This blog promotes the idea that teenagers are adults and feminist inspired anti-sex & anti-children’s rights legislation cloaked in the warped rhetoric of “paedophile hysteria”, “rape hysteria” & “child protection” is leading to a holocaust of men, kids & ironically even women.

(Infact I’d even argue that making a legal distinction between “adult” and “child” is a stupid, dangerous idea anyway)

Why are there so few other blogs like this? Because men are scared of being murdered by feminist political predators, that’s why.

32 Responses to About

  1. I hope you have the time to read this fully. It’s a discussion I started on a feminist-inspired scepticism website (obvious fallacy is obvious). It is useful to your cause, I think.
    It might provide pointers to counter their bad logic.

    Thanks in advance,



    Something by some wannabe Satan

    I tried editing this page under the heading ‘Other Objections’ because I wanted to clearly state my objection to atheism+. This is what I wrote :

    It should also be mentioned that for a lot of people atheism is the result of critical thinking in a world that shows no evidence for the existence of god(s) whatsoever. Atheism+ however disallows criticism directed at its pet ideologies, showing that they are not actually critical thinkers at all. Association with this movement is a reliable indicator of a faux intellectual.

    Maybe I should also mention that they tend to use the same bad logic (usually ad hominem) that religious people use.

    Moderator, can you tell me what was wrong with my comment? I like to know.

