Chabad Lubavitch

[Richard Stanley]

At any rate, I think I have been pretty consistent in my message. My contention that Jewish mysticism is at the root of this conspiracy may be one-dimensional but I think there is abundant evidence to support my claims. You seem to agree with some of what I say but in those areas of disagreement, you resort to insult rather than challenge my points. Why do you do that?

"Why do I do that?" I have explained to you over and over again why I do "that". But, please let me waste more of my time responding .... once again:

• That Jewish mysticism is the driver for "this conspiracy" is an analytical problem in itself.
  • First of all, which conspiracy are you specifically referring to? Because my focus is on the driver of the unfolding new order, which many refer to as (G)lobalism. And more specifically, Globalism managed for an elite few, whether the lessers of us are exterminated or not.
  • I have explained to you that Jewish mysticism, like any other part of the Judaic construct is fully cribbed paganism, just like the Christian construct. The Kabbalah's Tree of Life, for instance, is on full display in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. The Greeks had their equivalent, and pretty much everywhere else in the pagan Globe did. The Semitic (Celtic) practitioners of Ba'al in England used to sacrifice humans, after the Sacred Marriage, and dance around the fires of Beltane (for Ba'al).
    
  • If you want to argue that such as organized pedophilia, ritualized or not, is a part of the big picture, then that's fine by me. There is also various abuse of adult women, and various abuse of marginalized others, e.g. Playboy bunnies, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, ..................................... All that serve the same cause. In these cases they are more targeted than that which occurs to the more generalized mind control that happens in church or synagogue on Sunday, or Saturday.
  • If you want to argue that Jews, or individuals who self-identify as such, are a part of the big picture, then that's also fine by me. Because, the entire Judaic construct is an artifice, and unfortunately individuals, just like Christians and Muslims, have drank the Jonestown Kool-Aide.
• And here then is my problem, that you have drank the Catholic Hates Jews flavor of the Kool-Aide, and then want to constantly shove it down our throats, because it is a functional shibboleth designed to marginalize people like us. James Carroll, a former Catholic priest, spilled the Catholic beans [sic] in his Constantine's Sword by detailing, in depth, that the entire Catholic theological [and thus social] construct depends on a hate [sic] relationship with the Jewish construct. And I say the second construct is as phony as the first, brewed up by the same savvy elites. Elites that you can and should focus your DNA studies on.
  
• You state that people become emotional about children being abused or worse. Yes, they indeed do, just like the innocent (Jewish) Lamb of God being killed by Judas, and we also get to see images of the divine little baby Jesus being held in the lap of his eroticized Virgin mother. The 'real' abused children are a cynical side show meant to distract from discussing the fakery behind it all. So why do you want to engage in the malfeasant emotional manipulations as the priests. Simply to stoke more traditional Catholic hatred, and get us labeled as such, the purpose of this shibboleth?
• From my perspective you destroyed all credibility for yourself by first starting out with your analysis of the Greek economy, and then switching focus to the emotional neoNazi video about Semites (not necessarily Jews) supposedly ritually killing goy children (there is no such ethnicity as Gentile, but there is a social class called the gentil, all part of the sardonic and cynical Identity ruse). But you say that you have been consistent. Oh, right, because all your 'consistent' talking points have a common Traditionalist Catholic subtext, which, BTW, is all schizo mind enslavement mumbo-jumbo, Quimo Sabe.
  • As such, I became mad at you long before you brought up Kinsey, and I don't remember even talking to you about him. I think that was Jerry, no?
  • Similarly, despite my differences with such as Joe, his discussion of Cultural Degradation has ultimately been a true revelation (pun intended) for me. For one thing, ironically because I could not get an answer as to what is the perfected baseline that we are being degraded away from, I can also now see that one huge result was the silent coup (to steal from the notion of the deposing of Nixon) against the High Church WASPs. Never before in the history of mankind has there been such a removal from power, from the most powerful nation to have ever existed, in absolute terms. Now the lowly Catholics have taken over, but of course, you'll say those Judaic loyalists of Loyola. Revolution number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9?
  • Oh, the supreme irony with lowly Catholic Steve Bannon and his paradoxical Zionist Breitbartians complaining about too many Mexicans and others. The Sun Tsu shines Breitly these days.
• And what does that number 9 imply then. Surely it can't be connected to revolution number 1 could it?
  • Of course, not. Today is only connected to today and the organic deviant DNA mutations of today's Jews. Hilarious and sad at the same time.
  • Judea was the poorest region of Canaan, and after the Israelites were shipped off, the hated Judeans (David and Solomon were hated by Israel) inherited all Israel (with the Levites of course). Similarly Maryland, the Catholic colony and state (and home of Washington D.C. no less (like Jerusalem in Judea), was held in some significant disdain by the suspicious Protestant colonies and states, but look who has won the day? Georgetown and Goldman Sachs.
    • Nope, there is no connection to Revolution number 1.
  • And we get to listen to good little Catholic boy Christ Matthews seeming to sincerely ask what Trump meant by his not calling Space Boy little and fat. This is what we're reduced to.

