Amazing 1983 Prophecy: Donald Trump will lead America back to God

[End]

I'm not so sure that's what they mean. "Disrupting the nuclear family requirement by supporting each other" sounds like pretty standard socialist rhetoric about sharing time and wealth; in this case, by helping to raise each other's children. Right or wrong, if the implication is that they intend to destroy monogamous marriage, I don't see how that statement makes the point clear.

Even if that were their intent, I doubt they'd get very far on their own. Capitalist Hollywood CEO's have done a much better job than every sex-positive feminist in loosening sexual norms. Guess which one of these is more likely to play golf with Donald Trump.

You really don't get how this works do you? It goes Religion>Culture>Politics. Religion determines Culture and Culture determines Politics. You make a false assumption as well. "Capitalist Hollywood CEO's" are against "Sex-Positive Feminists" you say? Pray tell you investigate the money train between the two will you? Or even the content of the movies flowing out of Hollywood. Are you really seeing any push back against that particular ideology? I'd bet body parts you'd find a direct link between said demonic duo. I'd bet more insofar as any discovery of a seriously "anti-feminist" movie produced and distributed by a major Hollywood studio. Go ahead, try and get one made let alone published. It won't. I'd take out loans to bet on it.

Hell, that's a bet I'd wager literal vital organs on because hey, why the hell not bet heavily to the point of your very life on a literal "sure thing" on the level of 2+2=4? I mean, if someone bets you that 2+2=5 in opposition to your assertion that it equals 4 with an actual serious about it arbiter of "Truth" presiding over the results than why not wager your own beating Heart/Favorite organ?

[xerx]

You really don't get how this works do you? It goes Religion>Culture>Politics. Religion determines Culture and Culture determines Politics. You make a false assumption as well. "Capitalist Hollywood CEO's" are against "Sex-Positive Feminists" you say? Pray tell you investigate the money train between the two will you? Or even the content of the movies flowing out of Hollywood. Are you really seeing any push back against that particular ideology? I'd bet body parts you'd find a direct link between said demonic duo. I'd bet more insofar as any discovery of a seriously "anti-feminist" movie produced and distributed by a major Hollywood studio. Go ahead, try and get one made let alone published. It won't. I'd take out loans to bet on it.

Hell, that's a bet I'd wager literal vital organs on because hey, why the hell not bet heavily to the point of your very life on a literal "sure thing" on the level of 2+2=4? I mean, if someone bets you that 2+2=5 in opposition to your assertion that it equals 4 with an actual serious about it arbiter of "Truth" presiding over the results than why not wager your own beating Heart/Favorite organ?

I still don't understand your premise.


"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

^ How is any of that against religion and against family? It's common in traditional villages for children to be supervised by everyone, and it's common for people to share resources. It doesn't sound like they're asking for all children to be forced into a kibbutz. Even if they were, most Americans and most supporters of BLM would never accept it.

[End]

I still don't understand your premise.


"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

^ How is any of that against religion and against family? It's common in traditional villages for children to be supervised by everyone, and it's common for people to share resources. It doesn't sound like they're asking for all children to be forced into a kibbutz. Even if they were, most Americans and most supporters of BLM would never accept it.

Like I said, they're damn good at making it all sound nice and desirable. Hell, I'll issue you a challenge. Go and apply for a position within a BLM Chapter. Get accepted. Then issue a Witch Test onto the "leader" of that chapter. I only recommend you do so if you're willing to quite literally die as a martyr for the faith however as the result of that may well become a death battle for you for the reasons I've stated time and again here.

As to your query, I'm shocked at how you failed to notice the lack of "masculine" terminology. "Mothers and 'Parents'" they say. Deliberate avoidance of the term "Father" is what I'm seeing. The thing that, if you have done any form of objective research, has the biggest impact upon a given child's life outcome. Loving fathers who stick around to raise their kids produce successful and well adjusted offspring. Hateful fathers who bounce at first opportunity or worse predictably produce the opposite result. Not that stories don't exist of the loving fathers producing serial killers or absentee fathers producing Saints don't exist, but more often than not it's better to be a product of the former rather than the latter...

