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

[End]

Can you link to where it says that on any BLM website?

I still don't see what you mean about colonialism and the nuclear family. If anything, slave owners would routinely break up Black families in order to sell off the individuals to different buyers. With respect to BLM's antagonism towards law enforcement: the ongoing incarceration of Black men has led to an epidemic of fatherlessness in Black communities, which means that raising the social status of African Americans would probably strengthen (or at least wouldn't hurt) the nuclear family.

I normally don't like to spoon feed when the difficulty level of finding it is this easy but: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

The relevant part is near the bottom (where any good propagandist will put anything that might set off the gullible normies): "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."

As anyone knowledgeable in communist/progressive/far left/etc. newspeak is aware, when those types say "disrupt" they intend to damage or destroy the thing they "disrupt." Hence, they intend to do away with the Nuclear Family as we know it. Remember, they're experts at making things sound nice, even desirable, on paper. Once you really start to think about how you'd implement their BS well, I need only point to that mountain of corpses such people have created in merely the last century in pursuit of their worldly "utopia" (which is anything but). It is, after all, always just one more corpse away and they're an X-ist so their murder is a moral imperative. The slower and more painful their death, the better! Such is the thinking of these psychos...

[Grendel]

I normally don't like to spoon feed when the difficulty level of finding it is this easy but: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

The relevant part is near the bottom (where any good propagandist will put anything that might set off the gullible normies): "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."

[sbbds]

What’s the point of your pictures? Don’t you understand word syntax? They still say that they want to disrupt it.

@End is right. It’s a stated fact by them that it’s their goal.

[Grendel]

What’s the point of your pictures? Don’t you understand word syntax? They still say that they want to disrupt it.

@End is right. It’s a stated fact by them that it’s their goal.

Word syntax says the last word in the chain of modifiers is the noun, those before are adjectives.

Nuclear: adjective
Family: adjective
Structure: adjective
Requirement: noun

"We disrupt the... requirement." Not "we disrupt the... traditional" or "we disrupt the... structure."
It certainly didn't say "we disrupt the nuclear family structure option." It says requirement.

[sbbds]

Word syntax says the last word in the chain of modifiers is the noun, those before are adjectives.

Nuclear: adjective
Family: adjective
Structure: adjective
Requirement: noun

"We disrupt the... requirement." Not "we disrupt the... traditional" or "we disrupt the... structure."
It certainly didn't say "we disrupt the nuclear family structure option." It says requirement.

Ok... and they want to disrupt it.

They see the traditional family structure as a requirement (or more accurately see the world as seeing it that way). And they want to disrupt it and/or the requirement for it. Regardless they are anti-family structure as it currently is.

[Grendel]

Ok... and they want to disrupt it.

They see the traditional family structure as a requirement (or more accurately see the world as seeing it that way). And they want to disrupt it and/or the requirement for it. Regardless they are anti-family structure as it currently is.

Opposing something means opposing allowing it as an option. Opposing it as a requirement allows choice.

Choice is good.

[sbbds]

Opposing something means opposing allowing it as an option. Opposing it as a requirement allows choice.

Choice is good.

Well I’m glad you don’t believe you’re going extinct anymore but I still think the highly male-excluding language as @End pointed out is highly worrying. They don’t even mention the word “father” at all, but say “parents”. It reeks of people who are triggered and afraid to trigger others; running from emotions because of pain. Running from emotions means not solving problems that need to be addressed unemotionally.

”We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.”

Also, what the fuck? This seems to imply that all WOMEN or all mothers are supposed to be SJWs that are fighting towards their agenda.

And how is working a double shift patriarchal? Women doing double shifts is a result of feminism and women wanting to work more.

Nice find and source posting @End . Good eye. Fuck this bullshit.

[xerx]

I normally don't like to spoon feed when the difficulty level of finding it is this easy but: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

The relevant part is near the bottom (where any good propagandist will put anything that might set off the gullible normies): "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."

As anyone knowledgeable in communist/progressive/far left/etc. newspeak is aware, when those types say "disrupt" they intend to damage or destroy the thing they "disrupt." Hence, they intend to do away with the Nuclear Family as we know it. Remember, they're experts at making things sound nice, even desirable, on paper. Once you really start to think about how you'd implement their BS well, I need only point to that mountain of corpses such people have created in merely the last century in pursuit of their worldly "utopia" (which is anything but). It is, after all, always just one more corpse away and they're an X-ist so their murder is a moral imperative. The slower and more painful their death, the better! Such is the thinking of these psychos...

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.

[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.