Anyone Can Weaponize Feminism to Use Against Women

 In the YouTube video linked below, Tim Pool discusses an article by a (female) journalist in which she describes how she was scammed -- blatantly, obviously scammed -- out of $50,000.  

Here are my thoughts --

1) Feminism is -- and always has been -- primarily a tool to convince women to voluntarily offer themselves up as prey to sexually perverted men.  You will have noticed by now that feminists almost always act as political body-guards for the sort of powerful men who do prey upon women; to the point that in Current Year, the vast majority of feminists pretend to be unable to state what the word 'woman' even means ... even as they shriek that killing babies is the most important of "women's rights";

1a) And, as a necessary step toward that end, to convince women to see the men who do have their own best interest at heart -- their fathers, brothers and husbands -- as "the enemy";

1b) And this mindset -- that the men who actually know and love one are not to be trusted -- opens the door to just the sort of scam to which this woman fell prey.

2) This particular woman was successfully scammed in this particular way due to her commitment to feminism: 

2a) Her feminism demanded that she "girl boss" the situation, that she deal the understandable panic induced by this perceived threat all by herself, without turning to or informing to her husband of the call and of the perceived threat;

2b) Thus, she said nothing to her husband about the threatening phone call, and even actively hid from him what she was doing in response to it.

3) Had this been a *man* who had fallen for such an obvious scam and had thereby thrown away $50,000 of the family's savings, you *know* that everyone would be telling the wife to dump him, and more than likely she would have done so even before such "advice" had started rolling in.  This mindset of endless excuses for any woman's failings coupled with no forgiveness whatsoever for any man's failings *also* follows from feminism.

Tim Pool: "Journalist MOCKED For LOSING $50k To A SCAM, HILARIOUS Article Show Journalists ARE NOT SMART People"

99.7% of Agenda-Driven Statistics Are Bogus

 From the linked item at Don Surber's substack -- 
========
ITEM 4: The LA Times reported, “It was a decade ago when California became the first state in the nation to ban single-use plastic bags, ushering in a wave of anti-plastic legislation from coast to coast.”

The story also said, “According to a report by the consumer advocacy group CALPIRG, 157,385 tons of plastic bag waste was discarded in California the year the law was passed. By 2022, however, the tonnage of discarded plastic bags had skyrocketed to 231,072 — a 47% jump. Even accounting for an increase in population, the number rose from 4.08 tons per 1,000 people in 2014 to 5.89 tons per 1,000 people in 2022."

That works out to 11 pounds of plastic bags per person. 200 single-use grocery bags weigh 240 grams — a little more than half a pound. That means the average Californian goes through 4,157 grocery bags a year.

No wonder Californians are weird. They are addicted to grocery bags.
========

Do you *really* believe that even Californians go through 4,157 single-use grocery bags per person per year and/or the equivalent weight in reusable plastic grocery bags (which is where the "environmentalist" claim is headed)?  Is it *really* credible that this "statistic" is even remotely on the same planet as the truth?  Of course not!

Note: Don Surber calculated from "11 pounds of plastic bags per person".  But 5.89 tons per 1000 people is actually 11.78 pounds per person, which, according to the weight per bag that Don Surber used, works out to the weight equivalent of 4453 single-use plastic bags per person in 2022.

Here is the calculation -- 11.78 pounds * 453.592 (i.e. conversion factor) = 5343.31376 grams total weight;  5343.31376 grams / 240 (i.e. the weight of 200 bags) = 22.263807333... "bundles" of 200 bags;  22.263807333... "bundles" of 200 bags * 200 bags = 4452.7614666... individual bags.

Don Surber's link/claim is that a typical single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 1.2 grams (at the link he used, I did't see a weight given for those 200 bags).  Other claims I found on the internet are that a typical single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 5-10 grams.  

So, just to make the math easier -- and to give all the benefit of the doubt to the "consumer advocacy group" -- let us say that the average single-use plastic grocery bag weighs 12 grams, that is 10 times the weight which Don Surber had used in his calculation; or, in other words, that roughly 38 typical single-use plastic grocery bags weighs a pound.  By that (obviously inflated) weight, the claim of the "consumer advocacy group" *still* works out to the assertion that Californians use the equivalent of 445 single-use plastic grocery bags per person per year.  Is even that number credible?  Is that number credible even given your own personal experience that you yourself end up with more "single-use" plastic grocery bags than you are able to re-use as waste-basket liners and trash-bags, etc?

But, suppose you had only the LA Tines' "reporting" and the "consumer advocacy group" assertions to go by, rather than a per-person break-down of the "statistics" -- you'd almost certainly have said, "Wow!" and believed all the assertions being made, and thus fallen for the agenda being pushed.

