[Mormon Nailer]

Vox Day came out with an interesting post a few days ago about how a Black UK tv host was lamenting how the "das racist!" charge has been so watered down by the liberals that hardly anyone cares anymore. That's a huge reason why Blacks are getting replaced by Gays and Trannies as the victims-du-jour by the libs. The thing is, most people only tolerate fags and are disgusted by trannies. I don't think charges of "that's homophobic!" or "that's transphobic!" will be equally as damning. Blacks are a group of people while fags and trannies are evolutionary dead-ends at best and disease-ridden, mentally ill shitstains on society at worst.

[Yatagan]

If I was gay, I'd be offended at being lumped with a bunch of deranged eunuchs whom had some superficial cosmetic surgery to merely resemble a woman(and not always successfully at that).

[dog]

(06-01-2014 07:46 AM)assman Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:38 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 12:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

However, even in this situation, the right will probably ignore the importance of education and let the children be raised by schools (a mistake) and creditialism instead of emphasizing self-sufficiency within families and home-schooling.

I don't think you can generalize the right wing this way. I know a LOT of right wing and libertarian folks who are into home schooling.

That may not be heavily reflected at the leadership levels, but I've seen plenty of Tea Party politicians defend home schooling.

Yeah, but it's the leadership levels that matter.

In an unarmed society that collapses, I'd agree with you. Fortunately that is not the case in America. When the US government goes bankrupt and law and order breaks down, the armed citizenry will play a role in what happens next.

I think you are making the assumption that the government and system doesn't represent the will of the enfranchised citizens of the United States. I think our government represents our current culture and values very well.

The citizenry in the united states will make a ruckus about self-determinism but largely leaves their fates in the hands of authority. The major political trend of the last 100 years has been away from a representative republic and toward a democratic despotism, where all individual power is ceded to a centralized government and then the population votes on how they want this centralized authority figure to behave. The fact that this trend parallels the rise of feminism shouldn't be surprising as this democratic despotism mirrors how women behave in the real world, with decision making either by consensus and/or by appealing to an authority figure to make decisions for them if they are unwilling or unable to form a consensus. This is exacerbated by the fact that women are the largest voter demographic, followed by old people (a group composed mostly of women since men have a shorter life expectancy). The despotism comes to democracy when these large voting blocs put the authority figures they desire into office.

Culturally, the major political parties are either Christian white knights (Republicans) or egalitarians (Democrats). These are both flavors of female empowerment and highly representative of the attitudes of the vast majority of liberals and conservatives. In the current system, they provide a baptists-and-bootleggers ratcheting effect that ensures feminism's primacy in politics. If you were to "collapse" the system of government tomorrow at most all you would do is reset a few decades of feminist progress. The culture of the United States still strongly believes that enfranchising women and appealing to them is a moral imperative, and in a few decades we'd be back to where we are now.

So would the armed citizens play a role in establishing a new government or governments? Probably. Would these new governments (or government) be significantly different than what we have now? I doubt it.

[agentaika]

(06-02-2014 05:32 AM)assman Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 03:55 AM)agentaika Wrote:  

I wouldn't even care about trannies if they weren't fighting so hard to re-write the biology books, perpetrate the myth that sex and gender are "social constructs", and, worsT of all, try to stealtily fuck straight men. They're a small but very loud political minority, and their liberal and feminist allies are paving the way for more crap like this to become mainstream.

Holy crap. After clicking on the links in that article, I think in a couple of years, we'll need a thread on how to spot post-op shemales in the US.

I've already had TWO trannies try to approach me in the city I live in. Luckily their masculine disposition was a giveaway. I dread the day they're able to pass as real women.

We need to start shaming these people more, and letting them know that so-called straight "cisgender" men, by and large, do not want to have sex with mutilated men.

"Transgender" isn't a gender classification. It's a fetish and mental illness.

