Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Like Hitler, Radical Muslims Are Far Too Left Wing To Be Considered Rightists. Therefor they are Leftists
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Topaz
Apr 13, 2014, 6:55:21 AM4/13/14
to
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:30:09 -0400, Buttsting Allergy
<southern...@yahoo.ru> wrote:
>On the rise of the radical religious right and the breakdown of
>democracy in the United States
"Iranian people burn US flags in the streets
Today is "national anti-global arrogance day" in Iran, and all week
the ordinary people of Iran have been taking to the streets to protest
against the US regime. The US regime is openly hostile to the
democratically elected leader of Iraq, which demonstrates their
contempt for "democracy" when it is not controlled by the western
ruling classes. The Iranian people broadly do not approve of what the
US regime is doing, so anti-Americanism here [against the regime, not
the American people] is clearly true democracy in action. The US
claims to stand for "democracy" but it is blatantly obvious that this
does not apply when democracy does not produce the required results."
The Insider
"We support the election process, we support democracy,
but that doesn't mean we have to support governments
that get elected as a result of democracy."
- President G. Bush - Washington, D.C., Mar. 29, 2006
>Several mistakes are commonly made when thinking about the radical
>religious right. The first is to assume that the religious right shares
>the values held in common by most Americans.
>
>Note from the author
>
>A few years ago, when I wrote this essay, I felt that few people
>understood the radical religious right in the United States.
>
>Since then the radical religious right has become more prominent, but
>its beliefs and values are still very poorly understood.
>
>If mainstream Americans really understood the religious right, they
>would be shocked.
>
>My aim is not to ridicule or attack the religious right, but to bring
>its beliefs and values into the open.
Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
will return soon.
Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.
Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.
>
>- Michael Webb
>
>In fact, the religious right has an entirely different cultural and
>ideological background that basically regards those shared values as
>irrelevant. Fundamentalist Christianity teaches its believers to be "in
>the world but not of the world"; that is, to live among secular people
>but to reject their way of thinking.
>
>Among the values shared implicitly by all Americans are 1) that persons
>ought to be free to do as they please so long as they do no harm to
>others,
The Rede of Witchcraft.
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
In the past the "right" was for outlawing sodomy, prostitution,
abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It put the good of the
nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to corrupt the
culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize prostitution,
drugs, greed, etc.
The "right" was for building a great nation. Liberals care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion
would allow public sodomy on any street corner. Their philosophy would
allow heroin to be sold on grocery store shelves and allow ads
promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy would result in chaos and
degeneracy and hell on earth.
Libertarians want freedom for the billionaires to be as greedy as
they want, so they can continue to ship the jobs to Mexico and China
where people work for pennies. What about the food and safety and
health laws. Libertarians are against them.
No one wants laws just for the sake of bothering people for no good
reason. Libertarians pretend that that is the problem. There is a law
that you can't shoot all the deer you want, because if all the hunters
did they would exterminate the deer. There is a law that you can't
turn the odometer back in a car and then sell the car. What other laws
do libertarians think we don't need. Let's hear some examples of what
libertarians want to be free to do. They are silent when it comes to
that. They are financed by the billionaires and the freedom they
really want is the freedom to exploit other people.
Old fashioned rightists cared about the future. Libertarians only
see the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested. They insist that the only important thing is the freedom
of individuals to be as selfish as they want and nothing else matters
one iota.
>and 2) that every person is entitled to hold an opinion, and
>that no person's opinion is necessarily or intrinsically more valid
>than any other's.
Nonsense
>
>The radical religious right does not play by those rules at all. From
>their point of view, those assumptions are secular ("worldly"), and
>therefore simply wrong.
>
>The notion of compromise is alien to the radical religious right,
>because from their point of view either a belief comes from God, and is
>therefore absolutely and eternally true, or it comes from the secular
>world and ultimately from Satan, and is therefore utterly false, no
>matter how reasonable it may seem.
>
>In fact, fundamentalist Christians believe that Satan (considered a
>completely real being) uses reason to deceive the sinful human mind.
>Reason is bad, faith is good.
Reason is good. Faith is believing something without proof.
>
>Because of those attitudes, most people are totally at sea when trying
>to understand the religious right. The core perspectives are too
>different.
>
>Another common error is that many people who consider themselves
>Christians, but who are not part of the radical religious right, feel
>that they can understand the radical religious right based on shared
>Christian beliefs.
>
>In fact, the religious perspectives of the religious right differ
>markedly from those of moderate, nominal Christians.
>
>Extreme fundamentalist Christians actually regard moderate, nominal
>Christians, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"
>(II Timothy 3:5), as worse than unbelievers. "I would thou wert cold or
>hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
>will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)
>
>They may pity unbelievers, but they distrust or even despise moderate
>Christians, in whom God has invested more of his grace and light, but
>who have chosen not to respond wholeheartedly. "For unto whomsoever
>much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)
>The radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true
>intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and
>by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.
Originally Christianity was against greed, before it was taken over by
Jews.
>
>A further marked difference between the fundamentalist Christians and
>others is that most people are motivated by the desire to find
>happiness. Those who adhere to Christian fundamentalism do not regard
>the pursuit of happiness to be a valid motivation, but instead consider
>"doing the will of God by submitting utterly to the Lordship of His Son
>Jesus Christ" to be the only acceptable reason for living.
We should seek happiness, after we stamp out the feminists and
sodomites and all liberalism.
>
>Those two motivations lead to very different choices and personal
>values.
>. . .
>
>How could a group with such distinct values have become so powerful in
>the United States, a society where power derives from political appeal?
>
>The answers to that question are complex, but part of the success of
>the radical religious right has come by infiltrating a mainstream
>political party -- the Republican Party. The religious right has been
>able to gain a foothold in that party by playing down its more radical
>leanings.
>Many people who consider themselves Christians mistakenly feel that
>they can understand the radical religious right based on shared
>Christian beliefs.
>
>For their part, the Republicans in the United States have been happy to
>see their party energized by the fervor and commitment that religious
>right true believers can bring to the political process. Since the late
>1970s the religious right has steadily transformed the Republican Party
>from a basically secular, conservative, civic-minded party to become
>the public face of legitimacy for the otherwise alien values of the
>radical religious right.
>
>The radical religious right is not conservative at all, however, in
>that it does not wish to conserve the status quo; it seeks to overthrow
>many longstanding American traditions and institutions or at least to
>radically change their outworking.
>
>For almost three decades the leaders of Christian fundamentalist groups
>have increasingly radicalized their followers by using certain
>explosively emotive issues. Principal among those has been the legality
>of abortion, which they consider to be the murder of unborn children.
>
>As driven home by leaders of the radical religious right, any society
>that legally sanctions the murder of children must be unreservedly
>perverse. That conviction further hardens the position that no
>compromise is possible with the deluded mainstream, and that only
>radical change is acceptable.
>
>A second area of radicalization has been gay rights and the gradual
>acceptance by the American mainstream that gay people can be good
>citizens, and a third area has been the issue of prayer in public
>schools and the teaching of biological evolution.
>
>Those points have been used to radicalize the radical religious right
>in the United States in the same way that Islamicists have long used
>the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to radicalize their
>own people. In fact, we can draw many parallels between the radical
>religious right in the US and Islamic radicals in the Middle East.
>
>Like most radical movements, both are unwilling to compromise or
>coexist with their adversaries. In their minds, the continuing presence
>of political or ideological adversaries can only be bad. Radicals feel
>they must persist in their struggle until the world is completely
>purged and free of the adversaries.
>
>That political reflex differs dramatically from moderate democratic
>values, which emphasize tolerance, dissent, competition among ideas,
>and the formation of alliances based on negotiated compromises.
>The radical religious right is not conservative at all, however, in
>that it does not wish to conserve the status quo; it seeks to overthrow
>many longstanding American traditions and institutions.
>
>The influence of the radical religious already right exceeds its size.
>It still faces challenges to its rule, although that may change during
>the next few years as it consolidates its strength, and begins to
>exercise the prerogatives of its growing power.
>
>As that happens, the United States will begin to look quite different.
>
>What kind of place will the United States be if the radical religious
>right continues to consolidate power and enforce policies of its
>choosing?
>
>An obvious change will be that children in public schools, or private
>schools publicly funded through vouchers, will receive religious
>instruction based on the ideology of Christian fundamentalists. That
>policy will perhaps be presented as a way to strengthen the fabric of
>society, reduce crime, and so on.
>
>Of course, the scientific view of biology will no longer be taught in
>public institutions, except as a cultural oddity to be rejected.
Here are some quotes from Brain Sex, the Real Difference between men
and women
By Anne Moir And David Jessel
They are equal only in their common membership of the species,
humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or
behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific
lie.
The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain,
the chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed in men and in women; it processes information in a
different way, which results in different perceptions, priorities and
behavior.