Engrave this on your heart as The First Law of Advocacy: Alleged statistics involving very large or very small numbers, made to advance an agenda, are almost always lies; especially when those very large or very small numbers are not put into some relatable context.

Don Surber: "Highlights of the news"

=========================

=========================

Here is another advocacy "statistic" that you have almost certainly encountered: "Every year in the US, 800,000 children 'go missing'" ... with "go missing" left undefined, but implying abducted and not recovered.

But, think about this assertion.

According to the CDC's "Births and Natality" page linked below, there were 3,664,292 births in the US in 2021.  Taking that number as a yearly average of births over the past 18 years (even though it isn't) would give us a total of  65,957,356 children having been born in the US over the last 18 years.  

Now, the advocacy assertion is that *every year in the US alone*, 800,000 children "go missing" -- that is, that during the past 18 years, a total of 14,400,000 children have "gone missing".  In other words, the assertion is that 21.832% of *all* children born in the US over the past 18 years have "gone missing".

Is that *really* credible?  Do you *really* believe that mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters would not have *noticed* that nearly 22% of their grandchildren, children, and siblings have "gone missing"?

CDC: "Births and Natality"

It Could Be Heaven Or It Could Be Hell

 This is a comment I posted to a resurrected thread (link below) at the 'Shadow To Light' blog --

TFBW (from 2020/01/18): "For the sake of argument, let me concede the point that God could make his omniscience, omnipotence, infinity, eternal nature, holiness, and other divine characteristics fully apparent to you in such a way that they would all be immediately recognisable for what they are. What makes you think that this would be a survivable experience? We humans get traumatised by fairly trivial events when considered at the cosmic scale. What makes you think you could survive a raw, unfiltered glimpse of God in his glory?"

One of the sillier complaints/condemnations which the common internet 'atheist' likes to level at Christianity is that it is "immoral" that Christ says that those who reject him will be eternally damned, that they will "go to Hell" (as people commonly phrase it).  Why, just two days ago in this revived thread, "Yurek H" makes an intellectually dishonest variation on the theme: "You would think a narcissistic being who demands worship and subservience would have no problem with doing something that would bring attention to it."

So, what we see is that the common internet 'atheist' demands to be welcomed to "go to Heaven" (as people commonly phrase it), despite their own despite for the King of Heaven and their own refusal to let go their own unrighteousness, which they clutch to their breast as being dearer than life itself.

But, what does it mean to "go to Heaven"?  Well, at a minimum, it means to live/exist in the direct presence of God: it means to see him face to face, as it were; to experience his infinite righteousness "full strength", without the mediating distraction of the material world.  For the unrighteous soul, for he who clutches his sin to his breast as more dear than life, for he whose sin *is* his identity, will not "being in Heaven" be experienced as "being in Hell"?  Will it not be easier for a mortal man to walk on the "surface" of the Sun than for a God-hater to directly behold the full righteousness of God?

To paraphrase C S Lewis: "The Redeemed shall say, 'I have always been in Heaven.' But, the Damned shall say, 'I have always been in Hell.'"

Shadow To Light: How to Defeat Modern Day Atheism With Three Easy Questions

Leftist Hatred For "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" Is Just Hatred For Jesus ... And For White People

Leftists *hate* Jesus.  And, while they do indeed hate white people, they hate Jesus far more.  Though they do sometimes find it useful to their goal of enslaving everyone else to engage in "God talk".

One of the ways leftists love to express their hatred of Jesus, and of white people, is to mock the "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" whom Europeans have allegedly foist upon the world, along with pretending that we Christians of European cultural descent are not fully aware that Jesus was a Jew, of deep Jewish ancestry, and that he would have looked like a 1st Century Jew.  That is to say, he would have looked like a person of broadly Mediterranean ancestry, rather like a modern Greek or Syrian, not like a person of northern European ancestry.  In the linked clip, the lying leftist Sonny Hostin even trots out the perennial leftist lie that "... and most people don't know that."

In this clip (from about the 1:20 mark), when the lying leftist Sonny Hostin says that at her "black Catholic" church, "Jesus is brown", what do you think the odds are that in that church, Jesus is depicted as a Negro? And further, what do you think the odds are that this depiction is for leftist political reasons, rather than for organic cultural reasons?

The nation of Ethiopia -- a nation of black people, in Africa -- have been Christian for 1700 years or more (And for a good 1000 years of that time, they were forcibly isolated from the rest of Christianity by the Moslem incursions and conquests). When Ethiopians depict Jesus, or any other Biblical character, they depict them as Ethiopians.  Are they wrong to do so? Are they vile racists to do so?  Are they foisting a lie upon the world when they to do so? Of course not!