    Thanks in advance,

    Rogier— Unsigned, by: TheAdversary / talk / contribs

    Note: Please sign your posts using the “Signature and Timestamp” button or four tildes (i.e. the ~ character).
    Anyway, the section “Other objections” documents objections that have been made about Atheism Plus. You can make such a comment in the talk section (as you just did) but the article should contain things that at least resemble factual statements. If there are specific people who have made the above criticism feel free to document it. If you think it is a factual statement, others (including myself and presumably the editor who removed it) disagree so feel free to argue about it here. –SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    From the article : Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism. This sentence just doesn’t make any sense to me. Atheism is the result of critical thinking and skepticism because we happen to live in a world without evidence for the existence of god(s). Had there been sufficient evidence for the existence of god, I wouldn’t be an atheist. If god would come down from heaven and prove his existence to the world I would become a theist. But he never does, so atheism remains a good working assumption. But I would change my opinion if new information becomes available. That’s critical thinking. That’s skepticism. That is the scientific method. This sentence from the article seems to imply that atheism is unrelated to critical thinking and skepticism. Which means it is just an article of faith, then. It’s atheism that comes from a dislike of religion, not from a desire to understand the world. And people who do not want to understand the world are always very quick to lecture everybody else on how things should be. Hence the emphasis on social issues. All this is contrary to the scientific method. Contrary to critical thinking. Contrary to rationality. That is why people like Richard Dawkins and Thunderf00t don’t like it. The most dangerous pseudo sciences are those who know how to imitate science the best. And here with this atheism+ nonsense we have pseudoscience masquerading as rationality itself! It will deceive the very elect! Luckily it will also mercilessly expose this branch of feminism as a harmful pseudoscience, to the people who are still rational. But now I’ll probably be labeled a womyn hating misogynist, which is their favorite ad hominem. In fact, it is this feminist influence and its vitriolic bad logic that is primarily responsible for the collapse of the reasoning faculties of would-be intellectuals. That is why it can deceive the very elect! And I am very sad to see so many ‘rational’ and ‘skeptic’ sites be taken in by this poison.TheAdversary (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    No, you will be labeled a pretentious buffoon who can’t use MediaWiki formatting for shit and reads too much into a single sentence of a mission statement. Writing stuff like “deceive the very elect” doesn’t make you look rational, it makes you look like an euphoric teenager. –ZooGuard (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Defending women’s rights is poison? That seems like a pretty odd claim for someone who claims to be a critical thinker. (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    ZooGuard : I’m sorry I don’t know how to use MediaWiki formatting. My apologies. As for the one thing that resembles a counterargument : I think that that one sentence contains something essential. And I have explained it in detail above. Do you have an actual counterargument? I’d like to hear it. The rest are vitriolic personal attacks which prove my point. Thanks for this! As for the other comment : Obvious straw man. Just read what I wrote above. Exactly where does it say that I’m against women’s rights?TheAdversary (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    Atheism can be the result of critical thinking but it doesn’t have to be. Lots of Atheists demonstrate very poor critical thinking skills. Others — and I would include Dawkins in this — seem to think that because they self-identify as rational, all views they hold must also be rational and therefore those who disagree are inherently irrational. The easiest person to fool is always yourself. SpecialFFrog (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    So you’re not against women’s rights but you are against the movement that fights for those rights? Seems kind of contradictory, doesn’t it. (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    Luckily the scientific method prevents us, as far as can be, from fooling ourselves. An experiment must be repeatable and verified by many people independently of each other to ensure objectivity. It doesn’t matter what you think, all that matters is what the experiment says. If I go on it will lead to a discussion about the demarcation problem so I’m going to stop now. The point : scientific experiment as a way of not fooling ourselves. The divorce of atheism from scepticism means then that I would lose my argument against the religious : Is atheism not just another form of faith? No! Because all the facts of science, which aims to be as objective as possible, show us that the Universe seems to be unguided. So if you cannot use that argument, why is atheism not just another religion? Which is why they need to show that religion is wrong in another way. Atheism+ folk are atheists because of moral and social gripes. Which causes a schism with the science geeks, like me. And then you add feminism to the mix … This problem of men being overrepresented in such communities challenges established feminist dogma. Sexual dimorphism really is the more plausible theory, because the social oppression arguments would require justifications of almost conspiracy-theory like levels nowadays. And then the bad logic that they must use is not only poisonous in itself because of the subject matter, but also because some of the men in those communities are easy targets. And then you have an enormous amount of poison to protect the bad logic. This form of feminism, and there are many forms of feminism some of which I support, needs to be exposed for the ultra poisonous pseudoscience that it is. Now I can just repeat the ‘what’s the harm’ argument I hope. It’s not about oppressing women. It’s about exposing pseudoscience which hides behind such powerful ad hominems.TheAdversary (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    You’ve clearly given the issue of gender imbalance in scientific / skeptic communities a good several minutes of thought and decided that it must be sexual dimorphism and yet you are accusing proponents of Atheism+ of embracing pseudoscience?
    As an exercise, pick an area where men are supposedly superior — say scientific ability — and draw a bell curve representing the distribution of natural ability in men in this area. Now draw a bell curve for the distribution of women’s natural ability on top of the previous one. Clearly you think that the centre of the women’s curve will to be the left of that of the men’s curve, and you may be correct (I won’t claim no biological factor is possible). But how far to the left would it have to be to make the current imbalance in the sciences solely a matter of natural ability? Do you honestly think that such a claim could be justified based on the evidence?
    As I said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Science helps us to stop fooling ourselves but only if we look at actual evidence instead of just pretending that because I am into science, my intuitions must be rational.
    Besides, you still don’t seem to actually understand Atheism+ and appear to be attacking imaginary feminists. –SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Then let me present the evidence : They have been encouraging women to try to succeed in traditional male professions since I was young in my country (Holland). More girls into programming, mathematics etc. And this is great. Everyone should get the same chances. However in some areas, like in the aforementioned communities, there are still more men than women. How do you explain this? See it as an experiment. You try to get more women involved by taking away the social barriers. And then if the same pattern emerges, evidence is in favour of an explanation that requires an innate difference. Be it biological, or something else about human behaviour we don’t understand yet. I don’t think everything can be explained by biology but no scientific theory ever is complete, and you cannot use incompleteness as an argument against a scientific theory. Sexual dimorphism is a good incomplete theory. The opposing theory, that of oppression of women, is falsified. It really does not have the evidence in its favour. So yes, I think I can make that claim based on the evidence. All theories being but incomplete descriptions of reality if I have to choose between innate difference or social oppression in this case I would choose the first. It’s what the experiment says. However, the case is ambiguous enough to lead to endless discussions, and endless experiments. It’s just that this biological theory is not an irrational position to take, and doesn’t deserve the amount of hatred it receives. That, in itself, is suspicious. And it shows that my feminists might not be so imaginary.TheAdversary (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    I went through both undergraduate and graduate programs in physics. While encouragement for women to enter scientific fields is there, there still exists prejudice within these programs. I know quite a few women who transferred out of the physics program due largely to harassment from male students. Saying that the social barriers are lifted is not correct, and it’s clear you’re missing a very important factor here. – (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    I’m guessing you didn’t try and draw the bell curves. Why would you when you can cite anecdotes as if they represented significant evidence? Some unspecified attempts to remove barriers to women in sciences didn’t entirely work therefore the barriers don’t exist, apparently.
    And for a “science geek” you are not demonstrating a strong ability to evaluate a hypothesis based on the evidence. Clearly some evidence favours your hypothesis and some doesn’t. It is therefore possible to do some rough calculation to give a probability of the hypothesis being true based on the evidence. What probability would you give to your hypothesis? If it is 60%, would you consider that sufficient to decide that it is “true” and a reasonable basis for making policy decisions?
    In reality, probably no hypothesis has enough evidence to even reach the 50% mark. We just do not know at this stage and so trying to work towards fairness is a reasonable goal.
    Here’s a fun read for you: a study looking at gender-based expectations of an infants ability to crawl.–SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    They have been implementing this social mechanism to such a degree that it is now almost thoughtcrime to insinuate otherwise and still less women than men in those areas? The evidence in favour of innate difference is stacking up to such a degree that actual social intimidation mechanisms are necessary to uphold this unscientific attitude. A little bit of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding.TheAdversary (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    You realize you have yet to provide any evidence that isn’t anecdotal yourself, right? – (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    What part of my argument relies on anecdotal evidence, exactly? Everything can be verified by yourself.TheAdversary (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    I don’t think you understand what scientific evidence is, because you’re certainly not providing it. – (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Yes I didn’t follow up on that statistics bit because it only asked for one question : do you have any evidence? That talk about bell curves was completely unnecessary, like dead code. And yes, I do. And it is not anecdotal. These mechanisms of positive discrimination have been in place for decades. And they didn’t work as expected. Otherwise this whole movement wouldn’t even exist, probably. How can that be anecdotal evidence? It just states that gender-issues were recognized and people have been trying to do something about it. Do you disagree with this? And no, the question is not whether the barriers exist, but why they are there in the first place. For reasons of innate difference or social causes. And because of the prevalence of those mechanisms in society you can consider it a enormous social experiment. That’s a shitstorm of evidence! Readily available to everybody! Again, some vacuous pseudo-statistics talk to say essentially this post-modernist crap about ‘nobody knows anything’. Except that feminism is true of course …TheAdversary (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    So noting that no hypothesis has sufficient evidence to consider it more than a hypothesis is “post-modern” and Bayesian inference is “vacuous pseudo-statistics” . What kind of “science geek” are you exactly?
    And no, the bell curve exercise wasn’t just asking you for evidence. It was to get you to realize how much of an inherent difference you are claiming exists. Do you really think your hand-waving and appeals to Google are sufficient for that kind of claim?
    There have been efforts to eliminate racial inequality for decades as well. Since that has not succeeded, does that mean “scientific racists” are right?SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    TheAdversary, point us to 1 scientific study supporting your position. So far your evidence is (a) anecdotal evidence and (b) “Google it”. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    A science geek that distrusts so-called sciences that rely too much on Bayesian logic! The more vague and indecisive a field becomes, the more it has to rely on statistical methods. And the more it slides down the demarcation scale into pseudo science. And when you reach 50/50 for every hypothesis, the scientific method then just doesn’t work properly any more. The more Bayesian logic it has to use, the more suspect a field, in my opinion. This includes a large part of the social sciences, psychology etc. It’s not that the sincerest efforts have not been done to ensure objectivity in those fields, it’s that the scientific method just doesn’t work as well there as in say, physics. This is a real problem in (for example) politics. Want to do scientific research on the possible outcomes of your decisions? So many researches, so many opinions and in the end the politician still has to make the decision based on his ‘gut feeling’. Not very scientific. And very post-modern. 50/50 is where science dies therefore, because it loses its ability to decide. I think therefore that a large part of what passes for science these days is actually pseudo science, or very susceptible to pseudo science. As for the issue at hand : Hand waving and appeals to Google are not enough for such a claim, but a worldwide social experiment that has been going on for decades and its results are. I don’t think that you can provide stronger evidence for your position. You can continually dismiss it but I think that’s just dishonest now. Maybe you just don’t want to hear it. And yes, I challenge all egalitarian dogma. It’s the same problem though : pseudo science hiding behind uber powerful ad hominems. Like you are now trying to pin racism on me. As for a scientific study that supports my position, firstly I can point to all the scientific works that propose that human behaviour has a biological basis. Then I can show you some actual academic papers that flat out deny that there is a biological basis to gender at all! Actually, you can just look up all academic papers from a feminist perspective. They all more or less try to deny the influence of biology/evolution on human behaviour. Do I have to start quoting? There’s too many to list! All that this will show is how much the academic world is corrupted by egalitarian dogma. It’s the replacement religion because the honest scientific view on the Universe is just too disturbing.TheAdversary (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    “Do I have to start quoting? There’s too many to list!”

