This post got some comments from liberals.
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=100124
The comments are worth reading because they provide solid evidence for why Western society must be destroyed. Hopefully the Russians, Chinese, or Islam will eventually do the job and wipe out Western culture.
Double standard: Extramarital sex is worse by women than by men.
Reason:
When a woman has extramarital sex, there is a chance that this will result in her husband raising a child that isn't his. But if a man has extramarital sex, there is no chance that this will result in his wife raising a child that isn't hers. This is a basic asymmetry. You could argue that contraception solves the problem. But our feelings evolved before contraception and the strength of our feelings are a result of the consequences in primitive times. This is why a cheating wife causes great emotional harm to her husband. Similarly, rape causes emotional distress to women because they lose control of choosing the father of their child. Rape with contraception doesn't reduce the emotional distress because this is a result of evolution, not logic.
What women really want from a husband is commitment. This is what they need to feel comfortable having children with the husband and raising a family. She wants commitment to be assured that the husband will always be there to support the family, especially when the wife is pregnant or with infants which put her in a weak position. So why are women so upset by male extramarital sex? Because modern women have been brainwashed to believe that male extramarital sex is an indication of lack of commitment. Historically you cannot find any instance of women complaining about casual extramarital sex by husbands before Paul started complaining about this in the New Testament. Of course women were jealous of mistresses throughout history, and this make sense since this is a real threat to her husband's commitment to her. It was Paul who introduced this terrible concept of male sexual fidelity to human culture. And even today, it is the degree of influence of Paul-based Christian culture on a society that determines the level of women's jealousy about male extramarital sex. Feminism is an extension of this culture and takes it to new extremes.
Double standard: Women should be virgins at marriage.
Reason:
The fundamental difference between men and women is that men have an unlimited reproductive potential while women's reproductive potential is very limited. When a man has sex, he is giving away nothing of value. But when a woman has sex, she is potentially giving away a large aspect of her life if she gets pregnant. Today we have birth control to eliminate the practical side of this, but this doesn't change the feelings in us that were produced by evolution before birth control. This is why men still greatly value virginity in women, as can be seen in the cases where women auction off their virginity. But women place no value in the virginity of a man because there is no evolutionary basis for this feeling.
A woman who has sex before marriage is being selfish at the expense of her future husband. A normal husband (who places his emotions and common sense over feminist propaganda) would prefer that his wife be a virgin. Women also seem to be changed by premarital sex and are less able to bond with their husband as explained in Why Sluts Make Bad Wives.
The anthropologist Unwin, in his book "Sex and Culture", studied the isolated tribes of his time to determine what best correlated with level of development. He found one fact that perfectly correlated with level of development. This was female premarital chastity. In all the most developed cultures, women were required to be virgins at marriage. Then he looked at history and he found that in all rising cultures, women were required to be virgins at marriage. And in all cultures where this requirement was lost, the culture went into terminal decline.
Women should not vote.
Reason:
The reason that women shouldn't vote has nothing to do with intelligence. The reason is that men's instincts are designed for tribe formation and women's instincts aren't. The natural structure of tribes of both humans and chimpanzees is for the tribe to be run by males. Men have a sense of fairness that comes with this role. Women have no such sense of fairness. Men naturally develop a loyalty to the tribe and will act in the tribe's best interest. The loyalty of women is always primarily based on family, particularly her children. When women are given the vote, they will always support these things; a strong central government to support them, the right to sexually provoke men without consequences, and the right to cheat on their husbands. These are women's primary political concerns. In a democracy that includes women, immoral men and almost all women will vote for these things and ruin society.
Solution:
For equality, one can have separate governments for men and women. Under this system, men would elect a men's government to govern men and women would elect a women's government to govern women. This would prevent women from using the government to oppress men. What would be the result of such a system? The answer is that women wouldn't bother voting in such a system. If you look at all the political actions of women, they are all about controlling men. Women have no interest in controlling or regulating women. Women want a strong government to force men to hire women, to protect women from men, and to tax men to support women. Women want divorce laws to force men to pay alimony and child support to women. And women want to be free to sexually provoke men while having the government prevent any response from men which women call "sexual harassment". There isn't one single thing that women want from government that involves restricting women in any way.