Until recently, behavior differences between the sexes have been
explained away by social conditioning - the expectations of parents,
whose own attitudes, in turn, reflect the expectations of society;
little boys are told that they shouldn't cry, and that the way to the
top depends on masculine assertion and aggression. Scant attention was
paid to the biological view that we may be what we are because of the
way we are made. Today, there is too much new biological evidence for
the sociological argument to prevail.
The biggest behavioral difference between men and women is the
natural, innate aggression of men, which explains to a large degree
their historical dominance of the species. Men didn't learn aggression
as one the tactics of the sex war. We do not teach our boy children to
be aggressive - indeed, we try vainly to unteach it. Even researchers
most hostile to the acknowledgement of sex differences agree that this
is a male feature, and one which cannot be explained away by social
conditioning.
There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain
- and what science knows - that they do not.
It cannot be stressed often enough that this book concerns itself
with the average man and the average woman.
The area where the biggest differences have been found lies in what
scientists call 'spatial ability'. That's being able to picture
things, their shape, position, geography and proportion, accurately in
the mind's eye - all skills that are crucial to the practical ability
to work with three-dimensional objects or drawings. One scientist who
has reviewed the extensive literature on the subject concludes, 'The
fact of the male's superiority in spatial ability is not in dispute'.
It is confirmed by literally hundreds of different scientific studies.
99 per cent of all patents applied for today are registered by men.
Scientists know that they walk on social eggshells when they venture
any theory about human behavior. But researchers into sex differences
are increasingly impatient with the polite attempt to find a social
explanation for these differences. As Camilla Benbow now says now says
of her studies showing male superiority in mathematically gifted
children, 'After 15 years looking for an environmental explanation and
getting zero results, I gave up.' She readily admitted to us her
belief that the difference in ability has a biological basis.
The differences are apparent in the very first hours after birth. It
has been shown that girl babies are much more interested than boys in
people and faces; the boys seem just as happy with an object dangled
in front of them.
Embryonic boy babies are exposed to a colossal dose of male hormone at
the critical time when their brains are beginning to take shape.
The brains of male and female mammals, from rodents to primates,
exhibiting hormonally mediated differences in neuro-transmitter
levels, neural connections, and cell and nuclear volume, strongly
suggests that similar sexual dimorphism of structure and function
exists human brains as well.
In women the functional division between the left and the right sides
of the brain is less clearly defined. Both the left and the right
sides of the female brain are involved in verbal and visual abilities.
Men's brains are more specialized.
The left side of the brain is almost exclusively set aside for the
control or verbal abilities, the right side for visual.
And the latest research had shown that the more connections people
have between the left and right hemispheres, the more articulate and
fluent they are. The finding provides a further explanation for
women's verbal dexterity. But could the corpus callosum provide the
answer to another mystery, could it provide a somewhat solution to the
secret of female intuition? Is the physical capacity of a woman to
connect and relate more pieces of information than a man explained not
by witchcraft, after all, but merely by superior switchgear? Since
women are in general better at recognizing the emotional nuances in
voice, gesture and facial expression, a whole range of sensory
information. They can deduce more from such information because they
have a greater capacity than men to integrate and cross-relate verbal
and visual information.
A woman may be less able to separate emotion from reason because of
the way the female brain is organized. The female brain has emotional
capacities on both sides of the brain, plus there is more information
exchanged between the two sides of the brain. The emotional side is
more integrated with the verbal side of the brain.
These discernible, measurable differences in behavior have been
imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to work.
They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already
know about - the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the
greater female skill in speech.
Boys want to explore areas, spaces and things because their brain bias
predisposes them to these aspects of the environment. Girls like to
talk and to listen because that is what their brains are better
designed to do.
Even in the Israeli kibbutz, where deliberate attempts have been made
to play down the differences between boys and girls, and where the
engineered society proclaims a virtual interchangeability of the
sexes, it was found that in all age groups, while girls cooperated,
shared and acted affectionately, boys engaged in more acts of conflict
such as seizing other children's toys.
The manifestation of masculine behavior in otherwise fully female
women is a much-debated subject. There are, however, clinical findings
which point the way to a possible explanation. Most of them concern
women who have been exposed to an abnormal level of male hormone in
the womb during the critical period of brain development.
The pursuit of power is overwhelmingly and universally a male trait.
On the math part of tests, boys do significantly better, and the
success ratio of boys to girls increases with the level of difficulty.
On a score of 420+ out of a possible 800, boys beat girls 1.5 : 1. At
500+, the ratio is more than 2 : 1. At 600+ it is over 4 : 1. At the
highest range, of 700+ the ratio is 13 : 1.
Greater freedom of expression has led to a greater awareness of our
differences.. how long will it be before we revert to type, how long
before those same magazines are talking of the New Romanticism - 'At
Last, We Can be Feminine Again' - or running features on the 'Return
of the Macho'?
Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
ethical, and social precept.
Liberation condemns the sexual double standard - why should sex
outside of marriage be 'all right' for men, all wrong for women? The
standards are indeed double, in that an extra-marital affair does mean
different things, and has a different level of importance, for men and
women. 'It didn't mean anything', mutters the man, when his
indiscretion is revealed - and it almost certainly didn't. He says
that he loves her just as much as ever, and he probably does. But the
wife sees his affair as an assault on what is to her most precious -
intimacy and fidelity. If she were to embark on an affair, you can
bet that is would 'mean' a lot to her. She cannot forgive him; for she
cannot even understand him. Their brains and their hormones have made
them strangers to one another.
The difference between the attitude and proficiency of men and women
as parents again reflects those basic differences of the brain. In
this most intimate of relationships, between parent and child, it is
the mother rather than the father who is more alert to the nuance and
the non-verbal hint, more naturally responsive to a baby's needs.
The Israeli kibbutz was not designed specifically to abolish the
Jewish mother. But in these forcing-houses of social engineering,
girls and boys grew up with virtually interchangeable roles. Children
were reared communally, and the household duties of cooking and
laundry were a community, rather than a family responsibility. The
expectation was that, with the passing of several neutral generations,
sexual differentiation would evaporate, and sexist stereotyping would
become a memory as remote as slavery is to the newest generation of
America's blacks.
But that is not what happened. Three of four generations later, the
children of the kibbutz are still clinging to their traditional
roles..again looking at the experience of the Israeli kibbutzim.
Social engineers worked hard to iron out classic gender stereotypes at
an early age: 'All children are dressed in the same work-clothes..
there is no sex difference in the style of haircut' Even so.. The boys
went on to study physics and become engineers, the girls to study
sociology and become teachers. It is telling proof of what we now know
- that the minds of men and women are different, that ultimately boys
and men live in a world of things and space, girls and women in a
world of people and relationships.
Just as there are physical dissimilarities between males and females
(size, body shape, skeleton, teeth, age of puberty, etc.) there are
equally dramatic differences in brain functioning.
There is solid and consistent evidence from scientists all over the
world that a biochemical influence in the womb determines and directs
the structure and function or our brains. Through the influence of the
hormones the brain cells 'acquire a "set".. highly resistant to change
after birth'. Male hormone organizes the developing brain into a male
pattern which leads to male behavior. Absence of the male hormone
means that the brain persists in a female pattern, resulting in a
female pattern of behavior. This organization of the brain into a male
or female neural network is permanent; it can only be modified by
altering the hormonal milieu of the womb.
We can hope for an end to the slogans, for slogans do not change
facts, and an end to the sterile pursuit of artificial equality; an
abandonment of the arduous and unnatural process of denial and ,
instead, the enjoyment of our natural selves; the greening of a new
relationship between men and women; a celebration of the difference.
>Those are perhaps some of the least dramatic changes, although they
>will eventually lead to the United States slipping from its preeminent
>role in science. In the eyes of the fundamentalist, "the wisdom of this
>world is foolishness with God" (I Corinthians 3:19).
>
>Regions where religious fundamentalism prevails can sometimes produce
>good science, and very occasionally might even produce excellent
>science, but arguably almost never brilliant or groundbreaking science.
>
>A society under the strict control of the religious right would
>arguably suppress the cultural factors that support a dynamic and
>innovative knowledge-based economy. For that reason, a political coup
>by the religious right would likely be regarded by capital markets as
>being unfavorable to long-term growth.
>
>Although it might seem that the rise of the religious right would be
>unfriendly to the kind of secular, hyper-consumerist society that
>global capitalism seeks to invest in, that is not entirely true in the
>United States.
>
>American Christian fundamentalists during the past few decades have
>increasingly embraced a view that Jesus wants them to be wealthy.
>Conspicuous consumption by believers is regarded as a beneficial
>display of God's power and His love for His people.
>. . .
>
>A more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise of
>power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant
>nationalism in the United States.