    Yes, you would be more persuasive with a few well-chosen quotes. If there are too many to list, how about using your own selective ability, and show a short list of two or three significant works? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it is amazing how physicists can do amazing things like discover the Higgs Boson without relying on statistical analysis. Oh wait. SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    From the University of Amsterdam, Research center for gender and sexuality : http://arcgs.uva.nl/research

    ‘The Centre takes as a given the recognition that prescriptions of masculinity and femininity are far from universal and timeless. Rather, they are inherently unstable due to the particularities of time, place, and changing structures of power.’

    This seems to be the dogma for academic gender-departments. Man and woman categories, as a classification system for humans, is a good heuristic. It works well in almost all cases, throughout history. There are many exceptions of course, but if you choose a classification system for this that has the least amount of exceptions, the optimal one, just classifying them as male or female is the way to go. The social structure never fundamentally changed this. It never changed the fundamental biological basis. Getting this backward is absurd. And they take this as a given! And statistics in physics is not the same as bayesian logic. In statistical mechanics, you don’t know the motion of each particle individually, but you can make statistical predictions because those particles are simple. Bayesian logic needs to be applied when experiments themselves become hard to perform, and statistical analysis becomes a necessity to make a measurement at all. Physics doesn’t have that problem … but then there is quantum mechanics which does have that … but it’s still different.TheAdversary (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Ooh, “… but it’s still different,” eh? Do tell. Bear in mind that I’m a researcher in quantum physics when you decide what to say. Also, you still haven’t provided actual evidence, so bravo. – (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Probability seems to be fundamental in nature. It also means we cannot understand it, because we’ve given up on trying to provide definitions for probability. We can statistically analyse random behaviour, but we cannot define or understand it. So when nature seems to be driven by probability, our understanding stops. So either you can shut up and calculate, or you can try to understand what probability really means and that is a very deep philosophical issue. It is different from let’s call it pragmatic probability we encounter and apply in real life. Or is it? Is not all knowledge based on probability? Which is why I insinuated that it’s different, but it’s not. To hint at the dilemma. And I have provided actual evidence already, in spades. I can go to more academic gender departments and qoute mine some more nonsense and analyse it here, if you want.TheAdversary (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    And that supports your claim that gender imbalance is largely down to inherent biology how? And how many of these academics you plan to cite are connected to Atheism+? What exactly does your evidence indicate? SpecialFFrog (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    My argument should be clear by now. I’m sorry it is not perfect. Atheism+ resembles the mindset found in academia. You have to accept egalitarian/feminist dogma or fear being ostracized. That academic science is corrupt. And therefore, society.TheAdversary (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    You continue to rattle off all of this anecdotal evidence and expect us to believe you. Where are the studies that show this to be the case? Where are your academic sources? Where is the actual evidence? Until you provide some of that, your words are of no more value to this discussion than the anecdotal evidence I provided earlier. – (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    What you are calling “egalitarian dogma” is the idea that it is worthwhile to work towards eliminating racial and gender inequalities. Your basis for calling this “dogma” is the claim that such inequalities that remain are inherent, though you have provided no evidence to support that claim. SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    Evidence that cannot be verified by others is anecdotal. Evidence that can be checked by everybody by themselves is not. I have not provided any evidence that cannot be checked by others. I already explained it above, so I’m not going to do it again. To call it anecdotal evidence is dishonest. You seem to have other requirements for evidence : it also needs to be ‘academic’, whatever that means. So if loafs of bread fall from the sky, and everybody sees it including you, and a loaf of bread even falls on your head are you not going to believe it simply because it was not written in a peer reviewed journal? That’s obviously absurd. Peer review in academia exists to fulfil the requirement that the evidence needs to be tested by many people independently, to ensure honesty and objectivity. Not because it makes it ‘academic’. Again, that is absurd. Maybe it is because almost every non-academic thinker turned out to be a crank, so your prejudice is understandable. In any case, what part of my argument relies on evidence that cannot be checked by others? I like to know, so I can correct the flaw.