[xerx]

Like I said, they're damn good at making it all sound nice and desirable. Hell, I'll issue you a challenge. Go and apply for a position within a BLM Chapter. Get accepted. Then issue a Witch Test onto the "leader" of that chapter. I only recommend you do so if you're willing to quite literally die as a martyr for the faith however as the result of that may well become a death battle for you for the reasons I've stated time and again here.

As to your query, I'm shocked at how you failed to notice the lack of "masculine" terminology. "Mothers and 'Parents'" they say. Deliberate avoidance of the term "Father" is what I'm seeing. The thing that, if you have done any form of objective research, has the biggest impact upon a given child's life outcome. Loving fathers who stick around to raise their kids produce successful and well adjusted offspring. Hateful fathers who bounce at first opportunity or worse predictably produce the opposite result. Not that stories don't exist of the loving fathers producing serial killers or absentee fathers producing Saints don't exist, but more often than not it's better to be a product of the former rather than the latter...

I don't think that feminists and BLM want men to go away. But let's just agree to disagree.

[sbbds]

I don't think that feminists and BLM want men to go away. But let's just agree to disagree.

Feminists and BLM want black men to go away and just to keep their cocks as bookcase trophies.

jk it’s only because they’re already gone away

[Sol]

What today politicans may is to return most people to state of the past, where was lower education, lower technology and where religion was more in peoples minds. Such weaker and more poor people are easier to be controlled and supressed by the minority for interests of this minority. But it's doubtful to say that people in past much better fited to monotheistic religious ideals on minds level, not surface rituals alike more visiting churches. That they felt happier and were stronger.
Returning to God? To more of slavery - possibly.

[lkdhf qkb]

The "United" States look pretty split to me and more lost with battling its demons and past than on any path towards some God. Or maybe we're talking about Loki or Mars? 3+ years of Donald Trump, and where are you guys exactly? How I perceive the US situation from the outside:

joey watcches TV.jpg

[End]

I don't think that feminists and BLM want men to go away. But let's just agree to disagree.

Errr... They kinda do and trust me I've done the research to know it. At least, they want "masculinity" to go away if we want to get 100 percent nitpicky about terms and such.

Men, as a gender, can and must stay as a matter of necessity but "masculine" men/masculinity cannot. Y'know, because they kinda threaten the absolute pussies who currently rule the whole damn world ATM. Strength, Courage, Mastery, Honor, Faith, a willingness to lie down and die on basic principle because it's the right thing to do. That's what real, masculine men stand for, represent, and in an ideal world embody. Women instinctually want men like that to be their husbands, because it complements everything they are and ought to be. Truth complements truth and seeks its own completion.

Not to say there aren't bad sides to Masculinity, but the commies and feminists (but I repeat myself) focus on those to the absolute exclusion of the good. To the point they won't even use the word "father" in their manifestos anymore. The term "Father" feels positive to us normal folk. It brings about positive feelings.

Not to them though, because men bad and violence not done to X-ists is never wrong (of whom most everyone is if we really start to dig and hence why the saying "the left always consumes its own" hasn't failed to not be true) but I digress.

There is one part of being a "man" they'll never tell you about because it subverts their whole narrative. They always speak of "fragile" masculinity. There is damn good reason we don't show our tears to those whom we don't trust with our very lives. See, every male did show his fragility at a point early in his adolescence. He was punished severely for it somehow. Physically, Emotionally, Financially, it doesn't matter how, but he was punished severely for "thinking like a bitch" as it were. He got the point after that. Like if you stuck a fork into an electrical outlet and managed to not die. Oh yeah, you're not trying that again now are you?

We men have tried to "show" our emotions to strangers... and we suffered greatly for it. If you disagree with this, if you did this and didn't feel like you could relate to this experience, than you glow so radiantly in the dark you're making me feel kinda proud.

