Happy Passover everyone!

re: that Wikipedia article on Reform Judaism. Pay attention:

Quote:a belief in a continuous revelation, closely intertwined with human reason and intellect, and not centered on the theophany at Mount Sinai.

"Continuous revelation" means, in their belief, God gradually reveals his true intentions, which directly contradicts the Eternal, Unchanging Nature of God spoken of throughout theology, and which was originally-shown to me via Infused Knowledge. The Father is the same today as tomorrow as yesterday.


"closely intertwined with human reason and intellect". Except it clearly-isn't: what it actually translates into is human emotion completely overriding reason due to intellectual arrogance. A subjective moral reality, where feelings become facts. Intelligence simply makes once capable of easily-rationalizing a false reality, which is why it's of little use walking in Faith.

Vox Day recently posted something I predicted on here a couple of years ago: what do you think happens when Social Justice hits the medical field?

Quote:I was just informed today that it didn't matter that my medical decision on a particular issue was correct, because "the reality is the perception of the nursing staff" who were upset because I made them feel stupid by showing them the correct answer.

Also, he recently mentioned this:

Quote:Millennials and Generation Z believe representation of all races and religions in the workplace is more important than hiring based on merit, according to a new survey.

Remember: a society based upon Multiple Subjective Realities cannot sustain itself.

Why would Reform Judaism push Emotionalism? Because the Demonic has control over our Sensible Faculties. To sell it as operating on 'Reason' is Satanic Inversion: calling evil good deceives. Do Progressives strike you as reasonable people?

Quote:It is strongly identified with progressive political and social agendas, mainly under the traditional Jewish rubric Tikkun Olam, or "Repairing of the World"

Note that this garbage was what I watched introduced into our society through the 1970's, and it has an easily-recognisable pattern: lofty claims of universal brotherhood - which is the Satanic 'Cult of Man' and that, united, we can do everything (as long as Reform Jews call the shots).

The Reform Jews are currently indoctrinating the Black Community, so it's no surprise (((Marvel))) and (((Disney))) are singing the same old song. Note how this scene from Black Panther is presented as Black Power, which means making the Black Community Agents of Change for Reform Judaism by ... sigh... practicing 'Tikkun Olam'.





Most of consumable media is converged and exists to program you in this manner. Here's the Simpsons, making fun of this a few years ago, even though they constantly did the very thing they're mocking:





Look at Millennials: Is it any surprise young progressive women are Lisa Simpson and young progressive men are Milhouse?

Boomers are Boomers because they were raised by television and believed every single lie it told them.

----

So, if they've been doing this for so long, why is everything around us objectively turning to crap, I suspect long having passed the tipping point where it possible for society to survive what it has become?

Under my belief system, 'Tikkun Olam' can't ever repair the world, because I understand mankind is incapable of doing anything without God. Broken by the fall, Concupiscence means man will always naturally gravitate towards evil choices, which is exactly what we see: 'Tikkun Olam' turns into the eternal quest for losers to demand unearnt power over winners, the definitions of which can be shifted at any moment. Reform Judaism can only ever destroy, not build, which, of course, is a property of anything Satanic.

AB glad to see you posting again... Still remember you getting heavily chastised for criticizing Trump, and you were probably right.

The memeable Ugandan Pastor knocks it out of the park with this one:

^ Ah, water under the bridge, GD.

Favorite scene from the Mack

(04-20-2019 10:38 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  So, if they've been doing this for so long, why is everything around us objectively turning to crap, I suspect long having passed the tipping point where it possible for society to survive what it has become?

Two possible reasons. The first is that a collapse is wanted. The other is one I've sene put in print by people who have access behind the velvet rope: that the people in charge actually believe that the only reason there's any cracks forming is because they don't have enough power to shut down dissent or tax everyone to pay for their utopia. In other words they dramatically overestimate the actual amount of power they have.

Every now and then Youtube actually recommends something out of the blue (not from channels I'm subscribed or in the vicinity) that is interesting.

Just a regular guy speaking common sense, not only about the sexual revolution but just society in general - or what used to be common sense. It reminded me of some of the rants from my grandpa.

What this really shows however was how quick the mentality changed. The interview was taped a mere twenty years after the 'summer of cum' and only old guys like him could see how insane it was. It has been thirty years since then...

Great video.

Edit: something else came into my mind, which is how well spoken this man was, despite being a regular joe. another sign of the times that 'educated' people of today are less articulate and mentally organized than a normal guy from thirty years ago.

