religious or atheistic is not really relevant here. The modern West is not atheist but rather "pagan" because it worships this idols like the secularist state and its ideology. So even if you're an atheist, you should have a problem with this. The Westerners are really fanatical in their modern 'paganism', and that's why they don't want to accept that a group of men (the incels) has it so bad in their wonderful modern society that they worship like some pagan idol-worshipers.

Teutonic Knight, incels.is 18 Comments [3/12/2019 4:03:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 142801

Shaden_Freud_e:
ITT i shall argue that an atheistic society destroys social darwinism and eugenics by; Promoting low birth rates trough supporting birth control and gay rights Opposing any form of warfare Allowing the poor to thrive and seeking to limit the power of the rich All this amounts to a dysgenic society.

Atheism doesn't require any of that.
Promoting low birth rates trough supporting birth control and gay rights

Pro-eugenics groups have historically been in favor of low birth rates for undesirable demographics, so that's a bit simplistic. They sterilized a number of black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, and poorer white women in the US, while also demanding that middle- and upper-class women bear many children to prevent "race suicide".
By the way, it's not like we need more people on this planet right now.
Opposing any form of warfare

Warfare right now is no longer as reliant on genetics. You don't need to be physically healthy to launch a missile or call in a drone strike. I also don't see how generally being averse to war is a bad thing, as long as you can get involved when it's necessary. Your genetics also can't save you from getting hit by an IED in some hellhole.
Allowing the poor to thrive and seeking to limit the power of the rich

Oh, no, not equality! If you're looking for the best to rise, then fucking over most people in favor of the guys with some cash isn't the way to go. You think the rich are limited right now when they can bribe their way into top schools and get a born advantage to everyone?
This argument is pretty trash, and I fear for a society that you desire.

Robertredgreen:
I STAND by no inequality. The rich havebeen denied their due status and villified all across the media. I notice you said"hellhole" Is the great nation of afghanistan,who teaches usa how to treat women,a "hellhole"? Is DETROIT a hellhole? I stand by the third world. The first world is anti eugeni

Shaden_Freud_e:
I STAND by no inequality. The rich havebeen denied their due status and villified all across the media. I notice you said"hellhole" Is the great nation of afghanistan,who teaches usa how to treat women,a "hellhole"? Is DETROIT a hellhole? I stand by the third world. The first world is anti eugeni

Funny, isn't it, that you decided not to address the majority of the argument. The rich have their status and they can get away with literal murder. Don't you deserve to be vilified if you can cheat your way into Yale on Daddy's dime? And are you trolling by saying Afghanistan is the best exemplar of how to treat women, or are you a misogynistic asshole?

We should be extremely wary of eugenics, given its track record, unless you're really into involuntary sterilization, pressuring other women to bear kids, and Nazism. Wouldn't surprise me if you were, but.

Robertredgreen:
No,you do not. Learn to accept others good luck. I Embrace afgaghnistan. Take the black pill. You call me an asshole but im defending you from thots who will cheat on you for another man I dont have any hard words for nazism. Sterilization is bad because even the poor must breed.

Robertredgreen, r/DebateAnAtheist 2 Comments [3/14/2019 5:29:46 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 142813

Inceldom as subcontious level of society

According to psychonalysis, people try to ihibite negative thoughts , emotions, pushing them into subcountiousnes, because those inhibeted contents of subcontiousness are too painfull to be faced.
Projecting this psychological law onto social model we can assume the following ; incel subculture is subcontious level of society , wich , naturaly enough, society tries to inhibite by such methods as censurship, ban, ridicule ( I.T.) even Do'S attacks end et. c. Endeed Incel' s omniresent black pill is the truth that is extremely hard to swallow.
According to psychonalysis the result of supression of unpleasant contents of contiousness into uncountiisness is the distrortion of countiosness , namely, neurosis or psychosis in worse case.
And we see, endeed, that society rapidly loses its mind plunging into collective schizophrenia. By suppressing the truth of black pill they lost grip of reality.

Nothingness, incels.is 9 Comments [3/14/2019 5:32:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 142803

Stop Funding Hate: Great to see that Center Parcs is now trending in the UK! Unsurprisingly, the trolls are now out in force with all the abuse & venom we've come to expect - but let's keep it polite & friendly and set a different tone by refusing to respond in kind! #LoveNotHate

Martin Yirrell: Homosexuality isn't about love, it's about lust.


Nathan: What are you basing that on?

Martin Yirrell: Love never causes another to sin, homosexual activity is sin, thus homosexual activity is only about lust.

Martin Yirrell, Twitter 11 Comments [3/14/2019 5:30:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 142773

If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.