    And where is the scientific support for egalitarianism? There isn’t any. Nature seems to be disturbingly anti-egalitarian! At least, the evidence for egalitarianism is minimal compared to the opposite. And trying to change this because you think it is ‘good’ is a moral position. You cannot provide evidence for that either. So my position has all the evidence in its favour. Yours has none.TheAdversary (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    You may be a science geek, but you don’t know anything about science. You also evidently don’t know what ‘anecdotal’ means in the context you’re using it in because you’re simply wrong. Check a dictionary. – (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    Appeal to definition, also known as appeal to the dictionary fallacy.TheAdversary (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    Except it’s not a fallacy if you’re using the term ‘anecdotal evidence’ incorrectly because you don’t know what it means. Then it’s just correcting you. You say your evidence is something anyone can see, but clearly it isn’t, since data points have been provided that show you to be incorrect. I would counter by saying that it’s fairly obvious that institutional sexism within university STEM departments still forms a huge barrier to women entering STEM fields. What makes your ‘fairly obvious’ anecdotal evidence any more valid than mine? And yes, yours is anecdotal. You think it’s not simply because you don’t understand what ‘anecdotal’ means. – (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Evidence for NDEs is “anecdotal” because it consists of stories that you can interpret to be meaningful as opposed to evidence obtained through experimentation or through rigorous analysis of data. The fact that anyone can look up these stories doesn’t mean they aren’t anecdotal. And I have already agreed that the evidence that inequality is all environmental is weak (though I’m unconvinced that it is weaker). So what kind of policy should a fair society embrace in that context? Whether nature is unequal is kind of irrelevant (and possibly a meaningless statement). SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    Because they have been implementing mechanisms to counter this for long enough now to asses the effectiveness of those mechanisms. And they didn’t work. Otherwise women would be equally represented in those fields. And then more and more measures are necessary until you actually achieve it, and seeing that this society has as a founding principle that that is a good thing to do, they won’t stop trying. But there is a risk : You are socially engineering to change male-female relations, so you are interfering with sex. Therefore you might actually disturb the species’ ability to survive! Do you want to socially engineer that far? Can you take that risk? The consequences could be horrible! I know all of this is conjecture, but it is not an irrational fear. If you deny that there is a biological basis to gender, you think you can mould to your heart’s content. But biology thinks otherwise. And then you have a problem, a very big one. Time will tell, I suppose. That is why I don’t like present-day egalitarianism. It’s blinded by its own sense of moral superiority, but there is a reason why nature was anti-egalitarian in the first place. We don’t want social darwinism, but we also do not want to end up with ‘survival of the weakest’. That would just lead to the degeneration of the species, with equally horrible consequences. Some balance is required, and I think that this society is swinging too far into the direction opposite to survival of the fittest. Maybe the next Holocaust is about the extermination of the strong, instead of the weak.TheAdversary (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    • holocaust21 says:

      Interesting, I’ve certainly also had discussions where feminists seem to refuse to look properly at the evidence against their position and expect a completely unrealistic level of evidence from their opponents. Yet they are prepared to accept far weaker evidence for their own position.

      The problem is made worse for us by the fact that feminist research has enormous funding in academia and thus research will often be given the feminist interpretation and so all research – even research that contradicts feminist claims – will try to come to feminist conclusions. It is like a Christian doing research and finding proof of God everywhere and even when the research contradicts the existence of God they find all the reasons as to why God probably still exists anyway.

      In the end it’s all propaganda. It is amazing how you can derail scientific enquiry by just bleeting on about the same thing over and over again thus “taking control of the narrative”.