The UK has had the page 3 semi-nude girl feature in their tabloids for ages and in Denmark they've had the same shit but it's called page 9. I don't know what it is but this girl just doesn't fit

^ Riding off of AB's posting of the Simpsons and Roosh's stream mention of the rise in atheism starting in 1992...

The Simpsons.

Is is possible that the Simpsons portrayal of Ned Flanders caused untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity? Everyone watched that show religiously through the 1990s. Everyone knew who Ned Flanders was, and loved to hate him. I had never met an Evangelical Christian before but that was the Stereotype in my head from then on when i heard of, or met people who went to church.

Looking back, as an adult, how was Ned Flanders even a negative stereotype? Sure he was effeminate but he had zero problems, a not fat wife, loving kids. In the real world where a lazy alcoholic homer simpson would have been divorced raped by Marge at the end of Season one, we would all love to have a life as stable as Ned's.

Here is at least some article material referencing the subject https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio...-sexy.html
https://www.*please contact roosh about this link*/2007/08/16/ned-flanders-hero/

Side thought: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/...mon-thing/


Read this article about Mormons in the CIA. See if you can notice part of how these work.


********


Answer: they aggressively, unquestioningly work to advance each other's careers.


Why don't we do the same?

We should be working to make sure that as many decent, traditional men as possible are hired by their organization and then do everything possible to advance their careers. I suggest EVERYONE do this. Since my company covers a HUGE variety of white collar careers some members should consider it an invitation. For me to look at it though I'll expect you to provide everything I need to fully vet you first.

I feel that's reasonable both because I'm taking a risk putting myself out there. I've also been around enough and put out enough positions that have a bit of thought put into them that you can be reasonably sure I'm not just some provocateur.

It's also good business because the more people you get hired at a company, the more allies you have there.

CringeAnarchy, the quarantined last right wing sub on reddit is about to get banned. That will complete the glorious Great Stalinist Purge the site started 7 months ago. Unless you consider thedonald right wing for some reason.

Will be interesting to see where the refugees end up and if reddit implodes on itself from the uninterrupted circlejerking.

PhD or Baby?

(04-22-2019 05:28 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  ^ Riding off of AB's posting of the Simpsons and Roosh's stream mention of the rise in atheism starting in 1992...

The Simpsons.

Is is possible that the Simpsons portrayal of Ned Flanders caused untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity? Everyone watched that show religiously through the 1990s. Everyone knew who Ned Flanders was, and loved to hate him. I had never met an Evangelical Christian before but that was the Stereotype in my head from then on when i heard of, or met people who went to church.

Looking back, as an adult, how was Ned Flanders even a negative stereotype? Sure he was effeminate but he had zero problems, a not fat wife, loving kids. In the real world where a lazy alcoholic homer simpson would have been divorced raped by Marge at the end of Season one, we would all love to have a life as stable as Ned's.

Here is at least some article material referencing the subject https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio...-sexy.html
https://www.*please contact roosh about this link*/2007/08/16/ned-flanders-hero/

So how could they have portrayed him differently to not "cause untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity"?

Ned Flanders is classic reverse projection. People that like Christianity like Flanders and people who don't like Christianity hate Flanders. Then there are people like me who are somewhere in the middle.

I think it was important to present Flanders as a borderline perfect "unoffensive" Christian. The alternative would have been tainted from day one.

The flip side to Flanders is Reverend Lovejoy who's obviously burnt out and simply playing the game by the numbers.

Classic case I suppose of being able to please some of the people most of the time and most of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time.

Anyway, maybe if Rod and Tod got akbarred the Flanders would find his inner Deus Vult.



Everyone I knew back then liked the Flanders character even if we never dreamed of aspiring to his high standards of behavior.

(04-23-2019 12:22 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 05:28 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  ^ Riding off of AB's posting of the Simpsons and Roosh's stream mention of the rise in atheism starting in 1992...

The Simpsons.

Is is possible that the Simpsons portrayal of Ned Flanders caused untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity? Everyone watched that show religiously through the 1990s. Everyone knew who Ned Flanders was, and loved to hate him. I had never met an Evangelical Christian before but that was the Stereotype in my head from then on when i heard of, or met people who went to church.

Looking back, as an adult, how was Ned Flanders even a negative stereotype? Sure he was effeminate but he had zero problems, a not fat wife, loving kids. In the real world where a lazy alcoholic homer simpson would have been divorced raped by Marge at the end of Season one, we would all love to have a life as stable as Ned's.