[Feisbook Control]

(06-01-2014 08:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Two, is that the military will be mostly right-wing but without money can they sustain themselves? If the military is smart and takes over a few big NYC banks before the left can mobilize, they may be able to sustain a revolution.

In such a situation, the USD would be close to worthless, so there'd be no point in taking bank vaults of it. Thus, you'd either want gold or silver, or you'd want the means of production (factories, farms, etc.). A new currency would likely be issued, backed by one of the afore-mentioned things.

[N°6]

(06-02-2014 09:34 AM)Seboist Wrote:  

If I was gay, I'd be offended at being lumped with a bunch of deranged eunuchs whom had some superficial cosmetic surgery to merely resemble a woman(and not always successfully at that).

That's all that they are. The hormone treatment is because they castrated themselves well after puberty.

There is also the catamite element which feels shame in being used by other men and a way round this shame is to turn oneself into a woman.

[ColSpanker]

Meanwhile, Google is "Proud to Play". Today's link took me to a YouTube page celebrating gay athletes. I was going to make a thread about this, but didn't think it deserved one.

[ColSpanker]

The only thing positive that will come out of Tranny rights is the complete destruction of the feminists. Or what remains of them. If gender is a social construct, what remains of sexual equality? They've already capitulated by allowing the castrati into the Michigan Women's Music Festival. What happens when the local women's committee becomes populated by Trannies? I can guarantee you those eunuchs will have enough testosterone left to push real women out. It's going to be like watching little league populated with major league ball players.

[Frost]

Every time the left comes out with a new demand, naive Conservatives are overjoyed.

"Hah! Now people will finally realize how crazy these people are!"

Doesn't work like that though. The craziness keep ratcheting up. Twenty years ago, people saw homosexuals the way we see transexuals. The left is compassionate, the right is repulsed, the average moderate feels a bit of both. Five years ago, I was all for gay rights and mystified by what I saw as an incoherent right wing objection to giving people equal rights.

But victim groups are like women. Give them an inch and they demand a mile. It's no longer enough to simply let gay people sign marriage contracts with each other. Now we have to elevate and praise their lifestyles, ignore the health risks they pose to mainstream society, let them march naked through our cities.

The real question is, what's next? My guess is that gay and transexual rights will be used as a cudgel to smash reactionary institution (i.e. Churches) for their discriminatory hate-policies and remove those who don't toe the line from positions of power (i.e. the Mozilla CEO).

The trans-rights people are a special type of insane. They believe that refusing to sleep with a transexual, i.e. a man with his dick chopped off, is the most evil thing a straight white male can do. Check out radical feminist communities like r/ShitRedditSays if you're interested in keeping a finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist.

[N°6]

(06-03-2014 07:30 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

The only thing positive that will come out of Tranny rights is the complete destruction of the feminists. Or what remains of them. If gender is a social construct, what remains of sexual equality? They've already capitulated by allowing the castrati into the Michigan Women's Music Festival. What happens when the local women's committee becomes populated by Trannies? I can guarantee you those eunuchs will have enough testosterone left to push real women out. It's going to be like watching little league populated with major league ball players.

And these drama queens will not be a bit shy when it comes to fat shaming women who ruined the bodies that nature gave them.

[N°6]

(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)Frost Wrote:  

But victim groups are like women. Give them an inch and they demand a mile. It's no longer enough to simply let gay people sign marriage contracts with each other. Now we have to elevate and praise their lifestyles, ignore the health risks they pose to mainstream society, let them march naked through our cities.

The real question is, what's next? My guess is that gay and transexual rights will be used as a cudgel to smash reactionary institution (i.e. Churches) for their discriminatory hate-policies and remove those who don't toe the line from positions of power (i.e. the Mozilla CEO).

Spot on. The difference between civil partnerships and marriages are so slight, that I've seen the real purpose of the homosexual marriage agenda to be an attack on the traditional Christian interpretation of marriage. It was useful for Obama to invoke the services of a group from the 'broken coalition' when he sought re-election after a failure of a first term.