 

[Collectivist]

Jerry,

I will admit that I am probably more conflicted with what you call my Christian cultural bias than you are with your staunch abandonment of it. I strongly believe that in the absence of the moral constraints people of faith exercise, we open ourselves to grave dangers of the soul. I say I am conflicted not because I am increasingly agreeable to many of its tenets, but because people such as Jerry Russell feel the need to box me in with the added baggage and deceptions that so often perverts the redeeming aspects of the Christian message.

I am conflicted because your definition of "Christian cultural bias" is at odds with my own definition of it. I see grave dangers in our post modernist and Godless society. For all its flaws and man-made attempts at corrupting it, Christianity offers us a moral system that is sustainable and just, but it can do away with those aspects that have corrupted it such as the Catholic church. I stated this before but still labeled a Catholic boy which I find offensive.

Both you and Richard seem fixated on the less desirable aspects of Christianity which is fine but to throw the baby out with the bath water is dangerous because it creates a vacuum and something WILL fill it, but what? I read somewhere that Richard Carrier too felt conflicted and sought to gain adherence to his very own theology for answers. This too was something Alistair Crowley sought out when he created Thelema.

So I must ask you Jerry, do you, like John Lennon and Timothy Leary, agree with Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" as the basis of our new western morality and, if not, why do you disagree with it?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Simply to stoke more traditional Catholic hatred, and get us labeled as such, the purpose of this shibboleth?

Richard, I think you're overly concerned about being marginalized by our forum guests and their views. Considering that we support 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, and flirt with technological controversies such as Tesla waves and cold fusion, we're going to be considered as "fringe" no matter what else we say.

We also have a possible problem with with our anti-Catholic views, which some might view as marginalizing and over-wrought.

So I must ask you Jerry, do you, like John Lennon does, agree with Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" as the basis of our new western morality and, if not, why do you disagree with it?

No, I don't agree with 'do what thou wilt'. A life of selfish pleasure-seeking is empty and meaningless. Human society, and indeed life on Earth, should always be striving towards greater overall beauty, harmony and happiness.

Legal codes such as the Ten Commandments may have historically been presented as if they come from God. But from a purely utilitarian perspective, societies need to enforce such basic codes as a matter of collective survival.

 

[Richard Stanley]

So what you are saying is that you constantly feel urges to do bad things, and that without constantly getting supplication from your priests, and/or false flagellated perhaps, that you would indeed take action on these bad, Evil, Satanic urges.

Perhaps (I know, I'm beating a dead horse) it would positively impact you to know that such as atheists (and I presume for agnostics, like me, as well) are highly under-represented in prison and other statistics of such taking action on bad urges. Look at Roy Moore, for instance. What a Good Godly he-man that be. Here cums The Judge. The Judge that gave Alabama the 10 Commandments no less.

Such as atheists are generally better humans because they actually think about such matters, and come to realize that your Satanism is ridiculous. Yes, you are a Satanist, like all Abrahamic religionists. If you believe Satan exists, or include him in your narrative, then this makes you a Satanist by default. The Church profits mightily by this. It's the same principle as: "If you don't have an enemy then you must create one."