  2. Rogier Walraven says:

    Because of the academic backing the feminists have, most people are not capable of countering the very sophisticated bad logic. You’d need an academic or equivalent education and level of thinking, which is usually only acquired at a university. But education being completely under control by them, you usually end up brainwashed as well!
    Or you will find yourself a victim of social exclusion. Bullying, mobbing etc. And you will not be popular with the ladies of course so most people just swallow the dogma.
    This explains why so few intellectuals speak up against them in academic environments. Fear of social exclusion and lack of sexuality as a consequence is enough to turn them into servants. (The paradox being of course that this feminist version of sexuality is fundamentally unsatisfying and emasculating.)
    And so you have an army of pseudo-intellectuals protecting them using the most advanced sophistry ever devised! And anybody who attempts to reason with them has a high probability
    of looking like a sexually deviant idiot to fence sitters, giving further credence to their position and increasing their power. And the vicious circle goes down towards what seems to be the eradication of male sexual willpower. Or maybe just willpower altogether …
    Anyway, thanks for fighting their most powerful ad hominem!

    • holocaust21 says:

      Yes, well said. The “high probability of looking like a sexually deviant idiot” one has definitely been a major weapon in their arsenal. Usually they’d just say “paedo” or “nambla” & then you’re screwed but now we have quite a few words that can be used back at them such as paedohysteric, paedocrite, mangina, feminazi, jealous old hag etc. They often claim that only paedophiles would support paedophiles and thus “why would you support paedophiles if you’re not a paedophile?” to which the response can be “But all men are paedophiles!” followed by giving them links to the movie “Are All Men Are Paedophiles?” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_All_Men_Pedophiles%3F ) and some rather interesting research showing (at least) 1 in 5 men are paedophiles https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

      The only thing I’d question is whether you need academic or university level education. The smartest people usually think for themselves, the rest just act like sheep whether at university or not. Infact there’s a big culture (especially among stupid feminists who take crappy degrees) of believing that higher “university” thinking is all about finding some nice complicated words and then spreading them around in a disjointed & irrational fashion e.g. misogyny, patriarchy, heteronormative etc etc. If there’s one thing university does give is it’s probably got a higher concentration of smart people than outside of university due to the motivations of those who go, and you probably learn more from other students than the classes.

  3. I’ve been arguing on the International Skeptics Forum for about a year now. I’ve presented ideas on genocide, crucifixion and even burning witches.
    The witches I specifically designated to be usually Psychology students. People there have insinuated that I might go on a shooting spree and
    they considered that an exciting event. But I mention rape … all of a sudden I’m a criminal. And then I had them pegged.
    I’m preparing an article based on my research but I was conclusively able to show that the academic world is composed of people
    incapable of basic logic and common sense, as well as being absolute moral hypocrites in that they consider even burning a woman as a lesser evil
    than rape. Expose this, and it will destroy Feminist-dominated academia.

    Here are some example posts, followed by the post that was rejected and the reason why.

    TRIGGER WARNING 🙂 The posts that were ok, contain references to extreme sadistic violence.


    I don’t believe in his noble savage ideas, though I’m strawmanning a little bit here. I think that Civilization, or the descent into Slave Morality,
    actually leads to the worst form of torment because you end up worshipping degeneracy. The true Good was never been established which is why
    the move against it, the Slave Revolt, occurred. The Good King needs to appear, establish Law, exterminate the degenerates and repopulate with the Strong.
    And to establish this Law at the limit of Slave Morality, the limit of Anti-Love, simply requires you to show correct punishment to the Anti-Love crowd.
    This is where my thesis on Burning Witches comes from; If you correctly show torture of the Anti-Love crowd, you establish the Law of Love very firmly.
    It might last for centuries, this Master Morality society. That’s the way forward to world peace, for a long time.
    But it really does require fields of crucifixion and burning. This is the Case Against Human Rights.
    For Horgan, Egalitarian Morality is impairing his judgement, probably. (See? Colonel Kurtz was right. It’s judgement that defeats us.)


    And before somebody starts making the counterargument that extreme punishment has proved to be ineffective in the past, remember
    that I’m saying it was never properly implemented. It needs to be properly Sadistic; The Pleasure of the Feast is the Key.
    That part was never fully implemented. It manifested in rare cases, but that was it. And without said Pleasure, such a society also
    cannot be stable.
    And it needs to be done Ritualistically Correct. I’m still working out the finer details on this.
    I used to agree with the mass hysteria theory of witchcraft. I think it really stems from the fear of the woman being able to corrupt and poison
    a social situation so marvellously, one can only imagine what would happen if she starts using her Power for evil. And then they start extrapolating
    their speculations …


    I’ve experienced the capacity of the woman to completely derail an argument with a few well chosen poisonous statements.
    I’m generalizing here but on average, such evil is much more in line with the woman, like evil in the form of violence is much more common in males.
    But both is violence and both cause physical harm! Don’t underestimate mental torment.
    I’ve been arguing that Egalitarian Extremism causes the most two-faced slimy hypocrite to be considered good, and that this leads to a problematic
    situation; The degeneration of the species. It’s basically a form of incest where more and more bad people are being produced, and seeing as
    the woman is best adapted for this sort of evil, you get what used to be just Medieval hysteria, with a hint of truth, turned into reality.
    So, right now, witches are real! They usually study Psychology are are recognizable by their complete disregard for logic and their incredible talent
    for poisoning minds, with or without augmentation with actual poison.
    I have presented a thesis on what should be done with them … it’s not too dissimilar from the Medieval solution …


    The following post is the one that got banned. This was their reason :

    The infraction issued was: Breach of Rule 2: You will not post anything that is considered pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence
    and/or explicit sexual acts.