Here is another reposted HA thread:
*************
Since the perception of the whole rape issue by feminized Western men is complete bullshit, I thought I would point out the obvious.
1. Feminist females define "rape" as being any sex they later regret. It is not so much that they will lie and say you raped them when they know you didn't. If you have sex and then they regret it for some reason, such as that you are of lower perceived status than they thought, then as far as they are concerned you "raped" them. Conversely, if you threw a female to the ground, ripped her clothes off and f***ed her without so much as a by your leave and she felt positive about what happened later on, it would probably not even occur to her to think she was raped. Increasingly the ZOG pigs and shysters are following this feminist definition of rape. Thus the very same physical actions on the man's part could see him categorized either as a great lover or rapist depending on the later claimed emotional response of the female. Since it is not possible to objectively examine an emotional response, it follows that most "rape" cases are now prosecuted on spectral evidence, similar to the Salem witch trials.
2. If we define "rape" as being forced sex, females do not think this is particularly bad or a big deal. Only self-hating manginas think rape is a big deal. Females like manly men who take charge of them and do what they want to them, not sniveling manginas begging them for sex and asking their permission nanosecond by nanosecond. Hence most erotic fiction aimed at females contains rape or quasi-rape scenes and females getting off on being raped is well known in criminology circles. In contexts where it is desirable and socially acceptable for them to have sex, females generally like being raped.
3. If females are not really opposed to rape, why then do they want men to be jailed whenever they claim rape? It is simply because feminist females are criminally insane psychopaths who think that non-elite men should be jailed, robbed, killed or whatever whenever they feel like it. Sure they will come up with something bad you have supposedly done as an excuse to have the pigs attack you, but they regard this as a quaint formality.
4. Rape is not considered to be a big deal by evil Western regimes because of supposed physiological damage to the female (which is to say, because the female's feelings may be hurt). I mean, how f***ing ridiculous would that be - to imprison someone for years at enormous expense for hurting some skank's feelings. It is incredible that anyone takes this aspect of the rape nonsense seriously. Traditionally rape was a property crime against the female's owner, and so it remains. Today the ruling class assert that they own females, along with everything else. This is what feminism is all about. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, any sexual contact with females by non-elite men is a property crime against them. This policy is slowly being phased in and made more apparent. Eventually they will drop the silly hurt feelings bogosity and tell it like it is.
5. Sane societies do not revolve around the idiot "consent" or other mindless whims of females. In sane societies females are placed under the control of men such as their husbands, fathers, pimps or whoever, and those men decide when they will have sex or not within the rules of that society. Often it would be considered the obligation females to have sex. After all, we all have unchosen obligations, and there is no reason why sex should be any different. The crime of rape consists of forced sex outside the rules of society, such as a burglar forcing a married woman to have sex while robbing her house. As stated, it is really the same today, except it s the ruling class laying claim to all females. The consent thing is a red herring.
Why decent American men are angry and bitter towards women
American women love to be smartasses and say guys like me are just bitter because we aren't getting laid. Let me just say that I don't completely disagree with them but their argument is too simplistic and doesn't tell the full story. Furthermore their argument doesnt acknowledge womens responsibility in the matter. We all know that men like sex and going without does suck. But that's not the biggest reason men are angry at women. So why are men angry at women? It's very simple.... American women ally themselves with evil men. If you look at all the wars in history they have been a struggle between decent men and evil men. And when women ally themselves with evil men they become the enemy of decent men. But this still doesn't explain why women are the main target of decent men's rage today instead of the evil men they are with. I think there are multiple factors at play that are causing this. For one, American women are teases and love sexually provoking men. American women also actively oppose prostitution, thus preventing a significant percentage of men from getting any sort of sexual release. And lastly American women dress and behave like sluts so guys are constantly reminded of what they are missing in life. I think these things are what cause men to focus their anger on women instead of other men. But the fact that women ally themselves with evil men is the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes men really angry. If you look at all the men that have lashed out at society there's a common theme. These guys were bullied by other men, men that are usually very successful with women. I think this is what really drives certain men over the edge. Most men have an idealized image of female morality in their heads and they don't know how to take it when they see women actively engaging in and encouraging evil so they snap. These are my thoughts on the matter anyway. What do you think?