I say I am conflicted not because I am increasingly agreeable to many of its tenets, but because people such as Jerry Russell feel the need to box me in with the added baggage and deceptions that so often perverts the redeeming aspects of the Christian message.

But it's perfectly acceptable for y'all cultural Catholics (because that's what you are) to box us in with all your 'Christian' brand of Freedom right? We just properly ridicule you, but your high moral friends would prefer to chop our heads off or burn us at the stake, before and after raping their children and/or the children of others. If only that God damned US Constitution (actually only its amendments) wasn't in the way, that is.

I can't speak for Jerry, but I am a Modernist, not a Postmodernist. The latter of which is just the PTB (Catholic Church's) back-handed attempt to mitigate Rationalism, and investigations, projects like this which you and the Vatican disapprove of.

Both you and Richard seem fixated on the less desirable aspects of Christianity which is fine but to throw the baby out with the bath water is dangerous because it creates a vacuum and something WILL fill it, but what? I read somewhere that Richard Carrier too felt conflicted and sought to gain adherence to his very own theology for answers. This too was something Alistair Crowley sought out when he created Thelema.

Instead of focusing on all those Evil things you desire to do, why don't you focus constantly improving yourself like Jerry and I do. Go climb (or hike) a mountain, I promise you that Satan is not there, and all that physical exertion will stop your evil urges. You could then stop going to Church and save money. You might even be so grateful that you would endow Postflaviana with 5% of your income, rather than that 10% your giving to the Church presently.

What will fill the Vacuum? Hmmm, Jerry and I do like pasta. I made a big plate of spaghetti last night, and washed it down with a couple of glasses of Merlot. I'm thinking though, that I may soon to a 40 day fast, like it says in the Bible. Maybe that's your problem too?

If you don't like what some people do, then you can always push to create laws to stop and punish them. Create educational programs to teach better ways. Maybe you can create some old school metaphorical mythos, devoid of personal identities, as new object lessons. The High Church Protestants, in their zeal to prove the Bible was literally true, found in their investigation that it wasn't literally true. so what did they do? They took a positive step back and claimed that it was all metaphor. Hmmm Satan - a metaphor?

 

[Collectivist]

Nobody is attacking you Richard, except your own inner demons. I do not know what private hell you are going through but it is disconcerting. Settle down man, the Christian boogie man isn't out to get you.

Jerry, with regards to the Christian bias, I want to look into specifics so that I can get a better understanding of your moral position. Let's begin by looking at abortion. In my view, I see now difference with abortion and murder when the choice is made where no danger is present to mother or child. Do you defend a woman's right to kill her own fetus if she so chooses? If not, why is that?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Nobody is attacking you Richard, except your own inner demons. I do not know what private hell you are going through but it is disconcerting. Settle down man, the Christian boogie man isn't out to get you.

I do admit to some excess, but people like you inspire me. That said, I find it rather disconcerting when the fundies talk of Civil War. And I admit I haven't taken the time to determine whether or not the extreme left is really talking up the same, as claimed. In any case, I'm pretty sure the fundies have more guns and ammo.

At the risk of being rude (considering you made such a point to target Jerry), maybe you should consider that abortion is a designed political wedge issue. If conservatives made it easier to obtain contraception then women wouldn't have to be concerned so much about abortion, and then your question would become moot. Have you saved any children by adopting them?

Do you believe that women are merely baby factories, cooks, and maids? Or can they be more than that? Who determines the answer, God, Tradition, you? The US Constitution only mentions men, and it used to be only white men at that. For either case for some people this is a Cultural Degradation, how about for you?

The Mormons used to justify their polygamy by saying that it kept the excess women in society from having to prostitute themselves. And besides, before some party pooper ruined the fun all the Biblical Patriarchs had multiple wives, concubines, and had fun with .... prostitutes. The Bible even says that a man can not prostitute his daughter and wife, saying nothing about his mother, but maybe that was a moot point? But what about his sister, as he could indeed enslave his brother?

The Jews got their start when Judah's widowed daughter-in-law had to fool Judah into boinking her, because God had personally killed her previous husband for masturbating. Judah broke the law of the land by not allowing Tamar to have Judah's only remaining son, so she took care of business (but not in hand). And thankfully that eventually gave us Jesus ... and Judas.