    Originally Posted by FeministLapDog
    So if men can’t rape they can’t combat evil women? Is that what you are saying?

    No, I’m saying that if someone hits me, I hit back. If someone hits me with a stick, I hit him back with a stick.
    Sexual violence is best dealt with by counter sexual violence. The other person is trying to make you go unhealthy, which is what happens
    if a woman sexually messes with you in a malicious way, so you should counter this in the most healthy way for you.
    It’s just evenly matched violence, at least. But I’m no believer in ‘an eye for an eye’; I believe more in Poetic Justice.
    Which is why psychological/social/sexual rape should be rebutted by physical rape. But not in all cases.
    One should be artistic in one’s style of Vengeance! It should be enjoyed.
    But remember this : In all of those cases I have been talking about an attack against me happening, _without_ provocation from me.
    Someone just attacking me while I just go about my own business … you are, from any Moral perspective, allowed to retaliate in that case.
    Rape is violence. So is shooting someone. Or crucifying, or burning. But violence isn’t always wrong, and in any society, criminals ought
    to get punished. Sexual criminals punished by Rape … not a bad form of Poetic Justice. And, yes, women can be perpetrators, too.
    My question to you is : Why is rape considered calling the cops for, but shooting sprees not?
    Even if I follow your psychoanalysis theories, a shooting spree isn’t any more unlikely than rape. It shows a cognitive bias towards
    the particular form of violence called rape. As if rape is worse than anything else. Worse than shooting. Worse than burning.
    Cognitive bias like that has no place in Scepticism. I expect that on a Feminist website, and that would be legit even because they explicitly
    state they’re Feminists. Don’t want the cognitive bias towards rape, don’t go there. But I expect differently on a website called
    International SKEPTICS Forum. As well as from academia, at large.


    Conclusion :

    Academics are completely morally insane. Even if you grant they can’t take me seriously, Elliott Rodger-like situations were still very likely.
    They insinuated as such, treated it as an exciting event and one even wanted to have an interview with me because of this.
    But rape : That’s evil. They tried to come up with excuses but that just became more and more pathetic.
    I mention that Anders Breivik is my hero and they respond : But you said rape!
    And then they closed the thread, but I’m not altogether banned yet and all of my other posts are still there.
    Holocaust, indeed. We _need_ to organize and prepare for war.

    Warrior Lord Of The Sun

  4. Hebephile says:

    hey I am the hebephile guy from twitter who spoke against adultophiles assholes, I see you no longer use twitter, I guess twitter just block your account? me too, with or without proxy and I can not do anything nor a new account, and besides I do not want to argue with anti slag, but I want to do something to combat the anti-teensex human wastes.

    you complain about this rabble say fuck 15 yrs old is bad, man if I’ve seen bitches say that Twilight promotes pedophilia (guess that’s the 17 yrs girl with the vampire guy aged 150, because otherwise no I understand a shit about)

    like many people I have the duty to defend ephebophilia of these anti idiots, also agree with your ideology in some ways, I prefer libertarianism but I am less extreme than you, and more “religious” if you understand defending and encouraging the ETERNAL laws of nature not Christ bullshit, of course,

    nor I defend pedophilia, first, about pedophilia, i just think that pedophiles should defend FIRST themselves, or not?

    and also I do not want anyone to have sex or make pornography with me when I was a child or a baby !? I just think that ephebophilia and sexuality is fine with adolescents, and as I say child pornography (I hate all pornography on mental health grounds, not moral shit) is not good

    i think is not a victimless crime at least in some sense, that I have the right to have my picture will not be disseminated in internet without my knowledge, if a boy of 11 wants to upload internet photos of him (the boy himself and only if he is really sure it) I do not care, but there do on the grounds that no one suffers if anyone make it that against the child or person, because the image of anyone is sacred.

    Of course a 13 or 16 yrs girl in a bikini or whatever, or naked

    that’s not pornography at all or child porn, it’s just this anti scum fucking the life of adolescents and ephbophiles

    I also tell you that there are feminists who support pedophiles are actually very few and “dissidents”, but they exist… I agree that this ideology is generally disgusting, just like liberalism cultural Marxism and other crap that come from TV, but ANTI-Feminist like milo yianopoulos (or whatever is called the idiot, I will not bother putting well their name) is anti-feminist BUT also anti-pedophile, let me to remember you a tweet of this idiot:

    “All those who say publicly that they are pedophiles should be put in jail”

    as you see I think idiots like milo should also go to jail, they are a plague of cultural Marxism, in that I agree with those who say that this “LGTBers” are among the worst enemies of ALL attracted to minors both heterosexual or homosexual…

    only adds psychologists, psychiatrists with their mental poison, and all are done for the master plan to destroy the eternal laws of nature, with genre laws, liberalism homosexualism, cultural Marxism feminism etc. ultimately eliminate the natural sexuality of man (and woman, you don’t forget) who is hebephilia and ephebophilia

    so I think that feminism is just another ideology of lot of crap out there, nothing in particular also many anti-feminists are antiepbebophilia too because these state slaves are all members of the forces trying to destroy the natural laws of man

    in my point of view nor do I like the man rights movement, nor your EXTREME libertarianism because I think you “pass braking” in many things, for example to eliminate false allegation of rape of women, we should not legalize rape on the property private, because anyone can rape their children or anyone !!! what you need to do is just NOT fucking adult women (and even if legal, teenagers brainwashed by the holy TV) and end of the matter, if you’re so pathetic as to fuck a stupid adult woman (or man?) just fuck youself, of course im not a half-feminist or something is just a bit of decency

    besides I think love and healthy sexuality is only between an adult and a teenager .. for me to hell who have sex with adults, is better not fuck anything even if you dont can with adolescents for your local shitty laws

    I think the correct laws are those of nature, not the individual, like you (although I find interesting your concept) nor those of society and government, and those natural laws allow, encourage and embrace the atraction and relations with adolescents

    I TOTALLY support majority of age in puberty when they become adolescents, at minimum at 12, seems optimal for me, because I think that considering prepubescent children as adults is irresponsible like consider teenagers as children like anti idiots think

    that’s what I think, i just put that to see what you think about this

    PD: and in twitter ALL people hated me because I was going to every idiot to say what I thought about him, but you never going to personally engage against a pedophile even a idiot who said that fuck a 15 or 12 yrs is rape!!, and you here engage against much people even personalities but not personally a idiot, face to face, like me, that’s the difference, and you know

    • holocaust21 says:

      Woah a lot of opinions there I don’t know where to start… One thing I’ll say which yes, links into my libertarian philosophy is that when you support a law you are condoning and inciting violence. You must acknowledge that. Thus, due to the exceedingly violent nature of law, it must be minimised to only particularly serious wrongs. So for one I think the downsides of outlawing pornography far outweigh any upsides because:
      1) Suffering and loss of life that results from violent enforcement of anti-pornography laws is too great
      2) Law enforcement resources can be better directed elsewhere (e.g. burglaries which UK police have now stopped policing, and which I think causes more harm than having a photo shared)
      3) Any loss of privacy due to sharing of a photograph is a very minor issue and I think part of learning about life, you cannot simply live in a “safe space” bubble.
      4) Having totally legalised porn everywhere means that if your porn photos are shared then no one will see them as there is so much porn

      Regarding rape I actually am not that averse to some sort of rape law or perhaps rape just being implicitly illegal via other laws (such as grevious bodily harm, or assault). However, I do object to any overreaching definition of rape as well as the tendency to bundle a set of unrelated crimes under one heading. A college guy who has gentle sex with a passed out girl is NOT the same as a guy who beats a girl until she’s black and blue and then shoves a bottle up her anus and rapes her vagina so blood is pouring out her genitals…

      As for your ideas that having sex with adults is wrong I simply can’t see it ever being passed into law or why one would want it so. Though I can see that you could argue that a 40 year old man with a 14 year old girl might actually be a better, more long-lasting pairing than two 14 year olds or two 40 year olds.

      As for twitter, yes they blocked my account. I miss some aspects of it, although it has to be said that I think the IQ’s of twitterers is perhaps lower than elsewhere and not using twitter has allowed me to devote more time to writing interesting blog posts which has driven more traffic to my site.

  5. ephebophiliaismyreligion says:

    my response is a bit long hope you do not mind 🙂

    I understand what you say, but in this species of poorly evolved simians, called humanity, they go how to leverage every loophole to degenerate itself, would not be so bad if the species is not degenerating at the same time … as I said I follow the eternal laws of nature, which have always been and will always be, the problem is whether people is going obey them (obviously not) and who enforce that law, agree that there is no god or anything probably, so must be the own intelligent beings who take care of the universal laws, not human-biased local laws.

    As about relations between people of the same age or generation are, from my point of view with these universal laws, simply unnatural, because equality itself is unnatural, although it is possible for two people of the same age can get along, odds are the same as winning in a casino, the player almost always loses
    because equal relations between people (Important: generally !!) are not based on love but on primitive animal attraction, in fact such relations are almost always:
    1) sordid and interpersonal encounters
    2) long arrangements characterized by jealousy and obsession

    that love “between equals” (or as they say the degenerate laws “between consenting adults”) is only an illusion of the human mind for people to reproduce their species, but eventually becomes deep contempt, and I did not invent it, in this degenerate societies divorce now reach 50% and just in the early years of marriage, even the first year!!
    just add the rest of MANY MANY failed relationships before marriage, the pathological violence that show every day against their partners and their own children, and against (in this case extreme violence) against people attracted outside their same age, of course, if one is conditioned to have relationships with people of their age, it is easier, and can justify until discuss with your partner continually is something “that make all the people who love” and say more false thing is impossible…

    I do not lie, ask honest people who like adults, you’ll see that will tell you that love is one thing created by nature to make relationships with others and reproduce, I lie not anything here
    seems assumed for all that relationships with adults or people of the same age are a road full of obstacles and pain (and I do not invent anything again, that is accepted by society) while dating a teenager is a path full of love pleasure and exchange of knowledge, well .. if not by millions of parasites and beasts that try to prevent it and provoke the greatest pain in you, curiously, ALL OF THEM attracted to ADULTS!!