YOUR GIRLFRIEND DESERVES TO DIE
The world would be a much better place to live in if it were guaranteed that wicked men died as virgins. I’d like to be able to point at a typical bully, abuser, or thug and taunt that no woman would ever want him. It’s the only thing they understand. They have no conception of morality, unable to perceive humanity as having any purpose beyond feeding, fighting and fucking. Especially fucking.
We’re taught that women are the arbiters, offering future offspring to those whose genes should be passed on. We’re taught that they drive the process of evolution by selecting only the best and the brightest men.
Oh, I wish. Why bother trying to better yourself as a person when there are thousands of battered, raped, psychologically broken and easily manipulated BUT TOTALLY HOT girls turning eighteen every day? They’ll even do anal if you verbally abuse them enough!
I try to keep fighting. I try to deliver punishment whenever I can, within the bounds of social decency, which doesn’t get me far at all. Any argument I can try to lay down is always met with “Yeah, well MY GIRLFRIEND—”
One day, I’d like to be able to respond “Too bad, son. I’m putting her down. Step aside, I’m a professional.” Of course, that’s a lie. I’m not a professional. But I have to start somewhere. If you don’t treat your toys nicely, I throw them away. Because that’s all that these girlfriends are. Toys.
I cannot see them as human beings for they offer nothing to the human experience. They will create no art worth seeing, write no tale worth reading, have no thought that couldn’t be gleaned from Nicholas Sparks novels and trite ‘inspirational’ posters. They have the intellectual curiosity of a germ. They believe that ambitions are something for other people. They seek happiness in nothing but the love they give to others, believing their relationships to be divine and meaningful rather than something that is easily replicated by a Labrador retriever. Therefore they do not know that they are endlessly rewarding the evil deeds of men unworthy, and thus inadvertently weakening society. And quite frankly, they’re not even pretty. Nothing is lost if I put them down. In fact, we have everything to gain. But her mommy and daddy will be sad. :’C Of course your girlfriend isn’t like that, I’m sure she’s a beautiful and unique snowflake. She’s had some troubles in the past, but learning to trust you has made her so much better. Please. there is no such thing as a cute couple none of you fucking fucks are cute you’re all stinking sweating bags of meat propagating a race of pig-apes in the absence of a benevolent god who has either fucked off to another universe or been buried under a pile of innocents lying cold and rotten in a mass grave and here you are making gifs of yourselves kissing as the value of human life continues to deteriorate i would sell your souls for a pistol loaded with a single bullet this is how much i hate you this is how much i hate a world that you exist in my prayers for annihilation dissipate into the empty cosmos and die as you ought to your story ends here
One of the most outrageous crimes against Western civilization has been the inclusion of females in male professions such as science, computer programming, engineering and now even trades. Now we know they generally can't do the job, are only there on an affirmative action basis and deliberately disrupt things with their whining, victim mentality and histrionics. However, for the sake of argument, lets say that weren't the case. Lets say they could actually do the job properly. It would still be disastrous to include them for the following reasons:
1. If a man gets, say, an engineering degree and is actually allowed to have a career in engineering assuming the jobs aren't all given to affirmative action shitbags, then you can generally assume he will be an engineer for about 50 years or so. With a female as often as not she will quit to have children or whenever hubby makes enough money in her late 20s. Maybe she will come back in 10 years or so when her skills are obsolete and her heart is not really in it.