>
>Many people fail to understand this because, again, they are thinking
>of the religious right as being Christian, and that Christianity is a
>religion that teaches peace. That view misses the mark on several
>levels.
>
>Christian fundamentalists believe in biblical literalism, and the
>Judaeo-Christian bible is actually full of references to war and an
>angry, aggressive God, and certainly does not condemn war.
>
>Also, the religious right is rooted in the American South, which has a
>longstanding culture of militarism. Many people in the South have lived
>as professional soldiers or in communities that support military bases,
>and have done so for generations.
>
>For the radical religious right, an American foreign policy based on
>militant nationalism has an almost holy virtue. They believe that the
>United States has been specially dedicated to Jesus Christ for His
>purposes. To question or resist militant nationalism is to be
>unpatriotic, and to be unpatriotic is to be un-Christian in the eyes of
>the religious right.
>
>This perceived connection between the United States and Jesus Christ is
>important to understand, as it motivates much of the political activity
>of the religious right.
>Another more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise
>of power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant
>nationalism in the United States.
>
>Until the late 1970s, Christian fundamentalists were not particularly
>involved in politics. From the fundamentalist perspective, however,
>Christian believers are the "salt of the earth, but if the salt have
>lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good
>for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
>(Matthew 5:13)
>
>That scriptural injunction, along with others, is taken by
>fundamentalists to mean that they are held accountable by God to stem
>social rotting and corruption (like salt in meat) and to actively
>promote the sanctity of the United States.
>
>Christian fundamentalists understand that God does not want them simply
>to be passive in the political sphere, minding their own business and
>practicing their religion in private. They believe that their God has
>solemnly enjoined them to force their biblical beliefs upon all levels
>of government, from local school boards to Congress and the Supreme
>Court.
>
>At the same time, Christian fundamentalists believe that because of
>their active presence in the US political process, and because of
>earlier generations of pious Americans, the United States is special in
>the sight of God. Therefore, patriotism and militant nationalism are
>consistent with fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
>
>Such thinking is remarkably similar in tone to that of the National
>Socialists in Germany. The Nazis held the absolute conviction that what
>was good for Germany and German supremacy was always right and was to
>be vigorously pursued at all costs, no matter how detrimental that
>might be for individuals, smaller groups.
>Christian fundamentalists understand that God does not want them to be
>simply passive in the political sphere, minding their own business and
>practicing their religion in private.
>
>The radical religious will seek to restrict not only freedom of thought
>but ultimately even freedom of religion itself.
>
>In particular, once the radical religious right succeeded in
>establishing totalitarian control, it would likely make moderate forms
>of Christianity the targets of surveillance and persecution.
>
>Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes
>Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions
>for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.
>
>From the fundamentalist perspective, the spirit of Antichrist seeks to
>replace the gospel of Christ with liberal, secular thinking that
>appeals to the "unsaved" but that does not lead to true salvation.
>
>In their view, only Christ can save the world from its problems. Any
>attempt to replace Christ with other solutions is ultimately motivated
>by Satanic forces. Socially progressive or charitable groups would find
>their freedom to operate and to express their views restricted.
>. . .
>
>Many pentecostal or "charismatic" Christians believe in demons, which
>are disembodied spirits in the service of Satan. Those spirits commonly
>enter human bodies and make people think or do sinful things by
>strengthening their "sinful nature."
>
>Such Christians openly believe that liberal Christians are inhabited by
>demons of Antichrist that deceive them into playing into Satan's
>desperate attempt to keep the world from seeing the light of Christ's
>Word.
>
>It is ironic that the religious right would seek to restrict religious
>freedom, because their own success in the United States has partly come
>from a liberal legal foundation that restricts state interference in
>religious affairs.
>
>It is also ironic because many of the complaints made by Christian
>fundamentalists have been that the public school system forces their
>children to acquire secular humanist values.
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye
Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe
that our nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true. I
have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought. I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a
sample of what I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children Graphic instruction
in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls Armed guards posted to
keep parents out of high school assemblies led by radical homosexual
activists A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that
endorses sex between children and adults!
I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute: there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children. The
attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for - and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality, and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short! Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls
the schools, controls the future." If they can convince the next
generation that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will
be no stopping them. Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole
generation of young people to explore "alternative" sexual behavior...
to discover their "gay side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and
given to me by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING The Gay, Lesbian, and
Straight Education Network, also known as "GLSEN, is pushing a
grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing. This book
was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a
children's book titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real! The story is about a young
boy named Jesse who likes trying on his mother's dresses, and dreams
of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and glowed, and felt soft
inside." Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to
daycare, where his classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher,
Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress up in her old
dresses and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father
came in and yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want
my son to be a sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't
know, - I still don't see what was wrong with it." The children and
their teacher discuss the issue and most of the children end up liking
Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses themselves. The book
ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open. Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they
want to be." I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear
dresses, or the negative portrayal of Mike's father. Children who
study "Jesse's Dream Skirt" are getting the message that their
parents' view of morality cannot be trusted. Lest you think this sort
of insanity is restricted to California, take a loot at this next
report, straight from the Midwest. Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother
of Student from School Assembly on Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it! The incident took
place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after school had started
for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro High School,
heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly. Loveless
had told school officials that she considered the event inappropriate.
When she tried to view it for herself, she was escorted out of the
assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators! We may
never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive. GLESEN has produced some of
the most foul "educational" material in the dishonorable history of
sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a pornographic teaching
session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN. During that workshop,
homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex acts, including the dangerous practice known in
homosexual slang as "fisting." After it was exposed, that session
sparked outrage across the nation. It was such a scandal that it
became known as "Fistgate." GLSEN leaders responded by becoming much
more secretive. Apparently this has led them to keep parents out of
their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out
of public schools by armed guards! It's time for parents and
grandparents to stand up and fight to protect our children. We can't
think that just because it hasn't happened in our school yet that it
never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop with just the
California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This
book includes such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to
children... There are many ways even the smallesst children can
partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a "naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles,
Levine says children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes sex between adults and children as young as 12! It's
unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's standards of sexual morality have been belittled as
"taboos," and been worn down step by step. Today, almost nothing is
off limits. Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier
to be torn down. How long will it take these radical activists to
achieve their next evil objective? Our grade-school children are
already being taught that cross-dressing is just wonderful
self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex practices are
already being taught to high school children, and parents are being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activists. We
must - and we can - stop this. NOW! I grieve for our children and
grandchildren. And I fear for our nation if we do not stand up to
this assault of immorality and defeat it...
I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the
schools under any guise that works.
>
>The religious right may impose its cultural ideology through a national
>public school curriculum that will begin as an attempt to bring
>standards to education, but will grow steadily restrictive and
>prescriptive.
>
>Education will perhaps be limited to teaching basic skills and moral
>lessons. Critical thinking will probably be explicitly eliminated from
>the new national curriculum. Christian fundamentalists have a bias
>against intellectual development and toward manual labor: "work with
>your own hands, as we commanded you" (I Thessalonians 4:11).
>
>Fundamentalists believe that Satan is a fallen angel who has the power
>to "steal the seeds of faith" from God's children through the clever
>intellectual reasoning that he plants in the minds of educated
>unbelievers.
>
>We only need to think of the intolerance of Puritans in colonial New
>England to realize that religious freedom in the United States has more
>often meant that the state could not interfere with the prevailing
>religion, and not that all religious practices or beliefs would be
>tolerated.
>
>It's interesting that the type of American modeled by the Philadelphian
>Benjamin Franklin what the radical religious right seeks to extirpate.
>Franklin was a scientist, intellectual, publisher, the founder of the
>first public library, an internationalist in the context of his times,
>and a rationalist.
>Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes
>Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions
>for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.
>
>As do most radicalized political movements, the radical religious right
>considers itself to have been persecuted by mainstream society.
>
>Christian fundamentalist leaders teach their followers that the
>educational, legislative, and judicial institutions of the West are in
The West is the White race.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.
Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.
Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."
>the hands of what they refer to as secular humanists, who are
>determined to curtail the rights of true Christians, either overtly
>through public policy or more stealthily through relentless exposure to
>the corrupted "worldly" media.
>
>Just as Nazis claimed that Germany had been aggrieved by Communists and
>alleged Jewish internationalist conspirators, the belief in having been
>aggrieved by the American coastal urban establishment will be used as
>justification for the restrictions that the religious right will begin
>to impose on freedom of thought and expression in the United States.
>
>Similar also to the Nazis, the religious right will seek to uphold what
>they deem to be the morality of common people, railing against
>degeneracy (as the Nazis railed against entartete Kunst).
>
>Once fully in power, the religious right will regard alternative
>viewpoints as unacceptable rivals in their efforts to control the
>cultural life of the nation.
>
>Admittedly, the legal tradition in the US makes it difficult for a
>government to directly curtail freedom of expression, but the radical
>religious right will work relentlessly to weaken legal protections and
>to impose their restrictions through any means possible.