What religion do you belong to, or would recommend to us Pastafarians?

What sites do you post on, and under what name?

 

[Collectivist]

At the risk of being rude (considering you made such a point to target Jerry), maybe you should consider that abortion is a designed political wedge issue. If conservatives made it easier to obtain contraception then women wouldn't have to be concerned so much about abortion, and then your question would become moot. Have you saved any children by adopting them?

What I find fascinating about this statement (other than it is the typical Stanley Strawman response) is that you are unable to appreciate the rights of the unborn child first and foremost. Frankly it is something your typical marxist would say, but thank goodness you are above that sort of nonsense.

Look, I know you hold strong feminist beliefs and that's your right, but, again, I do not subscribe to this view for the same reason I am not fond of the whole MGTOW movement that attempts to counter it. As for your assertion I am targeting Jerry, that's not my intent. I am challenging him to express in concrete terms his morality, because I am looking for areas of disagreement within our moral frameworks.

I am not a part of any organized religion but I am tolerant, even sympathetic to people of faith. In fact I share many core beliefs with Christians but one I do not is his divinity or the spiritual blackmail imposed on non believers -- This part of the faith is toxic and leads people to rebel into other false choices such as New Age and Satanism. I do believe in God, that much I can say definitely. The Mormons are a cult, I agree with that and polygamy is a disgusting practice. Are you saying you are against prostitution? Good for you Mr. Stanley, that certainly is a commendable stance which I agree with.

I was a frequent poster on the Kitco and BullionVault websites (same name) . I found this site while browsing Jan Irvin' site a long time ago.

 

[Richard Stanley]

What I find fascinating about this statement (other than it is the typical Stanley Strawman response) is that you are unable to appreciate the rights of the unborn child first and foremost. Frankly it is something your typical marxist would say, but thank goodness you are above that sort of nonsense.

I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but contraception is to prevent conception, thus making an unborn child not be conceived in the first place. In other words, the spermatazoa does not fertilize the egg by various methods.

Or, are you saying that "unborn children" exist before conception? This is the only way my question to you might be considered a straw argument.

What about sex for enjoyment, and not for conception? Should this be criminalized in your morality? What about Onanism? Should we put masturbators to death like God did with Onan? Or should we wait for God to do it?

Look, I know you hold strong feminist beliefs and that's your right, but, again, I do not subscribe to this view for the same reason I am not fond of the whole MGTOW movement that attempts to counter it.

I do not believe in militant (F)eminism, but rather I believe that all humans, male and female, should be able to do what they want with their lives, i.e. Freedom, sans harming others. I do hold on to much of my former libertarian values, now rather reformed (from the Mont Pelerin Society hidden agenda that is).

As for your assertion I am targeting Jerry, that's not my intent. I am challenging him to express in concrete terms his morality, because I am looking for areas of disagreement within our moral frameworks.

Why is this an issue for you to go to this level of granularity? Jerry left doing weekly podcasts with Joe Atwill so that we could get back to writing about what matters to us, but not you. But as soon as he did so, you spring back up.

I don't mind discussing such, but you have to know by experience, and from what I've explicitly told others, that I retaliate in kind and then some. In contrast, I just had a long and fun exchange with Christian Michael Wagner, and his curious brand of fundamentalism. He takes his literalism much more literally than most fundies do. He does agree that we should have Biblical polygamy, and unfortunately I failed to ask whether he might agree with polyandry. But, maybe he'll come back up for air, that is if he hasn't decided we're too much for redemption.

In any case, I have to thank you (and similarly my arguments with Joe) for our latest series, as it motivated me to make another advance (Why Maryland?) in my repeating historical 'script' hypothesis.

I am not a part of any organized religion but I am tolerant, even sympathetic to people of faith. In fact I share many core beliefs with Christians but one I do not is his divinity or the spiritual blackmail imposed on non believers -- This part of the faith is toxic and leads people to rebel into other false choices such as New Age and Satanism.