2. Supposing that is not the case and she continues to be a talented engineer her whole life. That inevitably means she is having no children, less children or is neglecting her children, so the engineering genes are being eliminated from the population.
3. Even if the females are not scum, their mere presence destroys unit cohesion. Formerly tight teams of men become rivals for their sexual favors, so any mind meld or creativity goes out the window.
Every single person responsible for the current situation should be regarded as the asshole traitor that he or she is and hanged, drawn, quartered and displayed on a gibet. Millions on scumball traitors should be executed over this issue alone.
[Hyperlinks in original]
The big news this week is that two Islamist gunmen killed twelve people at the French "satirical" weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The world is almost universally outraged by this attack. But not me.
What exactly is Charlie Hebdo? It's in French and I don't read French, but I think a google image search conveys the basic idea.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlie+Hebdo&tbm=isch
From this, we see that "satire" is really just a polite way of saying ridicule. This is a liberal newspaper that ridicules religion and whatever else liberals don't approve of. We can see a similar style of cartoon by googling "nazi jewish cartoons".
http://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+jewish+cartoons&tbm=isch
There isn't much difference except that the Nazis had somewhat better taste than Liberals do. Of course the targets are different, but that doesn't matter, the concept is the same.
Should this kind of thing be tolerated? Whatever the answer, the answer should be consistent. If you are going to tolerate Charlie Hebdo then you should also tolerate Nazi anti-Jewish cartoons. Is France consistent? Please read about Hate speech laws in France. According to these laws, this kind of thing is "hate speech" and should not be tolerated. And in fact Muslims took Charlie Hebdo to court based on this law and lost. This is liberal hypocrisy at its finest. For a liberal, hate speech is only speech against something liberals like. Hate speech against what liberals hate isn't hate speech at all, according to liberals, it is free speech.
So let us summarize what a liberal is. A liberal is a hypocrite who ridicules opposing viewpoints, who is intolerant and legally censors opposing viewpoints, who is totally closed-minded and is unwilling to even listen to opposing viewpoints, and who come out in mass protest when their hypocrisy is threatened. In short, liberals are scum. But does this justify killing them?
On an intellectual level, this is a difficult question. But on an emotional, it is easy. I am filled with joy whenever I hear that liberals have been killed. How could I possibly feel any other way? I have an opposing view to liberals, just as these Muslims do, so the liberals have relentlessly ridiculed and censored me. They are totally incapable of respecting or tolerating opposing viewpoints like mine. Every interaction I have with liberals causes me to hate them more. How could I wish for anything other than their death?
On an intellectual level, I believe in free speech and live and let live. So in theory, liberals should be allowed to be scum and should be left in peace. But this only applies as long as liberals follow the same rules. When the liberal West interferes in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, Muslims have every right to attack back. The argument that these are innocent citizens of the West is absurd. It is precisely propaganda like Charlie Hebdo that causes the public to choose governments that attack Islam. So Charlie Hebdo is a justified target. My only criticism is that while France is quite intolerant internally to Muslims, it is not particularly active against Muslim countries. So Muslims who don't like France should just leave. The same cannot be said for America which relentlessly sticks its nose into the affairs of other nations. So attacks against America are entirely justified.
I am not Muslim, so this is not my problem. So while violence against liberals appeals to me emotionally, I have no intellectual reason to do this and I won't. I will just live my life in peace, and take pleasure in any news of violence against the liberals who I hate.
[Bolding in original]
Eurasian males are the humiliated degraded broken sons of White Dads. They have no claim to their White Dad's right to white women.
Arab and Indian Men are just as rejected by white women, but at least they know how to rape them and turn them into sex slaves. Muslims are facing a Holocaust in Europe, but they are still not afraid to rape, and seduced into prostitution thousands of white girls.
You can blame dating on female choice. But the lack of Asian men raping white women, is solely the fault of the man.
Should Hapa men redeem themselves by raping white women in a revolutionary act?