>
>Quite possibly the political proxies of the religious right in the
>executive branch of government will use security concerns as a cover
>for clamping down on freedom of expression.
>
>The cycle will have come fully around when the radical religious right
>begins to prohibit competing religions. This is not as surprising an
>outcome as it may seem.
>. . .
>
>Many Christian fundamentalists take a dim view not only of nominal
>moderate Christians, but also of Catholics, whom they regard as
>Mary-worshippers and idolaters, and certainly of Buddhists, Hindus,
>Mormons, and Muslims, all of whom they consider to live in spiritual
>darkness.
>
>The attitude of Christian fundamentalists to Jewish people is
>noteworthy. Fundamentalists recognize that Jesus was Jewish and that
>Christianity grew out of Judaism. In fact, they believe that
>Christianity is the fulfillment or "perfection" of Judaism and the
>answer to the Abrahamic promises made by God to the Jewish people.
The Old Testament does say that God likes one race of people more than
others. It calls this race the Israelites. Nature wants the most
advanced and evolved race to take over. This is obviously the White
race. Compare Europe to Africa.
This is the definition of the word "adam" in Strong's Concordance:
"to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be
(dyed, made) red (ruddy)."
This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today
and see which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White
people.
The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the
Hebrew word "ruddy":
"reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."
David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a
typical Jew.
The original Israelites were White people.
Jews are like the American Indians of today. These people say they
are Indians but the original Indians were clearly described as having
red skin. Today Indians may look brown or white, but not red. Neither
are Jews like the original Israelites.
The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words.
Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."
The old drawing of Jesus were probably correct. He probably had blond
hair and blue eyes.
John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would
not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."
John 20:19 "the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
for fear of the Jews"
2 Co 11:24 "Of the Jews five times recieved I forty stripes save
one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned"
Mathew 27: 20+25 "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the
multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...then
answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children."
Acts 25:24 "ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews
have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem and also here, crying that he
ought not to live any longer."
John 8:42,44,48 "Jesus said unto them...Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from
the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth
in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it...Then answered the Jews..."
The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words.
Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."
>
>In that sense, fundamentalists consider Jews to be God's chosen people,
>but that they are lost in spiritual darkness until they accept Jesus as
>their Messiah. Christian fundamentalists see the Jewish religion as an
>obstacle to Jewish salvation.
>
>That explains the odd problem that the Israeli government has long
>faced with extremist millenarian Christian fundamentalists coming to
>the State of Israel and attempting to make converts.
>One of the fascinating facts about the radical religious right, and a
>fact that many opposing political activists will fail to realize, is
>that direct opposition only makes it stronger.
>
>In the end, the radical religious right will brook no opposition to its
>total control of the United States. The religious right will use
>patriotism and national security concerns to solidify its grip on
>power.
>
>The religious right is a grassroots movement as well as a national one.
>Local "cells" operating in churches run disciplined campaigns to win
>local offices by taking advantage of voter ignorance and apathy.
>
>One of the fascinating facts about the radical religious right, and a
>fact that many opposing political activists will fail to realize, is
>that direct opposition only makes it stronger.
>
>There is no way around this. The belief system of fundamentalism is
>constructed to sustain a perpetual siege mentality, and this siege
>mentality in turn makes the belief system seem even more real and
>urgent to fundamentalists when they perceive themselves to be under
>attack.
>
>Many fundamentalists consider that their attackers may be empowered by
>trans-human, Satanically-aligned intelligences. "For we wrestle not
>against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
>against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
>wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
>
>Overt opposition will only radicalize the radical religious right even
>further. In fact, if they fail to get their way through legitimate
>political means, they might eventually turn to terrorism, as some have
>done in bombing abortion clinics and shooting physicians who practice
>abortion.
>
>When groups become radicalized, they start to believe that the nobility
>of their ends justifies any means, and they slip into thinking that any
>action, including violence and lying, is necessary and appropriate.
>The best hope we have of taming the radical religious right is to bring
>it out of the shadows. If mainstream Americans understood what the
>radical religious right actually stands for and plans to do, they would
>be shocked.
>
>Further, one of the engines driving the fundamentalist right is
>Pentecostalism.
>
>Pentecostalists are convinced that Christ will return to earth in
>bodily form within the next few years. They believe that when he
>appears his followers will be instantly transformed and given immortal
>bodies. Many even believe in a "rapture," in which Christ's believers
>will be physically snatched up and will fly into the sky at the moment
>Christ returns.
>
>People who hold such beliefs feel little commitment to improving
>present institutions or to working to solve ecological problems. Many
>feel that global ecological disasters are inevitably part of the "end
>times" that were supposedly predicted in biblical verses.
>
>Resources:
>
>Theocracy Watch
>
>Research from Americans for the Separation of Church and State
>
>Interview with Frank Schaeffer
>
>How I Destroyed the Republican Party
>
>The only way to stem the rising tide of Christian Nationalism and the
>religious right is for ordinary Americans to better understand what the
>religious right is and what it truly stands for. It has gained power
>only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the
>Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative
>rather than radical.
>
>Extreme political movements are a social disease, a symptom of weakened
>overall health in a society. Societies that are open and at peace do
>not fall prey as easily to political extremism.
The local CBS affiliate reported the following:
A gay kiss in the musical "Zanna Don't" staged at a Connecticut high
school triggered a walkout last week.
The musical was playing last Friday night at Hartford Public High
School when the incident took place reports CBS Connecticut. Students
from the high school's law, government, and nursing academies were in
attendance.
The plot of "Zanna Don" involves a high school where homosexuality
is the norm and heterosexuals are the outcasts.
After two male actors shared a brief kiss on the lips on stage, a
group of students, most of them male and many of them football
players, got up and left the auditorium.
It was visually evident (due to the jerseys the team was wearing)
that a lot of football players got up and walked out. It was almost a
symbolic kind of thing, Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and
Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.
He also noted that many students opted out of attending the play
because of the subject matter. Students and parents were informed
about the subject matter of the play and that it included some male
intimacy. Students were given the option of not attending.
>The best hope we have of taming the radical religious right is to bring
>it out of the shadows. If mainstream Americans understood what the
>radical religious right actually stands for and what it plans to do,
>they would be shocked.
>
>There is no appreciable difference between Islamic fundamentalism and
>the radical Christian right.
True
>
>Indeed, it isn't too great an exaggeration to say that the Islamic
>Republic of Iran is a fairly clear model of where the religious right
>wants to take the United States. Only the details differ.
>
True
http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
<southern...@yahoo.ru> wrote:
>On the rise of the radical religious right and the breakdown of
>democracy in the United States
"Iranian people burn US flags in the streets
Today is "national anti-global arrogance day" in Iran, and all week
the ordinary people of Iran have been taking to the streets to protest
against the US regime. The US regime is openly hostile to the
democratically elected leader of Iraq, which demonstrates their
contempt for "democracy" when it is not controlled by the western
ruling classes. The Iranian people broadly do not approve of what the
US regime is doing, so anti-Americanism here [against the regime, not
the American people] is clearly true democracy in action. The US
claims to stand for "democracy" but it is blatantly obvious that this
does not apply when democracy does not produce the required results."
The Insider
"We support the election process, we support democracy,
but that doesn't mean we have to support governments
that get elected as a result of democracy."
- President G. Bush - Washington, D.C., Mar. 29, 2006
>Several mistakes are commonly made when thinking about the radical
>religious right. The first is to assume that the religious right shares
>the values held in common by most Americans.
>
>Note from the author
>
>A few years ago, when I wrote this essay, I felt that few people
>understood the radical religious right in the United States.
>
>Since then the radical religious right has become more prominent, but
>its beliefs and values are still very poorly understood.
>
>If mainstream Americans really understood the religious right, they
>would be shocked.
>
>My aim is not to ridicule or attack the religious right, but to bring
>its beliefs and values into the open.
Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
will return soon.
Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.
Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.
>
>- Michael Webb
>
>In fact, the religious right has an entirely different cultural and
>ideological background that basically regards those shared values as
>irrelevant. Fundamentalist Christianity teaches its believers to be "in
>the world but not of the world"; that is, to live among secular people
>but to reject their way of thinking.
>
>Among the values shared implicitly by all Americans are 1) that persons
>ought to be free to do as they please so long as they do no harm to
>others,
The Rede of Witchcraft.
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
In the past the "right" was for outlawing sodomy, prostitution,
abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It put the good of the
nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to corrupt the
culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize prostitution,
drugs, greed, etc.
The "right" was for building a great nation. Liberals care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion
would allow public sodomy on any street corner. Their philosophy would
allow heroin to be sold on grocery store shelves and allow ads
promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy would result in chaos and
degeneracy and hell on earth.