Back in the seventies, when I taught in college, feminism was new and cool. So my ideas on manhood were viewed as the social construct of a dying chauvinistic era. I had not yet been enlightened that competencies, not divine wiring, governed the roles we assume. Unfazed, I said no.

What Real Men Do

Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

And collectively that is what society does — unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly. God created man first in order to say that man bears a primary burden for protection, provision, and leadership. And when man and woman rebelled against God’s ways, God came to the garden and said, Adam, where are you? (Genesis 3:9), not Eve, where are you? And when the apostle described the implications of being created male and female, the pattern he celebrates is: Save her, nourish her, cherish her, give her life (Ephesians 5:25–29).

God wrote manhood and womanhood on our hearts. Sin ruins the imprint without totally defacing it. It tells men to be heavy handed oafs or passive wimps. It tells women to be coquettes or controllers. That is not God’s imprint. Deeper down men and women know it.

John Piper, Desiring God 19 Comments [3/12/2019 4:03:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 142778

"People don't become homosexual because of traumatic events from childhood. Look at a book written later than 1950."

Which book do you suggest?

Have you read any book that researches the subject and discovered that all homosexuals interviewed have had a deficient relationship with their father and as a result have an identity problem which is the cause of their choice to adopt the homosexual way of life.

If they don't choose then every act of homosexuality is rape.

2marktime2, Christian News Network 15 Comments [3/12/2019 4:03:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 142786

This is the song if you go ER and get caught

[Music video of Bohemian Rhapsody]
"Mama, just killed a man
Put a gun against his head Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
.
.
.
But I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me
He's just a poor boy from a poor family
Spare him his life from this monstrosity
Easy come easy go - will you let me go "

FinnCel, incels.is 10 Comments [3/12/2019 4:03:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 3856

Our society is not Pro-gay I am sure But, we are on the road to it. Gays are getting more respect(even just a little) if youve noticed.

Fully Cooly, Christian Forums 13 Comments [9/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: -2

Quote# 142796

If you are an atheist, when you die, what would make you think that you would end up in heaven? That is ludicrous. Would you want to suddenly spend years with someone whom for most of your life you have never talked to, ignored, and even denied their existence? Well, as an atheist, that is how you have been acting towards God, so when you die, you will realize how dreadful that you have acted towards the all loving and caring God.

At the time of death you will of course believe in God, and at the same time feel such a dreadful shame that you will not want to face Him. It is you who will actually banish yourself from His presence. Since God dwells in Heaven, you will choose the opposing dwelling place, which is Hell. Of course God will sentence you to that place, but it will be what you have sought all your life, to be out of God’s presence, so it will be only natural for you to want to continue in that manner despite the dire circumstances.

Of course most atheists, though they want to pretend that they are just as moral and upstanding as any Christian, in most instances have some underlying depravity that does not jive with recognizing that there is a Supreme Being that has set in place certain laws which all men are bound to follow, so there will of course be the other physical punishments that will be part of the Hell that you as an atheist will have chosen.

Of course God gave you a free will, and also an inherent ability to know that there must be a God from the beauty and order observed in nature and the universe. Using Evolution as a crux for trying to deny a Creator is not ever able to be totally convincing for anyone. But as long as you still have life, you are free to use that free will to change the road that you are following on your way to Hell. Hopefully you will at some point make that necessary change before it is over. The choice though is entirely yours.

Tom Heck, BS Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin - Madison (1991), Quora 27 Comments [3/13/2019 4:56:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 142763

Look how easily entire western nations have been overthrown and filled with demonic Islam.

Wake up America. They are working hard to do the same to our nation.

The stupid leftists who are too dimwitted to see the facts make me sick.

They won't take over the USA as easily, but they certainly don't care who they harm to get their way. Pelosi called it "collateral damage."

Make no mistake, Americans will fight against this.

Then we will have to contend with all the satanic nations that were once our allies.

We'll have to whip their asses too.

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 14 Comments [3/12/2019 4:02:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 30166

Because of Jesus' death on the cross, I doubt humanity will ever invent a time travel device where you can alter the past. God would want Jesus' death to be the end of sin, and not allow anyone( man or spirit), to go back in time and stop it from happening.

JamesSager3, Foru.ms 41 Comments [10/18/2007 10:51:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Jeremy PC

Quote# 142765

Swamp Wars Video Game

(Note - apologies to those who can't see the illustrations, but Mick's artwork is so poor I can't properly put it into words...first photo appears to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rendered as Medusa with snake hair attacking a trim, young, beefy-looking Trump, but the others are unfathomable.)
(I added descriptions of the pictures. But yes, no idea what is supposed to be going on there. - Bastethotep)

It's the new game featuring you as ruler of a kingdom under siege from within! Your subjects have been heavily indoctrinated by twisted school teachers. Can you save the day?