Here is at least some article material referencing the subject https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio...-sexy.html
https://www.*please contact roosh about this link*/2007/08/16/ned-flanders-hero/

So how could they have portrayed him differently to not "cause untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity"?

Everyone I knew back then liked the Flanders character even if we never dreamed of aspiring to his high standards of behavior.

I'm not advocating that they portrayed Ned differently, I'm just wondering if it had any effect on church recruitment. They could have portrayed Ned molesting children every episode, its their show.

Second, you know people who liked the Ned Flanders character? Different perspectives I guess. I ran in punk rock/very anti christian circles in those days and so using Ned Flanders as a weak portrayal of a man to mock Christians was made easy.

(04-22-2019 05:19 PM)No More Mr. Soy Boy Wrote:  The UK has had the page 3 semi-nude girl feature in their tabloids for ages and in Denmark they've had the same shit but it's called page 9. I don't know what it is but this girl just doesn't fit

This Danish girl looks like a Danish Roll and is indeed a porker. My rule of "no collarbone = fat" rings true as you'll have to dig deep to find hers. This above girl is a fatty.

There is a recent thread where the men of RVF got into a back in forth over if a curvey girl was fat. It is recent but that girl was hip heavy but not fat.

All you neighborinos better diddly right the doodly off my lawn.

I don't know if this has been posted on the forum before but I found this article interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/2018061...eper-today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48017083

I am really beginning to despair of my country. Serious politicians, leaders of every major party in parliament, and the environment Secretary, all met with a 16 year old child to be hectored about climate change, science, and her generation's stolen future.

She told them we were an irresponsible nation, that our support for further fracking and fossil fuel extraction was immoral. She told them they don't listen to science, they only care about profit. Apparently her generation will only be able to fly 'in emergencies'.

And they clapped her. They paid reverence to a child with no knowledge of anything. She has been almost beatified by our media. At what point will one of these guys just stop and say this is so obviously silly?

(04-23-2019 12:22 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So how could they have portrayed him differently to not "cause untold and unknown damage to recruitment into North American Christianity"?

Ned Flanders is classic reverse projection. People that like Christianity like Flanders and people who don't like Christianity hate Flanders. Then there are people like me who are somewhere in the middle.

I think it was important to present Flanders as a borderline perfect "unoffensive" Christian. The alternative would have been tainted from day one.

The flip side to Flanders is Reverend Lovejoy who's obviously burnt out and simply playing the game by the numbers.

The Simpsons was a show with an agenda. It was built first and foremost as a reaction to the conservative values that middle class America held in the late 80s, and even the fucking show's producers explicitly admitted they were of a liberal bent. Or did anyone think that it was a coincidence that Count Dracula ran the local power plant and that the white male leader who ran the local high school was literally a Mama's Boy?

Flanders and Lovejoy are a one-two punch against American (if not general) Christianity. They represent a corrupt, spiritually bankrupt church hierarchy leading a naive congregation at best, no matter what the reality across every fucking town in America actually is or was.

Flanders' character was designed perfectly to destroy Christians via pride. This was partly because the West has turned to TV for instruction on how to behave - and remember how big TV assholes like the Bakkers were about 10 years before this - and what we get in Flanders is someone who provokes annoyance if not spiteful hatred from his neighbour, Homer Simpson.

Why? Because white men are meant to identify with Homer. They'll never admit it, of course, it's "satire" on working class, oops, sorry, middle class, America - but the intent and effect was clear. Homer remorselessly took advantage of Flanders, was annoyed by him (as were most people in the show).

This planted the seeds in every comfortable suburban father: in the Flanders types, who chuckled uncomfortably and thought "Shit, is that how the neighbours see me?" and in the Homer types, who thought "Fucking judgmental Christian, Homer's totally got the right idea, take advantage of that bastard, people will think it's funny."

Flanders' compassion towards his neighbours and his genial attitude are eventually explained in the show as a perversion due to shit upbringing as a child. They're explained as "repressed" anger - good old Freudian psychobabble (now featuring across America everywhere men are told that it's "bad" to "repress" or stifle their emotions, resulting in Bug Men bawling over fucking Star Wars trailers.) And the show was determined to put Flanders into a situation where he'd lose his shit and supposedly show the "real", hypocritical Flanders underneath.

Large proportions of Christians like Flanders? Course they do, and that's how the show's creators like it too - because Flanders is a representation of muscleless Christianity, a guy who substitutes standing up against homosexuality, paedophilia, corruption, or Islam with being genial and nonthreatening. That's exactly how most Christians prefer to fucking live in the West, because it requires no courage.