Libertarians want freedom for the billionaires to be as greedy as
they want, so they can continue to ship the jobs to Mexico and China
where people work for pennies. What about the food and safety and
health laws. Libertarians are against them.
No one wants laws just for the sake of bothering people for no good
reason. Libertarians pretend that that is the problem. There is a law
that you can't shoot all the deer you want, because if all the hunters
did they would exterminate the deer. There is a law that you can't
turn the odometer back in a car and then sell the car. What other laws
do libertarians think we don't need. Let's hear some examples of what
libertarians want to be free to do. They are silent when it comes to
that. They are financed by the billionaires and the freedom they
really want is the freedom to exploit other people.
Old fashioned rightists cared about the future. Libertarians only
see the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested. They insist that the only important thing is the freedom
of individuals to be as selfish as they want and nothing else matters
one iota.
>and 2) that every person is entitled to hold an opinion, and
>that no person's opinion is necessarily or intrinsically more valid
>than any other's.
Nonsense
>
>The radical religious right does not play by those rules at all. From
>their point of view, those assumptions are secular ("worldly"), and
>therefore simply wrong.
>
>The notion of compromise is alien to the radical religious right,
>because from their point of view either a belief comes from God, and is
>therefore absolutely and eternally true, or it comes from the secular
>world and ultimately from Satan, and is therefore utterly false, no
>matter how reasonable it may seem.
>
>In fact, fundamentalist Christians believe that Satan (considered a
>completely real being) uses reason to deceive the sinful human mind.
>Reason is bad, faith is good.
Reason is good. Faith is believing something without proof.
>
>Because of those attitudes, most people are totally at sea when trying
>to understand the religious right. The core perspectives are too
>different.
>
>Another common error is that many people who consider themselves
>Christians, but who are not part of the radical religious right, feel
>that they can understand the radical religious right based on shared
>Christian beliefs.
>
>In fact, the religious perspectives of the religious right differ
>markedly from those of moderate, nominal Christians.
>
>Extreme fundamentalist Christians actually regard moderate, nominal
>Christians, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"
>(II Timothy 3:5), as worse than unbelievers. "I would thou wert cold or
>hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
>will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)
>
>They may pity unbelievers, but they distrust or even despise moderate
>Christians, in whom God has invested more of his grace and light, but
>who have chosen not to respond wholeheartedly. "For unto whomsoever
>much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)
>The radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true
>intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and
>by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.
Originally Christianity was against greed, before it was taken over by
Jews.
>
>A further marked difference between the fundamentalist Christians and
>others is that most people are motivated by the desire to find
>happiness. Those who adhere to Christian fundamentalism do not regard
>the pursuit of happiness to be a valid motivation, but instead consider
>"doing the will of God by submitting utterly to the Lordship of His Son
>Jesus Christ" to be the only acceptable reason for living.
We should seek happiness, after we stamp out the feminists and
sodomites and all liberalism.
>
>Those two motivations lead to very different choices and personal
>values.
>. . .
>
>How could a group with such distinct values have become so powerful in
>the United States, a society where power derives from political appeal?
>
>The answers to that question are complex, but part of the success of
>the radical religious right has come by infiltrating a mainstream
>political party -- the Republican Party. The religious right has been
>able to gain a foothold in that party by playing down its more radical
>leanings.
>Many people who consider themselves Christians mistakenly feel that
>they can understand the radical religious right based on shared
>Christian beliefs.
>
>For their part, the Republicans in the United States have been happy to
>see their party energized by the fervor and commitment that religious
>right true believers can bring to the political process. Since the late
>1970s the religious right has steadily transformed the Republican Party
>from a basically secular, conservative, civic-minded party to become
>the public face of legitimacy for the otherwise alien values of the
>radical religious right.
>
>The radical religious right is not conservative at all, however, in
>that it does not wish to conserve the status quo; it seeks to overthrow
>many longstanding American traditions and institutions or at least to
>radically change their outworking.
>
>For almost three decades the leaders of Christian fundamentalist groups
>have increasingly radicalized their followers by using certain
>explosively emotive issues. Principal among those has been the legality
>of abortion, which they consider to be the murder of unborn children.
>
>As driven home by leaders of the radical religious right, any society
>that legally sanctions the murder of children must be unreservedly
>perverse. That conviction further hardens the position that no
>compromise is possible with the deluded mainstream, and that only
>radical change is acceptable.
>
>A second area of radicalization has been gay rights and the gradual
>acceptance by the American mainstream that gay people can be good
>citizens, and a third area has been the issue of prayer in public
>schools and the teaching of biological evolution.
>
>Those points have been used to radicalize the radical religious right
>in the United States in the same way that Islamicists have long used
>the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to radicalize their
>own people. In fact, we can draw many parallels between the radical
>religious right in the US and Islamic radicals in the Middle East.
>
>Like most radical movements, both are unwilling to compromise or
>coexist with their adversaries. In their minds, the continuing presence
>of political or ideological adversaries can only be bad. Radicals feel
>they must persist in their struggle until the world is completely
>purged and free of the adversaries.
>
>That political reflex differs dramatically from moderate democratic
>values, which emphasize tolerance, dissent, competition among ideas,
>and the formation of alliances based on negotiated compromises.
>The radical religious right is not conservative at all, however, in
>that it does not wish to conserve the status quo; it seeks to overthrow
>many longstanding American traditions and institutions.
>
>The influence of the radical religious already right exceeds its size.
>It still faces challenges to its rule, although that may change during
>the next few years as it consolidates its strength, and begins to
>exercise the prerogatives of its growing power.
>
>As that happens, the United States will begin to look quite different.
>
>What kind of place will the United States be if the radical religious
>right continues to consolidate power and enforce policies of its
>choosing?
>
>An obvious change will be that children in public schools, or private
>schools publicly funded through vouchers, will receive religious
>instruction based on the ideology of Christian fundamentalists. That
>policy will perhaps be presented as a way to strengthen the fabric of
>society, reduce crime, and so on.
>
>Of course, the scientific view of biology will no longer be taught in
>public institutions, except as a cultural oddity to be rejected.
Here are some quotes from Brain Sex, the Real Difference between men
and women
By Anne Moir And David Jessel
They are equal only in their common membership of the species,
humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or
behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific
lie.
The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain,
the chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed in men and in women; it processes information in a
different way, which results in different perceptions, priorities and
behavior.
Until recently, behavior differences between the sexes have been
explained away by social conditioning - the expectations of parents,
whose own attitudes, in turn, reflect the expectations of society;
little boys are told that they shouldn't cry, and that the way to the
top depends on masculine assertion and aggression. Scant attention was
paid to the biological view that we may be what we are because of the
way we are made. Today, there is too much new biological evidence for
the sociological argument to prevail.
The biggest behavioral difference between men and women is the
natural, innate aggression of men, which explains to a large degree
their historical dominance of the species. Men didn't learn aggression
as one the tactics of the sex war. We do not teach our boy children to
be aggressive - indeed, we try vainly to unteach it. Even researchers
most hostile to the acknowledgement of sex differences agree that this
is a male feature, and one which cannot be explained away by social
conditioning.
There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain
- and what science knows - that they do not.
It cannot be stressed often enough that this book concerns itself
with the average man and the average woman.
The area where the biggest differences have been found lies in what
scientists call 'spatial ability'. That's being able to picture
things, their shape, position, geography and proportion, accurately in
the mind's eye - all skills that are crucial to the practical ability
to work with three-dimensional objects or drawings. One scientist who
has reviewed the extensive literature on the subject concludes, 'The
fact of the male's superiority in spatial ability is not in dispute'.
It is confirmed by literally hundreds of different scientific studies.
99 per cent of all patents applied for today are registered by men.
Scientists know that they walk on social eggshells when they venture
any theory about human behavior. But researchers into sex differences
are increasingly impatient with the polite attempt to find a social
explanation for these differences. As Camilla Benbow now says now says
of her studies showing male superiority in mathematically gifted
children, 'After 15 years looking for an environmental explanation and
getting zero results, I gave up.' She readily admitted to us her
belief that the difference in ability has a biological basis.
The differences are apparent in the very first hours after birth. It
has been shown that girl babies are much more interested than boys in
people and faces; the boys seem just as happy with an object dangled
in front of them.
Embryonic boy babies are exposed to a colossal dose of male hormone at
the critical time when their brains are beginning to take shape.
The brains of male and female mammals, from rodents to primates,
exhibiting hormonally mediated differences in neuro-transmitter
levels, neural connections, and cell and nuclear volume, strongly
suggests that similar sexual dimorphism of structure and function
exists human brains as well.
In women the functional division between the left and the right sides
of the brain is less clearly defined. Both the left and the right
sides of the female brain are involved in verbal and visual abilities.
Men's brains are more specialized.