[xerx]

Errr... They kinda do and trust me I've done the research to know it. At least, they want "masculinity" to go away if we want to get 100 percent nitpicky about terms and such.

Men, as a gender, can and must stay as a matter of necessity but "masculine" men/masculinity cannot. Y'know, because they kinda threaten the absolute pussies who currently rule the whole damn world ATM. Strength, Courage, Mastery, Honor, Faith, a willingness to lie down and die on basic principle because it's the right thing to do. That's what real, masculine men stand for, represent, and in an ideal world embody. Women instinctually want men like that to be their husbands, because it complements everything they are and ought to be. Truth complements truth and seeks its own completion.

Not to say there aren't bad sides to Masculinity, but the commies and feminists (but I repeat myself) focus on those to the absolute exclusion of the good. To the point they won't even use the word "father" in their manifestos anymore. The term "Father" feels positive to us normal folk. It brings about positive feelings.

Not to them though, because men bad and violence not done to X-ists is never wrong (of whom most everyone is if we really start to dig and hence why the saying "the left always consumes its own" hasn't failed to not be true) but I digress.

There is one part of being a "man" they'll never tell you about because it subverts their whole narrative. They always speak of "fragile" masculinity. There is damn good reason we don't show our tears to those whom we don't trust with our very lives. See, every male did show his fragility at a point early in his adolescence. He was punished severely for it somehow. Physically, Emotionally, Financially, it doesn't matter how, but he was punished severely for "thinking like a bitch" as it were. He got the point after that. Like if you stuck a fork into an electrical outlet and managed to not die. Oh yeah, you're not trying that again now are you?

We men have tried to "show" our emotions to strangers... and we suffered greatly for it. If you disagree with this, if you did this and didn't feel like you could relate to this experience, than you glow so radiantly in the dark you're making me feel kinda proud.

@End I'll surprise you by agreeing with the spirit of some of what you said: there's indeed less room for traditional male personality characteristics to the detriment of many displaced men. What's not definitive is that feminism is responsible as opposed to technology / lack of industrial jobs / atomization / economic system / whatever. The fact that some feminists are adversarial towards 'masculinity' doesn't mean that they're good at it. Anyway, these are important:

* The bureaucratization of everyday life fits the personalities of women better than men. That includes the school system, which is geared towards passive learning—sitting down quietly and taking notes—rather than hands on learning. It also includes the standard office job. Women are doing well because they're better at navigating these docile environments.

* There's a lack of struggle and a lack of function. You mention agentive traits like honour and strength, and there is indeed less room for these within the confines of our domestic existence, as people today are instead encouraged to behave as passive 'pleasure machines' and economic animals. Through my observations, I've found that many men respond favourably to the idea of regimentation by a disciplinarian authority figure; not necessarily because of any militaristic appeal, but because it provides them with a sense of mission and a source of self-discipline. Jordan Peterson has come to represent this authority figure.

[End]

@End I'll surprise you by agreeing with the spirit of some of what you said: there's indeed less room for traditional male personality characteristics to the detriment of many displaced men. What's not definitive is that feminism is responsible as opposed to technology / lack of industrial jobs / atomization / economic system / whatever. The fact that some feminists are adversarial towards 'masculinity' doesn't mean that they're good at it. Anyway, these are important:

* The bureaucratization of everyday life fits the personalities of women better than men. That includes the school system, which is geared towards passive learning—sitting down quietly and taking notes—rather than hands on learning. It also includes the standard office job. Women are doing well because they're better at navigating these docile environments.

* There's a lack of struggle and a lack of function. You mention agentive traits like honour and strength, and there is indeed less room for these within the confines of our domestic existence, as people today are instead encouraged to behave as passive 'pleasure machines' and economic animals. Through my observations, I've found that many men respond favourably to the idea of regimentation by a disciplinarian authority figure; not necessarily because of any militaristic appeal, but because it provides them with a sense of mission and a source of self-discipline. Jordan Peterson has come to represent this authority figure.

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?