Will the vile harridans of 'The View' attack the Ethiopians for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Ethiopian, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!

Some years ago, I saw an image of a painting from China, depicting the Holy Family's flight into Egypt. It was a thoroughly Chinese painting; not only the landscape depicted in the traditional Chinese style, but also the Holy Family depicted as Chinese persons.  Was that artist wrong to do so? Was he a vile racist to do so?  Was he foisting a lie upon the world when he did so? Of course not!

Will the vile, hypocritical harridans of 'The View' attack Chinese persons for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Chinese man, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!  

There are cultural and historical reasons (specifically, centuries-long Moslem piratical depredation on the Mediterranean Sea which isolated Northern and Western European Christians from other Christians and from the world at large) that persons of European cultures depict Jesus in a manner derived from European cultures, just as there are cultural and historical reasons that persons of Ethiopian culture depict Jesus in a manner derived from Ethiopian culture, and Chinese likewise.  And there is nothing wrong with this!

Jesus has not only the title, "Son of God", but also the title "Son of Man".  As "Son of God", he is the God and savior of *all* men. As "Son of Man", he is a man of men, he is the representative of *all* men. *All* men are invited to come to Christ and to find their fulfillment and completion as men in him, and their salvation in him.

What Do You Meme??: "They Tried to Trap Him on Jesus (Instantly Backfires!)"

The Problem of Too Many "Elites"

One major reason that we have so many "Champaign socialists" in our society has to do with the present-day overproduction of elite wannabes due to the manner of the restructuring of "higher education" following WWII.

Not everyone born into the "elite class", as the discussed Hasan Piker was, is competent enough on his own merits to maintain the status to which he was born, nor as is even more difficult, to rise in status.  This also applies to the vast majority of "educated" persons presently churned out by "higher education".

In a capitalistic society, such as ours, the best way to rise in status, much less to achieve or maintain "elite" status, is to serve one's fellow man: supply a good or service that other persons are willing freely to purchase from you, and you have it made.

But, the most common moral flaw in human beings is the desire to be served by others, rather than to serve others.  This immoral and perverted desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow is the root of slavery ... and of slavery's current manifestation: socialism.

Socialists are *always* either the more incompetent children of the existing elites or the more incompetent of the uplifted wannabe elites. Since such persons are not competent enough to achieve or maintain truly elite status by their own efforts, they embrace socialism as a means to attempt to cynically use the "proles", whom they despise, as a tool to supplant the competent elites, against whom they cannot directly compete.

The Quartering: "Hasan Piker BUSTED & Has MELTDOWN! Fake Twitch Socialist Grew Up SUPER RICH & His Fans BLAST HIM"

When is a Constitution "unconstitutional?"

The ongoing left-right political battle in the US is at root a battle between two conflicting and contradictory moral systems, as mediated by a battle between two conflicting and contradictory constitutions: the written US Constitution of 1787, on the one hand, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (*) and its penumbras and emanations, on the other hand.

When the Republicans enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they weren't content simply to overturn the Democrats' various "Jim Crow" violations of the Constitution, which unconstitutionally differentiated citizens by race before the bureaucrats of various of the States and which violated citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association. Oh, no! The Republicans were too clever by half, imagining that there were going to "pwn" the Democrats, and so they were played by the leftists: they drafted a law which violates citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association (but in the opposite direction to what the Democrats had been doing theretofore) and laid the groundwork for future legislative acts and court rulings which unconstitutionally differentiate citizens by race, and eventually by "identification", before the bureaucrats of the totalizing administrative state.

"Woke culture" is the natural and inevitable out-working of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent additions to it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- much of which is actually unconstitutional -- is being used by the leftists as the means to destroy the legitimacy of our Constitution and thus to destroy our Republic.

For example -- In 2008, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to overrule a state-court imposition of "gay marriage" on the citizens of that State. A federal court later ruled that this legally-enacted provision of California's Constitution was "unconstitutional".

One might ask, "On what grounds was this amendment to the California Constitution decreed to be unconstitutional?" Why, on the grounds of the judge's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mind you, this was years before the US supreme court imposed "gay marriage" on the citizens of the entire nation, in contravention of the written US Constitution.

For example -- You may be aware of a Turkish-born rabid leftist by the name of Cenk Uygur, who claims (or claimed) to be running for the Democratic nomination to the US Presidency.

Now, Cenk Uygur is a naturalized US citizen; which is to say, the US Constitution expressly forbids him to occupy the office of the US Presidency. And what do you think is Mr Uygur's strategy to get around this encumbrance? Why, and of course, it is to try to get a federal judge to rule that the US Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" ... on the grounds that by the Civil Rights Act it is "unfair" for the US Constitution and US law to distinguish between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, wedded to the false assertion that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution erases the distinctions between classes of citizenship.