The left side of the brain is almost exclusively set aside for the
control or verbal abilities, the right side for visual.
And the latest research had shown that the more connections people
have between the left and right hemispheres, the more articulate and
fluent they are. The finding provides a further explanation for
women's verbal dexterity. But could the corpus callosum provide the
answer to another mystery, could it provide a somewhat solution to the
secret of female intuition? Is the physical capacity of a woman to
connect and relate more pieces of information than a man explained not
by witchcraft, after all, but merely by superior switchgear? Since
women are in general better at recognizing the emotional nuances in
voice, gesture and facial expression, a whole range of sensory
information. They can deduce more from such information because they
have a greater capacity than men to integrate and cross-relate verbal
and visual information.
A woman may be less able to separate emotion from reason because of
the way the female brain is organized. The female brain has emotional
capacities on both sides of the brain, plus there is more information
exchanged between the two sides of the brain. The emotional side is
more integrated with the verbal side of the brain.
These discernible, measurable differences in behavior have been
imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to work.
They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already
know about - the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the
greater female skill in speech.
Boys want to explore areas, spaces and things because their brain bias
predisposes them to these aspects of the environment. Girls like to
talk and to listen because that is what their brains are better
designed to do.
Even in the Israeli kibbutz, where deliberate attempts have been made
to play down the differences between boys and girls, and where the
engineered society proclaims a virtual interchangeability of the
sexes, it was found that in all age groups, while girls cooperated,
shared and acted affectionately, boys engaged in more acts of conflict
such as seizing other children's toys.
The manifestation of masculine behavior in otherwise fully female
women is a much-debated subject. There are, however, clinical findings
which point the way to a possible explanation. Most of them concern
women who have been exposed to an abnormal level of male hormone in
the womb during the critical period of brain development.
The pursuit of power is overwhelmingly and universally a male trait.
On the math part of tests, boys do significantly better, and the
success ratio of boys to girls increases with the level of difficulty.
On a score of 420+ out of a possible 800, boys beat girls 1.5 : 1. At
500+, the ratio is more than 2 : 1. At 600+ it is over 4 : 1. At the
highest range, of 700+ the ratio is 13 : 1.
Greater freedom of expression has led to a greater awareness of our
differences.. how long will it be before we revert to type, how long
before those same magazines are talking of the New Romanticism - 'At
Last, We Can be Feminine Again' - or running features on the 'Return
of the Macho'?
Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
ethical, and social precept.
Liberation condemns the sexual double standard - why should sex
outside of marriage be 'all right' for men, all wrong for women? The
standards are indeed double, in that an extra-marital affair does mean
different things, and has a different level of importance, for men and
women. 'It didn't mean anything', mutters the man, when his
indiscretion is revealed - and it almost certainly didn't. He says
that he loves her just as much as ever, and he probably does. But the
wife sees his affair as an assault on what is to her most precious -
intimacy and fidelity. If she were to embark on an affair, you can
bet that is would 'mean' a lot to her. She cannot forgive him; for she
cannot even understand him. Their brains and their hormones have made
them strangers to one another.
The difference between the attitude and proficiency of men and women
as parents again reflects those basic differences of the brain. In
this most intimate of relationships, between parent and child, it is
the mother rather than the father who is more alert to the nuance and
the non-verbal hint, more naturally responsive to a baby's needs.
The Israeli kibbutz was not designed specifically to abolish the
Jewish mother. But in these forcing-houses of social engineering,
girls and boys grew up with virtually interchangeable roles. Children
were reared communally, and the household duties of cooking and
laundry were a community, rather than a family responsibility. The
expectation was that, with the passing of several neutral generations,
sexual differentiation would evaporate, and sexist stereotyping would
become a memory as remote as slavery is to the newest generation of
America's blacks.
But that is not what happened. Three of four generations later, the
children of the kibbutz are still clinging to their traditional
roles..again looking at the experience of the Israeli kibbutzim.
Social engineers worked hard to iron out classic gender stereotypes at
an early age: 'All children are dressed in the same work-clothes..
there is no sex difference in the style of haircut' Even so.. The boys
went on to study physics and become engineers, the girls to study
sociology and become teachers. It is telling proof of what we now know
- that the minds of men and women are different, that ultimately boys
and men live in a world of things and space, girls and women in a
world of people and relationships.
Just as there are physical dissimilarities between males and females
(size, body shape, skeleton, teeth, age of puberty, etc.) there are
equally dramatic differences in brain functioning.
There is solid and consistent evidence from scientists all over the
world that a biochemical influence in the womb determines and directs
the structure and function or our brains. Through the influence of the
hormones the brain cells 'acquire a "set".. highly resistant to change
after birth'. Male hormone organizes the developing brain into a male
pattern which leads to male behavior. Absence of the male hormone
means that the brain persists in a female pattern, resulting in a
female pattern of behavior. This organization of the brain into a male
or female neural network is permanent; it can only be modified by
altering the hormonal milieu of the womb.
We can hope for an end to the slogans, for slogans do not change
facts, and an end to the sterile pursuit of artificial equality; an
abandonment of the arduous and unnatural process of denial and ,
instead, the enjoyment of our natural selves; the greening of a new
relationship between men and women; a celebration of the difference.
>Those are perhaps some of the least dramatic changes, although they
>will eventually lead to the United States slipping from its preeminent
>role in science. In the eyes of the fundamentalist, "the wisdom of this
>world is foolishness with God" (I Corinthians 3:19).
>
>Regions where religious fundamentalism prevails can sometimes produce
>good science, and very occasionally might even produce excellent
>science, but arguably almost never brilliant or groundbreaking science.
>
>A society under the strict control of the religious right would
>arguably suppress the cultural factors that support a dynamic and
>innovative knowledge-based economy. For that reason, a political coup
>by the religious right would likely be regarded by capital markets as
>being unfavorable to long-term growth.
>
>Although it might seem that the rise of the religious right would be
>unfriendly to the kind of secular, hyper-consumerist society that
>global capitalism seeks to invest in, that is not entirely true in the
>United States.
>
>American Christian fundamentalists during the past few decades have
>increasingly embraced a view that Jesus wants them to be wealthy.
>Conspicuous consumption by believers is regarded as a beneficial
>display of God's power and His love for His people.
>. . .
>
>A more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise of
>power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant
>nationalism in the United States.
>
>Many people fail to understand this because, again, they are thinking
>of the religious right as being Christian, and that Christianity is a
>religion that teaches peace. That view misses the mark on several
>levels.
>
>Christian fundamentalists believe in biblical literalism, and the
>Judaeo-Christian bible is actually full of references to war and an
>angry, aggressive God, and certainly does not condemn war.
>
>Also, the religious right is rooted in the American South, which has a
>longstanding culture of militarism. Many people in the South have lived
>as professional soldiers or in communities that support military bases,
>and have done so for generations.
>
>For the radical religious right, an American foreign policy based on
>militant nationalism has an almost holy virtue. They believe that the
>United States has been specially dedicated to Jesus Christ for His
>purposes. To question or resist militant nationalism is to be
>unpatriotic, and to be unpatriotic is to be un-Christian in the eyes of
>the religious right.
>
>This perceived connection between the United States and Jesus Christ is
>important to understand, as it motivates much of the political activity
>of the religious right.
>Another more troubling and perhaps less obvious effect of the exercise
>of power by the radical religious right will be the rise of militant
>nationalism in the United States.
>
>Until the late 1970s, Christian fundamentalists were not particularly
>involved in politics. From the fundamentalist perspective, however,
>Christian believers are the "salt of the earth, but if the salt have
>lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good
>for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
>(Matthew 5:13)
>
>That scriptural injunction, along with others, is taken by
>fundamentalists to mean that they are held accountable by God to stem
>social rotting and corruption (like salt in meat) and to actively
>promote the sanctity of the United States.
>
>Christian fundamentalists understand that God does not want them simply
>to be passive in the political sphere, minding their own business and
>practicing their religion in private. They believe that their God has
>solemnly enjoined them to force their biblical beliefs upon all levels
>of government, from local school boards to Congress and the Supreme
>Court.
>
>At the same time, Christian fundamentalists believe that because of
>their active presence in the US political process, and because of
>earlier generations of pious Americans, the United States is special in
>the sight of God. Therefore, patriotism and militant nationalism are
>consistent with fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
>
>Such thinking is remarkably similar in tone to that of the National
>Socialists in Germany. The Nazis held the absolute conviction that what
>was good for Germany and German supremacy was always right and was to
>be vigorously pursued at all costs, no matter how detrimental that
>might be for individuals, smaller groups.
>Christian fundamentalists understand that God does not want them to be
>simply passive in the political sphere, minding their own business and
>practicing their religion in private.
>
>The radical religious will seek to restrict not only freedom of thought
>but ultimately even freedom of religion itself.