I'd guess that we are less than a year away from when we see homosexuals desecrate churches and bring lawsuits against ministers for practising the Biblical interpretation of marriage. Think of Pussy Riot in the Moscow cathedral and that's what I think lies in store for the mom and pop church down the road.

[Constitution45]

Interesting to see the cultural clash between the muslims and these guys. Two victim groups colliding goes against this leftist ideal that only the white male is capable and should be held responsible for evil and prejudice. Check out Tower Hamlets or more specifically the area around Brick Lane. The borough in London is around 80% muslim population, however Shoreditch and Brick Lane are gentrified hipster areas, were metrosexuals, transgenders and homosexuals walk around the streets. Along with hipster chicks.... There have been clashes and even violence on some cases. Will be interesting to see what happens as the gentrification continues to grow along with the muslim population.

[ColSpanker]

(06-03-2014 10:06 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)Frost Wrote:  

But victim groups are like women. Give them an inch and they demand a mile. It's no longer enough to simply let gay people sign marriage contracts with each other. Now we have to elevate and praise their lifestyles, ignore the health risks they pose to mainstream society, let them march naked through our cities.

The real question is, what's next? My guess is that gay and transexual rights will be used as a cudgel to smash reactionary institution (i.e. Churches) for their discriminatory hate-policies and remove those who don't toe the line from positions of power (i.e. the Mozilla CEO).

Spot on. The difference between civil partnerships and marriages are so slight, that I've seen the real purpose of the homosexual marriage agenda to be an attack on the traditional Christian interpretation of marriage. It was useful for Obama to invoke the services of a group from the 'broken coalition' when he sought re-election after a failure of a first term.

I'd guess that we are less than a year away from when we see homosexuals desecrate churches and bring lawsuits against ministers for practising the Biblical interpretation of marriage. Think of Pussy Riot in the Moscow cathedral and that's what I think lies in store for the mom and pop church down the road.

It won't be the mom and pop storefront churches they first attack. No the Tranny coalition will attack some megachurch with problems of its own. You can bank on them not attacking a church too ethnic. So I don't think the Greek Orthodox or AME churches will have much to worry about. Yet.
They'll go after a small Christian College's tax exempt status first. Then the bible-thumping TV preachers. People whom the BoBo elite despise with a passion. Mormons too.
And this will spark the second civil war in the United States.

[agentaika]

The National Review ran an excellent article on how Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman. The Chicago Sun-Times ran the piece as well, sparking a lot of outrage from the LGTBBQs. The Sun-Times caved to the pressure, pulled the piece, and apologized.

[berserk]

Tranny acceptance is something that should worry the average joe and players alike a lot more than gay rights. Widespread acceptance of trannies means, like in Thailand, that you can't assume a girl is a girl in a dark nightclub. Somehow I don't see alchohol fueled American young men being as tolerant when they discover they've been grinding on man ass while shitfaced.

I have zero sympathy for trannies at all. Having seen them in Thailand, I do not think they are a positive to society and I think a significant portion are seriously mentally ill and all of them are deluded.

[Hotwheels]

(06-02-2014 06:08 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:46 AM)assman Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:38 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 12:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

However, even in this situation, the right will probably ignore the importance of education and let the children be raised by schools (a mistake) and creditialism instead of emphasizing self-sufficiency within families and home-schooling.

I don't think you can generalize the right wing this way. I know a LOT of right wing and libertarian folks who are into home schooling.

That may not be heavily reflected at the leadership levels, but I've seen plenty of Tea Party politicians defend home schooling.

Yeah, but it's the leadership levels that matter.

In an unarmed society that collapses, I'd agree with you. Fortunately that is not the case in America. When the US government goes bankrupt and law and order breaks down, the armed citizenry will play a role in what happens next.

This is true. But then you would also see what extent your tax dollars spent on military expenditures went towards when the Army boots are in the streets.

The USA army was never built to its current levels to fight any foreign enemy. It's biggest battle is largely seen as the impeding civil war that will eventually happen in America when SHTF.