Good for you, seriously. I have been trying to convince Joe Atwill that Satanism is a fundamental and integral part of the Abrahamic religious control paradigm. It seems so obvious to me, but he isn't having any of it. Similarly, you can't have Christianity as we knew it (until recently that is) if Judas wasn't responsible for Jesus's death. Jesus (in the narrative) knows this because he tells Judas to "go about his business". It's all part of the theological package, all or nothing.

Are you saying you are against prostitution? Good for you Mr. Stanley, that certainly is a commendable stance which I agree with.

I am against all people being coerced into anything they don't want to do. But there are some people that make an interesting argument that modern marriage can be a form of prostitution, perhaps even worse than typical forms of prostitution. Supposedly Love determines the difference for people who object to this characterization, but the romantic Love aspect is only less than one millennium old, as marriages (permanent business contracts) were supposed to be determined by the parents, i.e. arranged. And Love might develop later, if one was lucky. So what do I know? In any case, in the Traditional (Christian or pagan) arrangement, marital sex was mostly for family line procreation and for enjoyment one used a prostitute or maid, etc..

If a man couldn't obtain a mate to settle down with, he would go into the equivalent of the French Foreign Legion. And remember that in the original Bible that Murder was Bad and Killing was Good.

I found this site while browsing Jan Irvin' site a long time ago.

Perhaps you are aware that Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin had a falling out. I had not been to Irvin's site, but kept hearing about the vaunted Trivium and Quadrivium logic tools. I listened to the Quadrivium video for about 15 minutes and heard Irvin and Gene Odening discuss why Aryan white men were superior, because they conquered and control land from all the barbarians. This sounded much like the subtext of the Old Testament to me. This is almost exactly what Nicholas DeVere (as in the family of the Earls of Oxford) says about his Norman clan, the Arya, that they were real PTB of the Bible. But you, atwill, Irvin et al insist that some other group is responsible in doing the exact same thing. CuriousDoesn't sound very libertarian to me. And yes, I am a Stanley, albeit adopted.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I am not a part of any organized religion but I am tolerant, even sympathetic to people of faith.

But apparently you are not especially tolerant of people of the Chabad Lubavitcher faith?

In fact I share many core beliefs with Christians but one I do not is his divinity or the spiritual blackmail imposed on non believers -- This part of the faith is toxic and leads people to rebel into other false choices such as New Age and Satanism.

If you don't believe in Christ's divinity, then what is the basis for believing that your core beliefs (shared with Christians) are any better than mine, or anyone else's?

I do believe in God, that much I can say definitely.

How have you come to have this knowledge? Do you claim direct contact with God, as the source of your core beliefs?

 

[Collectivist]

But apparently you are not especially tolerant of people of the Chabad Lubavitcher faith?

I can tolerate them as much as any other supremacist cult whose ambition is world domination. Take that as you will

f you don't believe in Christ's divinity, then what is the basis for believing that yoman life is not conceiur core beliefs (shared with Christians) are any better than mine, or anyone else's?

I would imagine there is some overlap, but I am still waiting for your position on abortion, which you and your partner in crime have conveniently bypassed.

How have you come to have this knowledge? Do you claim direct contact with God, as the source of your core beliefs?

Just look around you, Jerry. To what do you attribute the miracle of our very existence? It just sort of happened? Ridiculous. There is some greater meaning to our lives that I am unable to explain. Your question whether I am able to appreciate this miracle because I have some sort of direct contact with God is almost as stupid as an atheist's claim there is no God because he is not in direct contact with him. Sooner or later you will come to realize that just because something is beyond your level of comprehension or experience does not mean it doesn't exist. At best, claim you are agnostic but feel there is no God rather than stipulating it as some truthful decree.

I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but contraception is to prevent conception, thus making an unborn child not be conceived in the first place. In other words, the spermatazoa does not fertilize the egg by various methods. Or, are you saying that "unborn children" exist before conception? This is the only way my question to you might be considered a straw argument.

I do not have issue with contraception as a living human being is not realized prior to fertilization; I am referring to abortion or the act of ending the life of a living baby in utero. There are moral arguments to be made when abortion saves the life of the mother, for example, however to hold the moral position that the decision to end the life of the unborn child is legitimate because it retains the mothers right to choose is obscene. I am still waiting for a reply why this is not so.