Put it this way: even if Christians like Flanders, would anyone ever argue his example is a reason to actually take up organised religion?

Remember, this show created the "Won't someone think of the children" meme. That meme was used to laugh off a sizeable large proportion of cultural and childhood destruction in America and all around the world.

The show had Michael Jackson as a guest star, for Christ's sake - when people already knew he was sleeping with children in a literal if not metaphorical sense.

(04-23-2019 01:53 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  ...

I'm not advocating that they portrayed Ned differently, I'm just wondering if it had any effect on church recruitment. They could have portrayed Ned molesting children every episode, its their show.

Second, you know people who liked the Ned Flanders character? Different perspectives I guess. I ran in punk rock/very anti christian circles in those days and so using Ned Flanders as a weak portrayal of a man to mock Christians was made easy.

We all thought Flanders was too passive. I've made fun of that before. But it was a faultless fault if you understand what I mean.

The show hit the reset button every episode (more or less) so the idea of Flanders getting tough with Homer would be pointless.

If the show built on its history episode by episode then the Flanders/Homer relationship would have played out very differently. They even play on this in an episode where Homer and Flanders make peace but the writers hit the reset switch on their relationship before the episode ends just to make a point.

(04-23-2019 10:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...
Flanders and Lovejoy are a one-two punch against American (if not general) Christianity. They represent a corrupt, spiritually bankrupt church hierarchy leading a naive congregation at best, no matter what the reality across every fucking town in America actually is or was.

Flanders' character was designed perfectly to destroy Christians via pride. This was partly because the West has turned to TV for instruction on how to behave - and remember how big TV assholes like the Bakkers were about 10 years before this - and what we get in Flanders is someone who provokes annoyance if not spiteful hatred from his neighbour, Homer Simpson.

Why? Because white men are meant to identify with Homer. They'll never admit it, of course, it's "satire" on working class, oops, sorry, middle class, America - but the intent and effect was clear. Homer remorselessly took advantage of Flanders, was annoyed by him (as were most people in the show).

This planted the seeds in every comfortable suburban father: in the Flanders types, who chuckled uncomfortably and thought "Shit, is that how the neighbours see me?" and in the Homer types, who thought "Fucking judgmental Christian, Homer's totally got the right idea, take advantage of that bastard, people will think it's funny."

Flanders' compassion towards his neighbours and his genial attitude are eventually explained in the show as a perversion due to shit upbringing as a child. They're explained as "repressed" anger - good old Freudian psychobabble (now featuring across America everywhere men are told that it's "bad" to "repress" or stifle their emotions, resulting in Bug Men bawling over fucking Star Wars trailers.) And the show was determined to put Flanders into a situation where he'd lose his shit and supposedly show the "real", hypocritical Flanders underneath.

Large proportions of Christians like Flanders? Course they do, and that's how the show's creators like it too - because Flanders is a representation of muscleless Christianity, a guy who substitutes standing up against homosexuality, paedophilia, corruption, or Islam with being genial and nonthreatening. That's exactly how most Christians prefer to fucking live in the West, because it requires no courage.

Put it this way: even if Christians like Flanders, would anyone ever argue his example is a reason to actually take up organised religion?

Remember, this show created the "Won't someone think of the children" meme. That meme was used to laugh off a sizeable large proportion of cultural and childhood destruction in America and all around the world.

The show had Michael Jackson as a guest star, for Christ's sake - when people already knew he was sleeping with children in a literal if not metaphorical sense.

I can see what you claim they were attempting to achieve but what did they actually achieve?

20 years later Homer is universally recognised as a loser and Flanders is looked back on as a winner. I don't know what happened in the later seasons. I didn't watch them. But as I said, everyone I knew at the time (irreverent atheists hostile to Christianity) actually liked Flanders.

As for this:

Quote:Flanders and Lovejoy are a one-two punch against American (if not general) Christianity. They represent a corrupt, spiritually bankrupt church hierarchy leading a naive congregation at best, no matter what the reality across every fucking town in America actually is or was.

If this strikes a little close to the bone then that's not on the writers. It's on the Christians. I'm not going to go too deep down this rabbit hole again because I don't want to trigger anyone but what the writers conveyed is absolutely the case. You might be upset that they didn't convey the ins and outs of small town rural Christianity but what were they supposed to do? Put twenty something Christian characters into the show just for nuance?