(*) A deep dive examination of these conflicting constitutions will take us from the false constitution's rancid fruiting in Current Year's "Woke culture", to its flowering in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", to its growth in Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", to its cultivation in Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Movement, and will ultimately find the seed of the false constitution in Abraham Lincoln's violations of the written Constitution ... in the name of "preserving" that Constitution and the Union therewith established.

Auron MacIntyre: "Civil Rights Law Is a Problem"

Auron MacIntyre: "Why We're No Longer Governed by the Constitution"

The Nexus of Language and Politics -- "Native American"

Other than his use of the leftist delegitimizing term, "Native American",  Matt Walsh is spot on in the linked video.

The leftists invented the term "Native American" as a step toward denying that you and I are Americans at all.  This is merely a similar delegitimizing tactic to the leftist assertion that we Americans cannot call ourselves "Americans" because the USA is not the totality of the American continents.

Historically, the American Aborigines (i.e. the Indians (*) ) were not native Americans, because they were not members of the American society in the first place.  Even today, after the Federal government has made them US citizens, whether they wanted to be or not, many Indians don't want to be called "Americans"; they tend to reserve that term for *us*, not for themselves.

I am a "native American", not because I have a bit of Indian ancestry, though I do, but because I am a born member of the American civilization.  Likely, you too are a born member of the American civilization and thus are a "native American", even if you don't have a single American Indian ancestor.

(*) We all need to get over the ignorant myth that we call the American Aborigines "Indians" because Columbus was either ignorant or stupid.  The reason we call them "Indians" is because from ancient times until just a couple of centuries ago, Europeans used the terms 'India' and/or 'the Indias' to refer to all the lands of "the East"; 'India' and "the East" were pretty much synonyms.  When Columbus discovered the islands we now call the West Indies, he thought he had found some outlying islands of Chipango, the easternmost land of 'the Indies' of which the Europeans had knowledge; or, as we now call that land, Japan.  Thus, since from the European frame of reference, these newly-discovered peoples were inhabitants of "India", he (and other Europeans) referred to the inhabitants of those islands, and later of the mainland, as "Indians", as we have continued to do for the past 500 years.  And indeed as the US Constitution refers to them.

The narrowing of the term "India" to refer to a specific geographic region in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and to a specific, and recently created, nation-state in the 20th and 21st centuries, is a modern innovation.  

And, by the way, the current Hinduist government of India is trying to dictate that we English speakers may no longer refer to that country as "India".

Matt Walsh: "These Museum Exhibits Were Just Closed For The Dumbest Reason"

Orphaned By Divorce

No matter how old you are, if your parents divorce, you eventually end up being orphaned twice! And the first orphaning feels like surviving a loved one's suicide.

Why Is America Doomed?

 This image, or rather the mindset that prompts people to post and re-post it, illustrates *why* America is doomed -- 

In case the image isn't enough to get my point across, I shall spell it out -- "America is doomed because even the 'conservatives' are fools."

Recently, on GAB, someone posted that image.  I replied with: "The alleged soon-coming "military tribunals" would be unConstitutional."

Within minutes, a couple of people with whom I'd never had the least interaction "informed" me of my "ignorance", gloated that I'd soon find out (apparently, to my woe) how wrong I am (*), appealed to Lindsay Graham as "proof" that "military tribunals" are coming, called me a "troll" ... and blocked me.

Read again the simple sentence (and fact) I'd written in response to that image.  Is not the reaction I have described *exactly* how the "woke" mob reacts when they encounter a statement they don't like?

Here are some things to keep in mind about these long-promised "military tribunals":

1) The idea is 'copium' -- 

1a) People have been banging on this silly drum for the past four years: "Military Tribunals are just around the corner!"

1b) The top brass of the US military has *always* been mostly time-servers, and since the illegitimate Obama administration, the leftists have been purging the brass (and most recently, the troops themselves) of anyone who is not on-board with the leftist "woke" agenda;

1c) No one is coming to save us.  If we are to be saved politically, we must do it ourselves ... starting with submitting to Christ; BUT, submitting to Christ is the one thing that most people in the world, including most Americans, will continue to refuse to do;

1b) Any "military tribunals" that may ever happen will be initiated and conducted by leftists. So, they won't be targeting pedophiles as per the promise of the tweet captured in the image;

2) In the American system, the military is subordinate to the civilian authority, and so if the "military tribunals" these fools keep going on about ever were to happen, that would prove that America no longer exists.

(*) And ending that with "Maranatha!!!" of all things!