I do not believe in militant (F)eminism, but rather I believe that all humans, male and female, should be able to do what they want with their lives, i.e. Freedom, sans harming others. I do hold on to much of my former libertarian values, now rather reformed (from the Mont Pelerin Society hidden agenda that is).

The Feminist myth was created not to better the lives of women, but to destroy the family unit. You need not take my word for it, there are countless women out there who bought into the lie, to further their so called career or whatever, only to live out their later years regretting this decision because they were too busy to notice the time running out to have children. Those who espouse Feminist ideology are actually destroying women's lives by spreading nice sounding propaganda to impressionable young girls not old enough to understand the destructive consequences such an ideology will have later in life. These poor girls approach their mid 30's and suddenly realize the urgency to have children. Do you know who the biggest and most vocal critics of Feminism are? Those crazy Christians? No .. It is from deceived women themselves who are forced to come to grips with reality. I don't care how credentialed frauds such as Richard Carrier are, their defence of feminism hides a darker agenda that post modernists like him will never disclose. Again, if feminism is something you feel the need to defend rather than expose, it speaks volumes, don't you think?

But there are some people that make an interesting argument that modern marriage can be a form of prostitution, perhaps even worse than typical forms of prostitution

Yes, those people would be marxists and post modernists. The family is the most important element in a properly functioning society but there are those who would tell you otherwise. Again, people of faith understand this concept much better than atheists and have a deeper respect for the institution of marriage than to reduce it to a simple arrangement for the exchange of bodily fluids and sexual enjoyment.

Perhaps you are aware that Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin had a falling out

Well, the battle of the egos do have a way of causing such strife

 

[Jerry Russell]

I can tolerate them as much as any other supremacist cult whose ambition is world domination.

Doesn't that also cover the Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons, all orthodox Jews (not just Lubavitchers), Muslims, and the entire US military intelligence complex? And of course, individual members of those sects are as nice as can be, and most of them don't give a fig about world domination. But in every case, the goal of world domination is built into their founding documents and basic ideology. And in every case, this translates into elite behavior.

To what do you attribute the miracle of our very existence? It just sort of happened? Ridiculous.

And to what do you attribute the miraculous existence of God? Did He just sort of happen? Is that any less ridiculous?

I am going to go with agnosticism, thank you very much. Along with a strong conviction that Yahweh, Allah and Jesus are fictional characters, invented by supremacist cults with goals of world domination.

I am still waiting for your position on abortion, which you and your partner in crime have conveniently bypassed.

No, Richard answered this, and my answer would be similar. If you're concerned about minimizing incidences of abortion, then make contraception more available. Abortion is a bad thing, and I agree it's best if the incidence of abortion can be minimized.

Now, at a legal level, what are you willing to do to enforce your belief that it is not morally legitimate for a woman to choose to have an abortion? Would you like to go back to the days when this was illegal, so women used coat-hangers or threw themselves down the stairway? Would you call for the death penalty for the woman, the doctor, or the man who knocked her up? How many years of prison for each offense, at taxpayer expense? Is any of that less obscene than a woman's right to choose for herself?

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, what is the basis for your moral beliefs? Why are your beliefs better than mine?

 

[Collectivist]

Doesn't that also cover the Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons, all orthodox Jews (not just Lubavitchers), Muslims, and the entire US military intelligence complex? And of course, individual members of those sects are as nice as can be, and most of them don't give a fig about world domination. But in every case, the goal of world domination is built into their founding documents and basic ideology. And in every case, this translates into elite behavior.

What the hell does any of this have to do with morality, Jerry? I have told you countless times that unless you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you will end up chasing your own tail. You think you are any better than these people when you justify murder? Yes Jerry, Abortion is MURDER and just because it is legalized doesn't make it right. The reason why you see abortion the way that you do is because you have been socially engineered by an ideology that is simply obsessed with taking every Christian stance and turning it upside down. I do not see it as you do because I see human life as something sacred, a miracle in fact

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, what is the basis for your moral beliefs? Why are your beliefs better than mine?