>
>In particular, once the radical religious right succeeded in
>establishing totalitarian control, it would likely make moderate forms
>of Christianity the targets of surveillance and persecution.
>
>Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes
>Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions
>for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.
>
>From the fundamentalist perspective, the spirit of Antichrist seeks to
>replace the gospel of Christ with liberal, secular thinking that
>appeals to the "unsaved" but that does not lead to true salvation.
>
>In their view, only Christ can save the world from its problems. Any
>attempt to replace Christ with other solutions is ultimately motivated
>by Satanic forces. Socially progressive or charitable groups would find
>their freedom to operate and to express their views restricted.
>. . .
>
>Many pentecostal or "charismatic" Christians believe in demons, which
>are disembodied spirits in the service of Satan. Those spirits commonly
>enter human bodies and make people think or do sinful things by
>strengthening their "sinful nature."
>
>Such Christians openly believe that liberal Christians are inhabited by
>demons of Antichrist that deceive them into playing into Satan's
>desperate attempt to keep the world from seeing the light of Christ's
>Word.
>
>It is ironic that the religious right would seek to restrict religious
>freedom, because their own success in the United States has partly come
>from a liberal legal foundation that restricts state interference in
>religious affairs.
>
>It is also ironic because many of the complaints made by Christian
>fundamentalists have been that the public school system forces their
>children to acquire secular humanist values.
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye
Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe
that our nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true. I
have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought. I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a
sample of what I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children Graphic instruction
in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls Armed guards posted to
keep parents out of high school assemblies led by radical homosexual
activists A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that
endorses sex between children and adults!
I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute: there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children. The
attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for - and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality, and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short! Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls
the schools, controls the future." If they can convince the next
generation that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will
be no stopping them. Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole
generation of young people to explore "alternative" sexual behavior...
to discover their "gay side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and
given to me by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING The Gay, Lesbian, and
Straight Education Network, also known as "GLSEN, is pushing a
grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing. This book
was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a
children's book titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real! The story is about a young
boy named Jesse who likes trying on his mother's dresses, and dreams
of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and glowed, and felt soft
inside." Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to
daycare, where his classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher,
Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress up in her old
dresses and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father
came in and yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want
my son to be a sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't
know, - I still don't see what was wrong with it." The children and
their teacher discuss the issue and most of the children end up liking
Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses themselves. The book
ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open. Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they
want to be." I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear
dresses, or the negative portrayal of Mike's father. Children who
study "Jesse's Dream Skirt" are getting the message that their
parents' view of morality cannot be trusted. Lest you think this sort
of insanity is restricted to California, take a loot at this next
report, straight from the Midwest. Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother
of Student from School Assembly on Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it! The incident took
place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after school had started
for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro High School,
heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly. Loveless
had told school officials that she considered the event inappropriate.
When she tried to view it for herself, she was escorted out of the
assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators! We may
never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive. GLESEN has produced some of
the most foul "educational" material in the dishonorable history of
sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a pornographic teaching
session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN. During that workshop,
homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex acts, including the dangerous practice known in
homosexual slang as "fisting." After it was exposed, that session
sparked outrage across the nation. It was such a scandal that it
became known as "Fistgate." GLSEN leaders responded by becoming much
more secretive. Apparently this has led them to keep parents out of
their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out
of public schools by armed guards! It's time for parents and
grandparents to stand up and fight to protect our children. We can't
think that just because it hasn't happened in our school yet that it
never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop with just the
California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This
book includes such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to
children... There are many ways even the smallesst children can
partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a "naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles,
Levine says children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes sex between adults and children as young as 12! It's
unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's standards of sexual morality have been belittled as
"taboos," and been worn down step by step. Today, almost nothing is
off limits. Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier
to be torn down. How long will it take these radical activists to
achieve their next evil objective? Our grade-school children are
already being taught that cross-dressing is just wonderful
self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex practices are
already being taught to high school children, and parents are being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activists. We
must - and we can - stop this. NOW! I grieve for our children and
grandchildren. And I fear for our nation if we do not stand up to
this assault of immorality and defeat it...
I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the
schools under any guise that works.
>
>The religious right may impose its cultural ideology through a national
>public school curriculum that will begin as an attempt to bring
>standards to education, but will grow steadily restrictive and
>prescriptive.
>
>Education will perhaps be limited to teaching basic skills and moral
>lessons. Critical thinking will probably be explicitly eliminated from
>the new national curriculum. Christian fundamentalists have a bias
>against intellectual development and toward manual labor: "work with
>your own hands, as we commanded you" (I Thessalonians 4:11).
>
>Fundamentalists believe that Satan is a fallen angel who has the power
>to "steal the seeds of faith" from God's children through the clever
>intellectual reasoning that he plants in the minds of educated
>unbelievers.
>
>We only need to think of the intolerance of Puritans in colonial New
>England to realize that religious freedom in the United States has more
>often meant that the state could not interfere with the prevailing
>religion, and not that all religious practices or beliefs would be
>tolerated.
>
>It's interesting that the type of American modeled by the Philadelphian
>Benjamin Franklin what the radical religious right seeks to extirpate.
>Franklin was a scientist, intellectual, publisher, the founder of the
>first public library, an internationalist in the context of his times,
>and a rationalist.
>Fundamentalist Christians regard the "religious left," which includes
>Christian groups seeking to improve human rights and social conditions
>for the poor, as being under the influence of the spirit of Antichrist.
>
>As do most radicalized political movements, the radical religious right
>considers itself to have been persecuted by mainstream society.
>
>Christian fundamentalist leaders teach their followers that the
>educational, legislative, and judicial institutions of the West are in
The West is the White race.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.
Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.
Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."
>the hands of what they refer to as secular humanists, who are
>determined to curtail the rights of true Christians, either overtly
>through public policy or more stealthily through relentless exposure to
>the corrupted "worldly" media.
>
>Just as Nazis claimed that Germany had been aggrieved by Communists and
>alleged Jewish internationalist conspirators, the belief in having been
>aggrieved by the American coastal urban establishment will be used as
>justification for the restrictions that the religious right will begin
>to impose on freedom of thought and expression in the United States.
>
>Similar also to the Nazis, the religious right will seek to uphold what
>they deem to be the morality of common people, railing against
>degeneracy (as the Nazis railed against entartete Kunst).
>
>Once fully in power, the religious right will regard alternative
>viewpoints as unacceptable rivals in their efforts to control the
>cultural life of the nation.
>
>Admittedly, the legal tradition in the US makes it difficult for a
>government to directly curtail freedom of expression, but the radical
>religious right will work relentlessly to weaken legal protections and
>to impose their restrictions through any means possible.
>
>Quite possibly the political proxies of the religious right in the
>executive branch of government will use security concerns as a cover
>for clamping down on freedom of expression.
>
>The cycle will have come fully around when the radical religious right
>begins to prohibit competing religions. This is not as surprising an
>outcome as it may seem.
>. . .
>
>Many Christian fundamentalists take a dim view not only of nominal
>moderate Christians, but also of Catholics, whom they regard as
>Mary-worshippers and idolaters, and certainly of Buddhists, Hindus,
>Mormons, and Muslims, all of whom they consider to live in spiritual
>darkness.
>
>The attitude of Christian fundamentalists to Jewish people is
>noteworthy. Fundamentalists recognize that Jesus was Jewish and that
>Christianity grew out of Judaism. In fact, they believe that
>Christianity is the fulfillment or "perfection" of Judaism and the
>answer to the Abrahamic promises made by God to the Jewish people.
The Old Testament does say that God likes one race of people more than
others. It calls this race the Israelites. Nature wants the most
advanced and evolved race to take over. This is obviously the White
race. Compare Europe to Africa.
This is the definition of the word "adam" in Strong's Concordance:
"to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be
(dyed, made) red (ruddy)."
This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today
and see which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White
people.
The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the
Hebrew word "ruddy":
"reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."
David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a
typical Jew.
The original Israelites were White people.
Jews are like the American Indians of today. These people say they
are Indians but the original Indians were clearly described as having
red skin. Today Indians may look brown or white, but not red. Neither
are Jews like the original Israelites.
The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words.
Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."
The old drawing of Jesus were probably correct. He probably had blond
hair and blue eyes.
John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would
not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."
John 20:19 "the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
for fear of the Jews"
2 Co 11:24 "Of the Jews five times recieved I forty stripes save
one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned"
Mathew 27: 20+25 "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the
multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...then
answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children."
Acts 25:24 "ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews
have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem and also here, crying that he
ought not to live any longer."
John 8:42,44,48 "Jesus said unto them...Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from
the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth
in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it...Then answered the Jews..."
The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words.
Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."
>
>In that sense, fundamentalists consider Jews to be God's chosen people,
>but that they are lost in spiritual darkness until they accept Jesus as
>their Messiah. Christian fundamentalists see the Jewish religion as an
>obstacle to Jewish salvation.