"In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto "for practice" and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was "an insurrectionary act".[2] When he began writing Soul on Ice, he unequivocally renounced rape and all his previous reasoning about it.[4][6] However, he refused to show any remorse for his career as a rapist, or acknowledge any debt to society, claiming in Soul on Ice that "the blood of Vietnamese peasants has paid off all my debts".[2]
If a Black Panther Mormon can rape white women, using the blood of Vietnam as his excuse, how much more right do Amerasian men have?
Is the most revolutionary think Hapa boys can do rape White women who share the white race of their Fathers?
I'm not an advocate of criminality. I merely ask if Hapas are in the same revolutionary position as Eldridge Cleaver.
Is the Hapa destiny to be solved in the rape of white women?
It makes me kind of angry that they have turned me into such a loser. By letting the Asian race sink so low. Ok it is women who do the sexual selection. But Asian Men could rape more. They have so many comics about rape, but they dont actually rape. White women's opinions don't matter in rape. You can't get rejected by rape. Look at Arab men. White Europe is on the verge of having a Holocaust against Arabs, but that doesn't stop them from raping white women. Your about to be exterminated, and your still raping. That takes balls.
So yes as a Hapa guy, I do hate Asian men for not being rapists enough. Would it hurt my feelings if I had a reputation as a rapist based on my race? beats being a eunuch. rape is totally in the man's control, and asian men can't even do that. I never hear cases of Asian men raping white women. And if Arabs can do it so can they.
Am I hypocrite, since I;m not a rapist myself? Look I'm an aspie retard mutant freak, I could never pull it off. Is the whole Asian race, filled with man-children like me, who cant even rape?
Asian men have betrayed me in 2 ways. 1st they were assholes to me in person, throughout my life. and 2nd they have let their reputation and therfore my reputation sink to shit. And some forms of sex are in their control period.
Many of us were conned into thinking that modern liberalism is about giving females the right to choose when they have sex. If they want to be sluts, that is their choice. If they want to be chaste until they are married and then remain faithful to their husbands, that is fine too. If at any given time they make bad choices, they can learn from their mistakes so in the end everyone is happy.
In fact, in practice nothing could be further from the truth. Liberalism in the context of modern society effectively imposes a wartime mass-rape situation on females, albeit by relatively subtle means.
Here is how the process works. Females derive virtually all their social status by virtue of their perceived sexual desirability. It follows that they will gain status by being associated with males of high sexual status and lose status by being associated with males of low sexual status. Therefore, over time, all females will gravitate to wanting to be sexually associated with a small percentage of males of high sexual status. As an aside, the males of high sexual status will largely be stupid assholes, given that they have high reproductive fitness in the context of modern society, as I explain in this thread.
It follows that every high status male will have several females pursuing him in order to derive social status by the interaction. Over time this means the males will feel inclined to demand immediate sex, since they will know that if one female doesn't give it up, another will. They will then be inclined to up the ante even further, demanding the most degrading sex acts that the Internet can cause them to come up with. In order to have any sexual status at all, which is to say in order to have any status at all, the females will have to play along.
Now, it is not within the female psyche to willingly forgo status and become a social outcast. This is not an option to the overwhelming majority of them. Therefore, once this process is in motion, they are simply along for the ride. They might have planned to be a virgin bride. They might hate every minute of every sex act they consent to. But if they need to do it to fit in, they will.
Hence Western females find themselves in a similar position to German females in 1945, when dim-witted Russian peasants were going around raping everyone in sight (or perhaps they have it a bit worse, given the suggestibility of Internet porn and their complicity in the process). What heavy artillery achieved then, liberalism backed by the resources of the state has achieved now. Effectively the females are being raped, not so much by the dirtbags sticking their dicks and what have you into their various orifices, but by the system and the sadistic animals behind it.
Well done libtards. This is the future you have bequeathed your daughters. If they do not currently have NO CHOICE but to submit to sex acts the likes of which you have never even dreamed of being performed on them by shitbags with retard-level IQs, then that soon will be their situation. Your values in action.