It is a question of discernment as to what is good and what is bad and your stance on abortion is an example where you are simply wrong.

An Atheistic Case for Opposing Abortion

Anyways Jerry, I am pretty much done with postflaviana forum as I cannot see myself associated with such post modernist, marxist, closet statist ideology any further. I am sure you will find an audience for this sort of thing, but I cannot stomach it much further.

Thanks for having allowed me to post in your forum over the years. In some ways, it helped me to self reflect on many things so I do not see it as a waste.
All the best ...

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jerry, C Dog has blown his most recent duplicitous cover story again. Based upon his behavioral profile he is displaying, he is a full on Catholic fundamentalist, probably a young priest who has never experienced the delights of an adult woman's charms, but rather only that of an innocent young child. One offered up for sacrifice by its sheepish parents, the latter shamed victims once themselves. Why? Because he loves his Globalist god and humanity sooo (too) much. But not enough to adopt any children (doesn't want the temptation right at home).

This idiot has a god named God (this means he is indeed of the Abrahamic voodoo CULTUS). He probably has a toilet named Toilet.

At least we have the glorious FSM, much more dignified, and .... wet noodles have never killed anyone; but rather are very forgiving, like Julius Caesar. Excepting that JC killed a lot of people. That other JC just hung out with a lot of prostitutes and tax collectors. But then he descended from an act of prostitution (even though it was all in the family), so it must be cool. But come to think of it, Tamar was yet legally entitled to the youngest son, what'shisname, and so was it Hoyle that she boinked Judah? Hmmm, guess we need a levirate lawyer.

Butt seriously, why does this schizo anonymous jackhole feel he deserves any answers whatsoever from us when he feels free to skip whatever questions of ours that he wants. Obviously he feels his butt stinks less than ours.

Wait, ..... wasn't this the doofus who tried to pass off that agitprop disinfo business that the Twin Towers were built like impenetrable steel outhouses? I say he just wanted us to think he is a doofus though.

And here I am being nothing but nice to him, but he calls us Marxists. Jesus (of that hooker lineage) said that "The Truth will set you free", and here we're doing our best to pull his head out of his ass, but C(ollectivist) ironically calls us Marxists. I guess you can't lead a whore to water, but you can make him pee on Donald Trump (now that he considers DT a Zionist after insisting not).

Again, if feminism is something you feel the need to defend rather than expose, it speaks volumes, don't you think?

Yes, it means you are afraid of women, among other things. And the only way you can feel better about your hateful self is to oppress others.

 

[Richard Stanley]

It is a question of discernment as to what is good and what is bad and your stance on abortion is an example where you are simply wrong.

You are not someone that has shown good discernment, so when you get a grip on that, then maybe you'll get a better reception here. You are just a moralizing prig, at best. You throw around labels that you don't really know what they mean, just like most all the alt-right jackanapes today. Bannon and his lover, Milo, have a name for them, "useful idiots".

Have you had sex for anything besides pro-creation, because if not, you should get the death penalty? (You refused to answer my question, so you're definitely hiding something deviant.) Have you ever had sex, with a consenting adult?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Anyways Jerry, I am pretty much done with postflaviana forum as I cannot see myself associated with such post modernist, marxist, closet statist ideology any further.

Somehow I doubt that we have really seen the last of you. I find it rather amusing that you would post a video of a self-professed Catholic blogger presuming to give a lecture to Atheists such as ourselves, about the ethics of abortion.

http://www.staresattheworld.com/about/

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I’m a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.
​

You are just a moralizing prig, at best.

I agree, from the first day until now he has been nothing but a moralizing prig. There's no nice way to say it. He has a few trigger issues that he cares about. Look at this --

I do not see it as you do because I see human life as something sacred, a miracle in fact

With no answer as to whether the life of any of the millions killed in war by supremacist cults bent on world domination, are sacred. No answer as to who he would like to murder in retribution for the lives of aborted fetuses.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Notice how he dodges around the issue of institutional rape of children by his fellow Catholic priests, by raising this red-herring moral litmus test for us. He could have just as easily raised this test a long, long time ago, instead wasting our time with his NeoNazi slime. And both of us stated that we oppose abortion (and for me at least, except for in the case of the health and life of an endangered mother > whom he ghoulishly wants to murder), and here again he dodged the issue of contraception (again a Traditionalist Catholic No-No).