(Trump, clad in plate armour and looking worried, is followed by a gorgon wearing a maniacally grinning mask that doesn't match her skin colour, all her hair-snakes lunging forwards in formation. The background is a photo of a foggy swamp with dead trees.)

Battle the evil Speaker of the House of Horrors and her minions! She's throwing open the kingdom's borders to get votes in an effort to oust you from office!


(A leaning woman with a bony neck, making a grimace. Behind her stands a laughing red-eyed black skeleton. From the back of the woman's head or the skeleton's left shoulder, smoke rises.

Contend with a satanic media out to get you 24/7! They're turning the populace against you with vicious lies!


(Photo of people looking at a big TV screen at the back of a truck. Badly photoshopped onto the screen is a Mick Williams "drawing" of a brunette man.)

Battle the Hildabeast as she tries to corrupt your allies!


(A gigantic disembodied gorgon head. Her original face has been badly erased and replaced with another, much too small, off-center tired expressionless female face. On her left side, she is bound by a cloud(?) chain that is breaking. On her right side, one of her hair-snakes knocks down a figure in power armour, an orange surcoat and a dark-orange belt and helmet. In the foreground, silhouettes of figures wearing horned helmets watch the scene.)

Over 50 terrifying levels of challenging gameplay. Can the Trumpinator survive the demonic hordes?

Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 31 Comments [3/12/2019 4:02:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 142770

(Liner notes of their album "Hail Metal.... Destroy Faggotry!" Keep in mind that The Raunchous Brothers are a mix of hardcore punk and thrash metal.)



TRANSCRIPTION:

Before Heavy Metal there was nothing. In ancient times, battle hymns would inspire and lead many legions of Romans, Barbarians, Vikings and other warriors into battle. Then, of course, came the classical masters such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner, whose expertise in song structure, time changes, counterpoint, melodies, harmonies, etc, is reflected in the brilliance and power that is Heavy Metal music. In these modern times, the one and only musical form that contains the virtues of honour, strength, testosterone and pride needed to lead us proud warriors of today into battle is Heavy Metal. Metal is powerful, glorious and truly elite.

Hip-Hop/Rap caters to uneducated and mindless robots who are slaves to a destructive criminal trend. Punk, Hardcore and Indie Rock are degenerate and subversive forms of brainwashing. This shit exists for the sole purpose of emasculating our United States of America and promoting an agenda of faggotry and Marxism. We shall never allow ourselves to be influenced by the lies that have been forced upon us by these leftist traitors. These parasites and their nauseating way of life demand everything of this world, but offer nothing of value in return. May they all DIE IN PAIN!

We are The Raunchous Brothers, proud speed metal warriors of the superior tradition.
We hail the honour and the glory of Heavy Metal and accept nothing else.
We shall never tolerate the acceptance of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, liberals and leftist bolsheviks.
We are forever committed to waging a relentless war against all forms of faggotry.
HAIL METAL....DESTROY FAGGOTRY!

The Raunchous Brothers, Deathrune Records 19 Comments [3/12/2019 4:02:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 142790

George Pell sentenced to six years' jail for sexually abusing two choirboys

Cardinal George Pell has been sentenced to six years' jail for sexually abusing two choirboys when he was Catholic archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s.

Pell, 77, was found guilty by a jury last December of sexually abusing the choirboys after a Sunday mass in December 1996 and then assaulting one of them a second time two months later.

The man who was once Australia's most powerful Catholic sat in the dock dressed in a black shirt and a grey blazer, without a clerical collar, as County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd delivered his sentence.

The chief judge described Pell's abuse of two choirboys in the sacristy at St Patrick's Cathedral as "a brazen and forcible sexual attack on the victims".

"The acts were sexually graphic, both victims were visibly and audibly distressed during the offending," he said.

"There is an added layer of degradation and humiliation that each of your victims must have felt in knowing that their abuse had been witnessed by the other."

"There was a clear relationship of trust with the victims and you breached that trust and abused your position to facilitate this offending," the chief judge said.

"I would characterise these abuses and breaches as grave."

Pell will serve a minimum of three years and eight months in jail before he will be eligible for parole.

He continues to deny he sexually abused the boys and has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including that the jury verdict was unreasonable.

'Breathtakingly arrogant' offending

Chief Judge Kidd said the power imbalance between the victims and Pell as a senior church official was "stark".

"The brazenness of your conduct is indicative of your sense of authority and power in relation to the victims," he said.

"You may have thought you could control the situation by reason of your authority, as archbishop, whether or not that belief was well-founded.

"Such a state of mind would have been extraordinarily arrogant, but the offending which the jury has found you have engaged in was in any view breathtakingly arrogant."