Murder? Killing is only murder when one kills a member of one's own culture. Modern Western culture is not my culture, so I do not consider killing its members to be murder. The Bible makes this point very clearly in the story about the Midianites in Numbers 25 and Numbers 31:1-18.
I don't understand the point of condemning his [Elliot Rodger's] actions. I mean, I don't approve but I am not particularly against the death of Americans.
[Emphasis mine.]
I live in a university town that's overrun with young girls. Here are my observations.
First, while any young man arguably loves seeing naked women, the pleasure gained from looking at naked or semi-naked women can be negated entirely by the context. What I mean by context, is the only time it's enjoyable looking at promiscuously dressed women, is if you can have them on the spot. So if a woman is a hooker or a stripper, then it's enjoyable to watch them. However, if a woman is completely unattainable, then it's mentally and physically unpleasant to look at promiscuous women. Women, out of respect for men, should dress in a way that doesn't excite men. A woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement is the equivalent of a man dressing in such a way that causes a woman to have a sudden onset period. Simply put dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men's sexuality.
Second, how a woman dresses directly affects a man's desires. As you can imagine, my university town, Berkeley California, is one big liberalized hypersexual runway show. I'm forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle. But in this sea of flesh, I'm sometimes struck by an anomaly. Seeing as Berkeley is also a multi-cultural haven, I sometimes have the pleasure of being startled by the sight of conservative muslim and Indian women. It's in these sightings that I've discovered something about my own human nature.
I've discovered only my base urges are awakened when I see sluts. It's as though I'm operating on autopilot and anything short of sex, goes off the radar. Simply put, I cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. I can argue with myself intellectually all I want, but ultimately my actions will be dictated by primal urges. So I'm only able to view sluts as sexual objects. This means as far as actions go, that at best I just want to exploit them for casual sex and at worst I want to rape them.
Yet when I see conservative, modestly dressed muslim and Indian women, I'm amazed by how different I feel towards them. The only thing I want to do is help them. Yet the only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. These muslim and Indian women are very beautiful, so it's not as though I'm not attracted to them. It's just that dress codes in both sluts and modest women operate as agents for activating different hardwired impulses in my psyche. If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it's easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. And why in a modestly dressed society, women will be protected, helped and nurtured. Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. Dressing modestly brings out knights in shining armor. A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.
Consequences are the only way to ensure good behavior in women. Women need consequences for divorce in order to remain married. My assumption here is all women by default have no morals. A woman will choose to remain married on the basis of relative consequences. Below is my list of strategic consequences I see enabling marriage, in no particular order.
1. Date or "marry" an illegal alien. She'll have no legal recourse and will be afraid to approach the law. The consequence of her leaving you will be she'll have to expose herself more to chances of being deported.
2. Date or "marry" a woman who doesn't speak English. Similiar to above, she'll have no way to understand the legal system. She'll need translation. The biggest consequence here is she'll have to learn English.
3. Date or "marry" a devout religious woman, who's denomination includes some aspect of going to hell for committing divorce or infidelity. The consequence here: burning in hell.
4. Date or "marry" a woman and create a closed loop social network for her. Indian culture is good at this. In Indian culture divorce rarely happens because the women know they'll be shunned by their entire social network. So the consequence here are losing all her friends.
5. Date or "marry" a woman and live in their foreign country. By living abroad you're not giving them the standard of living in your own country. Doing so allows you to hold up citizenship as in incentive for remaining with you. The consequence here is withdrawing chances of citizenship.
For those of you who haven't figured it out, feminism is simply the belief that women and children are the property of the elite to be administered by the government/corporate system.
It has been said that feminists want women to be independent and have autonomy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Huge campaigns are openly conducted to influence the behavior of women. Any solo-mother who has dealt with social services or any woman said to have a mental illness who has dealt with mental health authorities will know the system is as paternalistic as all get out to women. In fact feminism is a particularly strong form of the traditional idea that women are mentally ill grown children and need to be protected and controlled. The only issue is who is to do the protecting and controlling. Feminists sometimes seem to be providing women with autonomy, but only because they are enabling behavior that separates the women from ordinary men and delivers them into the hands of the elite.