His god, named God, murders humans and infants every single day, or gives them cancer, or horrific genetic diseases. And he loves this, because this is for a "wonderful plan".

Most Christian sectarians are proud to announce that they are just that. Only an anonymous Jesu spook would be so casuistic and disingenuous, and hide his Christian light so.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Here is C Dog's God in all his glory:

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV - the correct translation of this verse)
​

No wonder C Dog is so schizo.

The above is why the Vatican supported Hitler (while claiming not to), while just afterwards claiming to be the Jew's 'Joseph'. That guy who colluded with Pharaoh to enslave all of Egypt by manipulating all the markets. And when the below was over Pharaoh gave Joseph the daughter of his high priest to marry. And brother Judah had to pay obeisance to Joseph from then on, till the "two sticks become one".

Being evil capitalists (as opposed to good capitalists), God, Joseph, and Pharaoh turned the free people into feudal serfs, which the Christianized Romans repeated in Europe. That's because the same people were running the show.

C Dog's friend, 'ousia', wants us to repeat this narrative below, with the employment of an Ayn Rand based economy, where the Trumpian losers, are simply just lazy. Note the economic relationship of the priests to Pharaoh. Same as it ever was.

Joseph's Feudal Enslavement of Egypt
13And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. 14And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house. 15And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. 16And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. 17And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. 18When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: 19Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.

20And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's. 21And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. 22Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. 23Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. 24And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. 25And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants. 26And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's. (Genesis 47 KJV)​

 

[Richard Stanley]

How about me flogging some more (non-collectivist) dead horses? Don't mind if I do.

The following op-ed was in my local newspaper this morning. It speaks to a lot of matters that Collectivist and I discussed, except it neglects to mention that persons who self-identify as atheists or agnostics (to their otherwise frequent social detriment) are under-represented in crime statistics and prison populations.

Kristof's piece discusses under-age sex and under-age marriage, and this is a phenomenon of long running Christian volk Culture (Old Enough to Bleed? Old Enough to Breed), more-so in the American rural South, as epitomized by the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, and now Judge Roy Moore.

...
Divorce rates show a similar pattern: They tend to be higher in red states than in blue states, with Arkansas highest of all. “Individual religious conservatism is positively related to individual divorce risk,” according to a 50-state study reported in the American Journal of Sociology.


Then there’s adultery and prostitution. One large international survey found that the largest group of customers on Ashley Madison, the dating website for married people, were evangelical Christians. And a major 2013 study found that men in the Houston and Kansas City metro areas were the most likely to call sex ads, while men in San Francisco and Baltimore were the least likely to.

Yet it’s complicated, and there is one religious group that is extremely good at living conservative family values: Mormons. Utah stands out for low teen birthrates, low divorce rates and low abortion rates, and it has the highest rate of teenagers living with married, biological parents.

More broadly, conservative values don’t directly lead to premarital sex or divorce. Rather, statistical analysis suggests that religious conservatives end up divorcing partly because they marry early, are less likely to go to college and are disproportionately poor.

So the deeper problem seems to be the political choices that conservatives make, underinvesting in public education and social services (including contraception). This underinvestment leaves red states poorer and less educated — and thus prone to a fraying of the social fabric.

So let’s drop the wars over family values. Liberals and conservatives alike don’t want kids pregnant at 16, and we almost all seek committed marriages that last. It’s worth noting that Bible-thumping blowhards like Roy Moore don’t help achieve those values, while investments in education and family planning do. ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/blue-states-red-states-values.html​

The above exposes the likes of faux Collectivist's overly broad simplifications of various complex issues into unsupportable agitprop buzz words and talking points, that only seem good on the surface for those with shallow minds, or who cynically profit variously from this kind of Taliban thinking and system. The OTG (Original Taliban Gangsters) were created in the same cynical fashion, and for similar social engineering (sic) purposes, and sardonically by essentially the same sponsors. They just make all their 'baby factories', young and old, wear burkas.