Half the forces wouldn't fire on their own and would cross lines, the other half whom just got into it for a paycheck to begin with, wouldn't give two shits.

I feel the people win out. But with more and more people drinking blue pill kool aid the amount of people whom would push back is getting smaller each day.

The US military is designed for "force projection", hence 10 aircraft carriers (10 in service with 2 in reserve. 3 more under construction) and the battle groups that go with them. No other country has more than 2. While true that today's military is not built for a large scale ground war, by the same token it is not built to quell a civil war at home either.

We do not have the mass of humanity enlisted in the forces to hold a country the size of Iraq, about equal in land mass to California with a smaller population, and much of the forces we do have are spread around the globe.

The US military is most certainly NOT set up to quell a civil war at home, even with the National Guard's presence.

[All or Nothing]

(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)Frost Wrote:  

It's no longer enough to simply let gay people sign marriage contracts with each other.

People need to pick up on the reason why gays want to get married.

It is not for equal rights.

If the gays wanted equality, they would have worked to get marriage stricken from the law books and have it be replaced with civil union thus removing the religious (Christian) aspect of the legally binding contract.

Then they could move to have civil unions be legally provided to everyone.

But no.

They need to be able to get "married". The fight for the ability to get married is purely a grab for status.

[N°6]

(06-03-2014 01:20 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 10:06 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 09:27 AM)Frost Wrote:  

But victim groups are like women. Give them an inch and they demand a mile. It's no longer enough to simply let gay people sign marriage contracts with each other. Now we have to elevate and praise their lifestyles, ignore the health risks they pose to mainstream society, let them march naked through our cities.

The real question is, what's next? My guess is that gay and transexual rights will be used as a cudgel to smash reactionary institution (i.e. Churches) for their discriminatory hate-policies and remove those who don't toe the line from positions of power (i.e. the Mozilla CEO).

Spot on. The difference between civil partnerships and marriages are so slight, that I've seen the real purpose of the homosexual marriage agenda to be an attack on the traditional Christian interpretation of marriage. It was useful for Obama to invoke the services of a group from the 'broken coalition' when he sought re-election after a failure of a first term.

I'd guess that we are less than a year away from when we see homosexuals desecrate churches and bring lawsuits against ministers for practising the Biblical interpretation of marriage. Think of Pussy Riot in the Moscow cathedral and that's what I think lies in store for the mom and pop church down the road.

It won't be the mom and pop storefront churches they first attack. No the Tranny coalition will attack some megachurch with problems of its own. You can bank on them not attacking a church too ethnic. So I don't think the Greek Orthodox or AME churches will have much to worry about. Yet.
They'll go after a small Christian College's tax exempt status first. Then the bible-thumping TV preachers. People whom the BoBo elite despise with a passion. Mormons too.
And this will spark the second civil war in the United States.

I agree that the first Pussy Riot style passive-aggressive stunt will more likely happen at a megachurch with TV cameras conveniently near by as Western cathedrals are empty.

The marginalisation of traditional groups which started under the Clinton era is now pungent.

[2Wycked]

Time continues it's push:

The Transgender Tipping Point.

Watch the video. Two guys, basically behaving like mindless back-biting teenage girls, confess to having Daddy issues. Take note, that both transgenders are only interested in Daddy's approval. The "half-asian" gay breezily mentions wider family approval, but he is clearly only interested in Daddy's approval.

The transgender interviewed? He wants to live in a world where transgenders don't have to be passable to be viewed as the other sex. How the hell that's supposed to work I have no idea.

[ColSpanker]

http://www.tmz.com/2014/06/10/buck-angel...-marraige/
I don't care if he is really a she WN*fucking*B!

[BadWolf]

Its spreading: http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/pictures/...tions.html

My wife said it spread over here in the form of Anime and Manga targeted at children. She said she used to read mangas about gay guys and thought they were very popular and nice until she actually met some. They are going after the children.