Nazi Germany serves as a benchmark of evil, but I think American women are worse. In Nazi Germany, the Nazis had to pick particularly sadistic members of society to operate the concentration camps. The only crime of the average German was to look the other way. If the average German had been forced to see the suffering of the Jews in the concentration camps, they probably would have had second thoughts. Compare this to American women. The average American woman not only tolerates the suffering of single men, but actively contributes to it with their provocative dress. If confronted by the suffering of single men caused by sexual deprivation, the likely reaction of American women would be to giggle. In Nazi Germany, most Germans were not active in torturing people, but in Feminazi America, most women are active in torturing men. I do not think such women deserve any sympathy if they are raped, any more than Nazis convicted of war crimes deserve sympathy if they were punished.
The rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America. This is similar to the reason that I feel Robin Hood was justified in stealing from the rich. In England at the time, there was no social mobility, and the poor had no other way of getting enough money other than to steal. What is normally a crime becomes justified when alternative means of meeting a person's basic needs are denied.
But saying rape is justified is a weaker statement than saying American women deserve to be raped, so let me explain this. Is a starving person justified in stealing from a rich person? I think so. Does the rich person deserve to be stolen from? Not if the starving person's condition isn't the rich person's fault. In fact, in this case, the rich person would be justified in defending his property from the starving person. Here we have two people in conflict, each of whom is justified in his actions, and neither of whom deserves this conflict. But now let's look at the case where the starving person is starving because of actions by the rich person. In this case, not only is the starving person justified in stealing from the rich person, but the rich person deserves to be stolen from. This is why Robin Hood is remembered as a hero, because not only did he provide for the poor who were in need, but he also stole from the rich who were the cause of the poor people's poverty, and therefore who deserved to be stolen from.
My argument regarding rape is the same, just applied to sex as opposed to wealth. An American woman who dresses provocatively and opposes legal prostitution is a cause of sexual starvation among single men in America, and therefore, not only is her rape justified, but she deserves to be raped.
I don't support all traditions, but I do oppose virtually all modern values. Of the ones you listed here, religion should influence local politics, and national power should be minimized so that it hardly matters. Women should not vote. Women's suffrage is probably the greatest tragedy in human history.
I am an atheist of Jewish decent with no connection to Judaism. I just read the Old Testament (Holman Christian Standard Bible translation), which I guess you call the Torah. I loved the book, it is my favorite book now. But now I have a question about what I read.
The second half of the Old Testament is mostly about the fall of Israel to Babylon. This was certainly a holocaust. When I compare it to the recent (WW2) holocaust, I see them as very similar. My question is why Jews view them so differently?
The reason for the first holocaust was that Israel had become corrupt. Israel had absorbed the false beliefs of the surrounding cultures, and had lost all moral integrity. As a result, Israel was punished. This was in fact a good thing because Israel needed to be purified. A corrupt culture should be destroyed and one can hope that the remnant will become good. The Bible says that both the righteous and the wicked were punished in this holocaust, and this is inevitable when there is such violence.
I see the recent holocaust as being more or less the same story. The Jews absorbed and participated in the Liberal culture of Europe. Liberalism is no better than worshipping Baal. The vast majority of the Jews in Europe had absorbed Liberalism, just as most Jews before the fall to Babylon worshipped Baal. The Wiemar Republic was a particularly liberal society which incorporated many Jews. The liberal Jews lost all morality and were/are basically corrupt. The Nazis played the same role that Babylon had played in the earlier holocaust.
The main difference between these two holocausts in my mind is that modern Jews have misunderstood the recent holocaust. They portray themselves as victims without accepting any responsibility for their participation in Liberalism. While I bring up the issue of why there is this difference mostly for curiosity, there is a practical point here. If Jews don't learn the right lesson, then history will repeat itself soon and there will be yet another holocaust. I would prefer that that be avoided.