Christians good. Churchianity bad. Regardless of what the writers intended this is the message they conveyed. It's accurate and insightful, even to this day.

I don't think The Simpsons was some kind of unshakeable moral compass but I'm coming around to the unpleasant conclusion that all comedy is subversive. All of it. Personally I think that The Simpsons at least spread that subversion equally across all facets of society and made everyone the butt of the joke at some point or another. That's why it was so popular and universally loved. Reverent of nothing but at least equally irreverent against all.

I'll say it again. There's no way a comedy writer could have possibly written a more sympathetic character than Flanders without sucking the actual comedy out of the show.

(04-24-2019 12:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  If this strikes a little close to the bone then that's not on the writers. It's on the Christians. I'm not going to go too deep down this rabbit hole again because I don't want to trigger anyone but what the writers conveyed is absolutely the case. You might be upset that they didn't convey the ins and outs of small town rural Christianity but what were they supposed to do? Put twenty something Christian characters into the show just for nuance?

Christians good. Churchianity bad. Regardless of what the writers intended this is the message they conveyed. It's accurate and insightful, even to this day.

Similarly I don't want to take over the lounge, but I would suggest you might reflect on this possibility: if you're finding it "accurate and insightful", then it is entirely possible you have bought into the show as more than a satire -- and the writers achieved their agenda.

I can condense the two sentences "Christians good. Churchianity bad." down to one, and to two words: Moral relativism.

Because it's always easy to follow a God who looks just like you, acts just like you, and agrees on every one of your views. That's part of a church's function: to remind you that you do not, in fact, have the only correct relationship with God, and that you are, in fact, a part of a steadily-declining tribe that won't piss on fire to put out one of its fellow tribesmen, let alone a Samaritan dying in a ditch.

(04-24-2019 12:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't think The Simpsons was some kind of unshakeable moral compass but I'm coming around to the unpleasant conclusion that all comedy is subversive. All of it. Personally I think that The Simpsons at least spread that subversion equally across all facets of society and made everyone the butt of the joke at some point or another. That's why it was so popular and universally loved. Reverent of nothing but at least equally irreverent against all.

Except if your name is Michael Jackson.
Or if you're homosexual.
Or if you're a Democrat.
Or if you're a vegan - as Paul McCartney was and was permitted to spout his tripe as a guest star on the show.
Or if you're a Muslim*.

I'll say again: even the Simpsons creators admit they are liberals. If you think they made everyone the butt of the joke, you bought their programming.



* But I'll give them a pass on that since even open and "courageous" equal-hatred purveyors South Park were scared off by Islam. They parodied the religion in Super Friends, but after getting bomb threats from Muslims, quietly excised the episode from their back catalogue.)

(04-24-2019 02:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...
Similarly I don't want to take over the lounge, but I would suggest you might reflect on this possibility: if you're finding it "accurate and insightful", then it is entirely possible you have bought into the show as more than a satire -- and the writers achieved their agenda.

I can condense the two sentences "Christians good. Churchianity bad." down to one, and to two words: Moral relativism.

Because it's always easy to follow a God who looks just like you, acts just like you, and agrees on every one of your views. That's part of a church's function: to remind you that you do not, in fact, have the only correct relationship with God, and that you are, in fact, a part of a steadily-declining tribe that won't piss on fire to put out one of its fellow tribesmen, let alone a Samaritan dying in a ditch.
...

If the majority of Christian churches were doing their job then you'd have a case, but you don't. As it stands the majority of Christian churches are working tirelessly to promote the very degeneracy you lay at the feet of The Simpsons writers.

The majority of American Christians are decent, well meaning people who are unfortunately involved in soul-less globo-homo denominations. As such the characterization of Flanders and Lovejoy is entirely accurate. If it wasn't accurate then it wouldn't be funny.

Unfortunately it's becoming very fashionable to pluck something out of the past 30 years and decry it as the devil then hen-peck as "devil-converged" anyone that only agrees with you 90% instead of 100.

Sure. Ok. Thou art more woke than me. Congrats.

(04-23-2019 10:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The show had Michael Jackson as a guest star, for Christ's sake - when people already knew he was sleeping with children in a literal if not metaphorical sense.

The people thought they knew he was doing this deed. But I have been recently convinced of Michael Jackson's innocence by Razorfist:

















One of my favorite film analysts Rob Ager did a comparison of the victims of Michael Jackson with real victims of abuse:






It is my firm opinion as of now. He is falsely accused. And people have been deceived as to the truth.