>
>That explains the odd problem that the Israeli government has long
>faced with extremist millenarian Christian fundamentalists coming to
>the State of Israel and attempting to make converts.
>One of the fascinating facts about the radical religious right, and a
>fact that many opposing political activists will fail to realize, is
>that direct opposition only makes it stronger.
>
>In the end, the radical religious right will brook no opposition to its
>total control of the United States. The religious right will use
>patriotism and national security concerns to solidify its grip on
>power.
>
>The religious right is a grassroots movement as well as a national one.
>Local "cells" operating in churches run disciplined campaigns to win
>local offices by taking advantage of voter ignorance and apathy.
>
>One of the fascinating facts about the radical religious right, and a
>fact that many opposing political activists will fail to realize, is
>that direct opposition only makes it stronger.
>
>There is no way around this. The belief system of fundamentalism is
>constructed to sustain a perpetual siege mentality, and this siege
>mentality in turn makes the belief system seem even more real and
>urgent to fundamentalists when they perceive themselves to be under
>attack.
>
>Many fundamentalists consider that their attackers may be empowered by
>trans-human, Satanically-aligned intelligences. "For we wrestle not
>against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
>against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
>wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
>
>Overt opposition will only radicalize the radical religious right even
>further. In fact, if they fail to get their way through legitimate
>political means, they might eventually turn to terrorism, as some have
>done in bombing abortion clinics and shooting physicians who practice
>abortion.
>
>When groups become radicalized, they start to believe that the nobility
>of their ends justifies any means, and they slip into thinking that any
>action, including violence and lying, is necessary and appropriate.
>The best hope we have of taming the radical religious right is to bring
>it out of the shadows. If mainstream Americans understood what the
>radical religious right actually stands for and plans to do, they would
>be shocked.
>
>Further, one of the engines driving the fundamentalist right is
>Pentecostalism.
>
>Pentecostalists are convinced that Christ will return to earth in
>bodily form within the next few years. They believe that when he
>appears his followers will be instantly transformed and given immortal
>bodies. Many even believe in a "rapture," in which Christ's believers
>will be physically snatched up and will fly into the sky at the moment
>Christ returns.
>
>People who hold such beliefs feel little commitment to improving
>present institutions or to working to solve ecological problems. Many
>feel that global ecological disasters are inevitably part of the "end
>times" that were supposedly predicted in biblical verses.
>
>Resources:
>
>Theocracy Watch
>
>Research from Americans for the Separation of Church and State
>
>Interview with Frank Schaeffer
>
>How I Destroyed the Republican Party
>
>The only way to stem the rising tide of Christian Nationalism and the
>religious right is for ordinary Americans to better understand what the
>religious right is and what it truly stands for. It has gained power
>only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the
>Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative
>rather than radical.
>
>Extreme political movements are a social disease, a symptom of weakened
>overall health in a society. Societies that are open and at peace do
>not fall prey as easily to political extremism.
The local CBS affiliate reported the following:
A gay kiss in the musical "Zanna Don't" staged at a Connecticut high
school triggered a walkout last week.
The musical was playing last Friday night at Hartford Public High
School when the incident took place reports CBS Connecticut. Students
from the high school's law, government, and nursing academies were in
attendance.
The plot of "Zanna Don" involves a high school where homosexuality
is the norm and heterosexuals are the outcasts.
After two male actors shared a brief kiss on the lips on stage, a
group of students, most of them male and many of them football
players, got up and left the auditorium.
It was visually evident (due to the jerseys the team was wearing)
that a lot of football players got up and walked out. It was almost a
symbolic kind of thing, Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and
Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.
He also noted that many students opted out of attending the play
because of the subject matter. Students and parents were informed
about the subject matter of the play and that it included some male
intimacy. Students were given the option of not attending.
>The best hope we have of taming the radical religious right is to bring
>it out of the shadows. If mainstream Americans understood what the
>radical religious right actually stands for and what it plans to do,
>they would be shocked.
>
>There is no appreciable difference between Islamic fundamentalism and
>the radical Christian right.
True
>
>Indeed, it isn't too great an exaggeration to say that the Islamic
>Republic of Iran is a fairly clear model of where the religious right
>wants to take the United States. Only the details differ.
>
True
http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
the wharf rat
Apr 13, 2014, 9:19:10 AM4/13/14
to
In article <t6rkk9hd9omjgqd8r...@4ax.com>,
wasn't it a Jewish movement that was taken over, by, well Christians? BTW,
the Fathers of your church didn't hate Jews the way you do: "The race of the
Hebrews is not new, but is honoured among all men for its antiquity and is
itself well known to all." Popes have issued bulls protecting the Jewish
people, from Calixtus on. It wasn't until 1555 when Paul IV revoked all
rights of the Jewish people in the papal states. (Hardly seems like something
a Jewish controlled entity would do...) By the time the Protestants appeared,
anti-Semitism was well established. Luther hated Jews because they wouldn't
become Protestants, and wanted them 'expelled like dogs'.
>Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
>ethical, and social precept.
You can be different but equal. Equality exists in the natural world;
think of the balance between hyaena and lion.
>If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
That's evolution, nu? Hey, if God wanted you guys to survive he'd
make it happen, right? So now you're flaunting God's will?
>Today it is the Muslims.
Well, now I'm really confused. I thought you hated Muslims, too,
because you think they're leftists.
>the original Indians were clearly described as having red skin.
You mean like on Barsoom???
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Originally Christianity was against greed, before it was taken over by
>Jews.
>
Ummmm, I think you have a wire crossed. Since Jesus was Jewish,
>
>Originally Christianity was against greed, before it was taken over by
>Jews.
>
wasn't it a Jewish movement that was taken over, by, well Christians? BTW,
the Fathers of your church didn't hate Jews the way you do: "The race of the
Hebrews is not new, but is honoured among all men for its antiquity and is
itself well known to all." Popes have issued bulls protecting the Jewish
people, from Calixtus on. It wasn't until 1555 when Paul IV revoked all
rights of the Jewish people in the papal states. (Hardly seems like something
a Jewish controlled entity would do...) By the time the Protestants appeared,
anti-Semitism was well established. Luther hated Jews because they wouldn't
become Protestants, and wanted them 'expelled like dogs'.
>Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
>ethical, and social precept.
think of the balance between hyaena and lion.
>If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
make it happen, right? So now you're flaunting God's will?
>Today it is the Muslims.
because you think they're leftists.
>the original Indians were clearly described as having red skin.
Topaz
Apr 14, 2014, 5:14:26 AM4/14/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:19:10 +0000 (UTC), wr...@panix.com (the wharf
rat) wrote:
>
> Ummmm, I think you have a wire crossed. Since Jesus was Jewish,
"He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position
rat) wrote:
>
> Ummmm, I think you have a wire crossed. Since Jesus was Jewish,
against Jewry... The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a
whore and a Roman soldier ... For the Galilean's object was to
liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against
Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him. ,... Jesus
was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of
their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him
themselves. ...Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and,
therefore, against the Jews.... a declaration of war on the golden
calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews"
Adolf Hitler
>wasn't it a Jewish movement that was taken over, by, well Christians? BTW,
>the Fathers of your church didn't hate Jews the way you do: "The race of the
>Hebrews is not new, but is honoured among all men for its antiquity and is
>itself well known to all." Popes have issued bulls protecting the Jewish
>people, from Calixtus on. It wasn't until 1555 when Paul IV revoked all
>rights of the Jewish people in the papal states. (Hardly seems like something
>a Jewish controlled entity would do...) By the time the Protestants appeared,
>anti-Semitism was well established. Luther hated Jews because they wouldn't
>become Protestants, and wanted them 'expelled like dogs'.
Haaretz (Israel)
http:// www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?
itemNo=487412&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sb
SubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=487412
A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended
a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter.
When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came
and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the
passerby spat in his face. The clergyman prefered not to lodge a
complaint with the police and told an acquaintance that he was used to
being spat at by Jews. Many Jerusalem clergy have been subjected to
abuse of this kind. For the most part, they ignore it but sometimes
they cannot. On Sunday, a fracas developed when a yeshiva student spat
at the cross being carried by the Armenian Archbishop ..
>
> You can be different but equal. Equality exists in the natural world;
>think of the balance between hyaena and lion.
>
>>If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
>
> That's evolution, nu? Hey, if God wanted you guys to survive he'd
>make it happen, right? So now you're flaunting God's will?
the Jews will.
>
> Well, now I'm really confused. I thought you hated Muslims, too,
>because you think they're leftists.
the race issue.
>
>>the original Indians were clearly described as having red skin.
>
> You mean like on Barsoom???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barsoom
Barsoom is a fictional representation of the planet Mars created by
American pulp fiction author Edgar Rice Burroughs.
0 new messages