The chief judge said Pell's abuse had had a "significant and long-lasting impact" on the wellbeing of one of his victims, whom he referred to as J.

"J has experienced a range of negative emotions which he has struggled to deal with for many years since this offending occurred … he has found it difficult because of issues of trust and anxiety.

"I take into account the profound impact your offending has had on J's life."

The chief judge said he did not have the benefit of a victim impact statement from his other victim, referred to as R, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014 and never reported the abuse.

"However on the basis of J's account at trial I am able to say your offending must have had an immediate and significant impact on R," Chief Judge Kidd said.

"Whilst it is not possible for me to quantify the harm caused, or articulate precisely how it impacted on R in the long run, I have no doubt that it did in some way."

The chief judge gave permission for the hearing to be broadcast live by media outlets and the court room was packed with abuse survivors, advocates and journalists.

[...]

Pell's crimes committed at cathedral

The court heard that Pell abused the choirboys, who cannot be identified, after celebrating one of his first Sunday masses as archbishop at St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne.

He caught them drinking altar wine in the priest's sacristy, which was off limits to the choir.

One of the former choirboys gave evidence Pell had planted himself in the doorway and said something like "what are you doing here?" or "you're in trouble".

The then-archbishop moved his robes to expose his penis and forced one of the boys' heads down towards it.

The trial heard one of the choirboys asked: "Can you let us go? We didn't do anything."

But instead Pell moved onto the other choirboy. He pushed the boy's head down to his crotch and orally raped him.

After a few minutes, Pell ordered the boy to remove his pants and then molested him as he masturbated.

Pell abused that boy a second time two months later, after another Sunday mass when he pushed him up against the wall of a corridor in the back of the cathedral and groped him briefly.

Evidence of the abuse came from that former choirboy alone, who was the victim of two assaults.

The Court of Appeal is expected to hear Pell's appeal over two days in June.

Cardinal George Pell, ABC News 12 Comments [3/13/2019 4:53:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 142808

(="The delightful (cough) Martin Yirrell explains the xtian stance on babies. Enjoy.." note: Martin's actual qoute couldn't be found so we're relying on a picture=)

Babies are rebels too, not with such an accumulation of sin as you have, yet they too deserve hell. God offers you mercy.

Martin Yirrell, Twitter 7 Comments [3/14/2019 5:31:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 103634

To explain how evolution is impossible, let's take for example an XBOX 360. Let's give it a female counterpart for good luck. If you put them in a house full of food and fresh water, and then give them millions of years, do you think they will ever give birth to a Play Station 3?

No, of course not. The same impossibility applies to any animal today. If you take two dogs, and let them breed for millions of years, are they ever going to produce a non-dog? Like a bird, or a chimpanzee? No, of course not. They will always give birth to a dog.

Here's another example:

Now, my wife is black, and I am white. And the odds of her giving birth to a child... that has wings... is slim to none. Now, in evolution the change has to be beneficial to the species. And flying would be a great benefit. But that's impossible... UNLESS... WE TRY OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!

Yes, that's it! The magic formula for evolution is MILLIONS OF YEARS!

We can clearly see from these two examples that evolution is impossible. There is absolutely no logical proof for evolution.

Brian Price, Value of Truth 55 Comments [9/22/2014 3:09:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 142779

The fact is the people with loveless live are the sexually active homosexuals.
Research was done with 200 homosexuals over a period of 2 years and the first and foremost finding was that the one thing they were not and that is gay.
He said that they were the unhappiest people that he had ever met.

2marktime2, Christian news Network 6 Comments [3/12/2019 4:03:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 142769

Science is the most powerful religion created against God, to manipulate and implement false doctrines, in which false gods are worshipped such as, heliocentrism, evolutionism, big bang, gravity, astronomy... and in which the term "theory" is equivalent to the word #faith.


(Spanish original: La ciencia es la religión más poderosa creada en contra de Dios, para manipular e implementar falsas doctrinas, donde se rinde culto a falsos dioses como, heliocentrismo, evolucionismo, big bang, gravedad, astronomía...Y donde el término 'teoria' equivale a la palabra #fe.)

La Verdad nos hará Libres, Twitter 12 Comments [3/12/2019 4:02:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Davy Jones Award

for horrible heartlessness

Quote# 136165

Depends on the circumstance. If it was self defence, then probably. If it was cold blooded murder then no, I'd call the police. Blind love like that leads to messed up cases like the moors murderers. I couldn't live with myself knowing I'm just letting someone cause harm to society


Harm to society????laughing out loud.

One person dying will not harm society apart from the emotional 'greef' that the family will experience that will be temporary.

Rapeyapey, Reddit 15 Comments [1/24/2018 8:37:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top