My friend, who is a coder, says it is being implemented into games aswell, he attended a game designers convention and one of the panels was about 'how to get people to subversively accept the LGBT lifestyle'... if anyone here has played the MASS EFFECT series, do not let your children touch it... if found in your house, launch it out the window, there is so much Gay and Lesbian promotion in that series that by the 3rd game in the series, your fighter pilot captain is admitting he has a husband and playing recordings of their love back to you... your main character is encouraged to have homosexual relations with him and council him on the death of his husband. There is also a whole race of basically dykes who go around marrying off Earth women. I mean it goes on and on but the agenda is really being pushed on straights.

They are going for the children, make sure when your children play games, that you know what they are looking at. What is the ultimate goal here? Depopulation? Gun Control? I would bet a million bucks that whomever is pushing this agenda wants to disarm the big countries and this is the fastest way of going about it. They were already in Russia trying to get this sh1t passed. Whomever THEY are, they have already corrupted North America, Brazil and now its starting in China.

[soup]

The ultimate goal is attention.

Economic attention
Cultural attention..

They want to feel secure and supported and be subsidized .. Ultimately a woman's agenda.

[MattW]

A lengthy but good comment here. Some excerpts (Tyler Cowen quoted in italics, the comment in regular text):

Quote:

I would stress a social point. If it turns out you are born “different” in these ways (I’m not even sure what are the right words to use to cover all the relevant cases), what is the chance that your social structure will be supportive? Or will you feel tortured, mocked, and out of place? Might you even face forced institutionalization, as McCloskey was threatened with?

Sorry but this is a false analogy. After all, people who institutionalized people like McCloskey were being supportive. They did, genuinely, think that some people were ill and they needed treatment. They needed to be cured. Those people did not think that because they were evil but because they were caring and trying to be supportive.
Which suggests that we should be very careful about what we say or do given it is entirely possible for one generation to think the previous generations’ compassion made them Nazis.


It’s not just the libertarian argument that you have — to put it bluntly — the “right to cut off your dick” (though you do).

But that is not the issue. We can all agree you have the right to cut off whatever body part you like. If you feel that you were born with too many legs, you have a perfect right to remove one of them. Although not if you live in California where the government will throw your doctor in jail. But in Scotland, you can get the amputation on the NHS. The question is whether you have a right to remove one and insist that everyone has to agree that you were always meant just to have one and that anyone who says otherwise ought to be fired. And if they question your mental health, jailed.


It’s that there are some very particular circles of humanity, revolving around transsexuality, cross-gender, and related notions, which deserve a culture of respect, above and beyond mere legal tolerance.

I am not sure what that means. However I think that cutting off your penis is not so different from being rude to transsexuals. People shouldn't do it, it is not nice, but they have a right to do so if they like.


So in the meantime should we not extend maximum tolerance for individuals whose lives are in some manner different?

By all means. As long as people like McCloskey stops trying to get people fired and thrown in jail for holding a scientific opinion McCloskey does not like. It has to be a two-way street. And there has been precious little tolerance or respect extended to anyone who diverges so much as a millimeter from the PC line on this subject.


But if we start with tolerance and acceptance, and encourage a culture of respect for transsexualism, we are more likely to come up with the right policy answers, and also to minimize the damage if in the meantime we cannot quite figure out when to do what.

That is not really what we are doing though. Nor is it likely to be true. If we are dealing with a form of body dysmorphia, and sex changes do not produce a great deal in the way of “cures”, then extending respect simply endorses the delusion. If someone thinks their leg is wrong and should go, you can cut one off, but it is unlikely to solve their problems because the leg is not the problem. If someone thinks they are a mushroom, you do not help them by insisting, on pain of being fired, that everyone acknowledges they are mushrooms.
No, people should not be treated rudely. But also no, we should not start by begging the question by basically prohibiting anyone taking any sort of contrarian stance to the orthodoxy.

[2Wycked]

Laverne Cox likes Jewish men.