    if you carefully see, relations with adolescents are very different because is not “primitive” but rather “natural” and “innate” to humanity, primitive is using spears, while natural is attack your enemy, you see what I mean?

    on rape laws agree with you, but pornography are not only hot pictures of nude people (nothing bad here), but very strong and very sickening sexual acts,
    as in everything, there is variety, but most are very nasty, I was the same before a consumer of normal legal pornography, not the greatest, and yet created me a level of mental pain that I get to avoid having intercourse with adult women (if want, of course), clear is that others can see it without problems, but you could see a grisly murder? others can to enjoy them, sick from a physical and mental standpoint, but they can, the same with sex when become an animalistic sleaze show, because sex is love, from my point of view are inseparable, sex without love and such sexuality does not interest me at all and I think that causes physical and mental damage to persons..
    just go to porn sites and see all full of “+18 girls” “legal teens” and other trash to check

    This is why I am opposed to pornography, not about legal reasons but that would take too long to explain, what is urgent and necessary is to decriminalize erotic images of minors, which is also a remedy against common pornography, what is necessary from a medical point of view, same with relationships

    • holocaust21 says:

      I’m not sure if I completely follow your “nature” vs “primitive” distinction or why exactly you think adult-teen relationships are better than adult-adult relationships. However, if I may add my own points into the mix:

      I think equal relationships can be bad relationships as neither party adds anything new. They might as well date themselves! So unequal relationships may be better due to more knowledge transfer (which I think you also said). However, there are many areas of inequality other than age. So why should people be of unequal age (as opposed to unequal class, education etc)? Well, to answer that, consider the following three scenarios:

      1) A 40yo man dates a 14yo girl (unequal scenario): The man brings a lot of wealth and experience into the mix, while the 14yo brings fertility and perhaps a fresher different perspective on life (being a different generation).
      2) A 14yo dating 14yo means neither have much money so they can’t afford to have children (I vaguely recall some feminist research claiming a younger girl with an older partner is LESS LIKELY to use contraception which the feminist research of course claims is bad. However, I actually think this is indicative of the couple feeling in a better financial and life position and thus more willing to get pregnant).
      3) A 40yo dating 40yo. Well they are both likely in a good financial position with a lot of life experience and potentially rather different experience. However, the woman will struggle to conceive at that age. Also both being the same generation may mean their outlook on life correlates more than you might think.

      So out of those scenarios I’d say 1) is better. However, I didn’t cover the scenario of, say, 40yo man with 25yo which I think may actually be better than 1) since overall financial position will be better, 25yo still has many child bearing years ahead of her etc. Hmm what do you think on that last one?

      Anyway I don’t know if my points are similar to yours or if you were trying to say something completely different, but that’s my perspective.

      Regarding pornography I also think it’s a shite replacement for a real relationship but I don’t think it should be illegal.

  6. ephebophiliaismyreligion says:

    If you only keep the physical side of it, then you can not really understand my ideas, I do not want to go out with a 14 or 12 years because she is most fertile (although it is a plus) but for their way of being, to express, I think we should have a great love towards the concept of “adolescent” or “young” not just want to fuck a teenager as like fuck an normal adult, of course is better if we not want to intoxicated with venereal diseases that adults have en masse, so even from the physical point of view is better.

    what happens is that the attraction to adults / of the same age, is the result of a genetic defect (and mental in fact) of human evolution, as you will see animals do not distinguish between adult and adolescent, on reaching puberty animals are adults, and early humans was like that, so there was not ephebophilia or teleiophilia, they met only to breed

    but each time more civilized was beginning to distingir between “adult” and “adolescent” but in a positive way, “ephebes” in ancient Greece are proof of this, which were normal all intergenerational relations and hang out with young girls or boys was the most normal thing in the world, in Rome marry nubile girls at 12 was normal, in the Middle Ages would have enjoyed 13 yrs maidens !!

    some (generally pedophiles attracted only to children and adults) says adolescence is a social construct, really adolescence, unlike “pubescence” is more social than biological but not unnatural, not more than in our society may have a monarchy or an oligarchy, a national flag, or whatever is needed for have a civilization !!

    with these adolescents offering more than can give an adult who wants one? if they continue with adult or people of her age , it is the same so they keep killing each other in wars, infanticide their own children, raping, stealing, eating meat and other bad things, because his brain is genetically defective, from their parents and ancestors, as inherited dietary, also inherited attractions, if you and I, and many other people admit our primary attraction to younger people, it is because we are at least in that respect, healthy.

    It is a natural feeling to be with much younger or in the case of a young with older people, so we are human, we are programmed to do so, maybe my philosophy is very strict and authoritarian and monolithic, I admit, and if the concept of “neural diversity” is something true, then it is logical that some people prefer to spend time with children or adults, but as a general rule of the species (and the individual) hebephilia is the valid and healthy sexuality for human species
    and.. adult-teen relationships are the most better thing in life !!
    just remember that MANY teen girls really love to dating with older mens and boys same with women and not with other teens!!

    of course that research about young girls use less contraception with older partners it is false, in fact if anything does that “evil” and “dangerous” “teen pregnancies” (as if it was bad follow the normal path of nature!) is that they are the product of relationships between teenagers of the same age, it is ridiculous, if anyone knows to use contraception is an old partner and a healthy and judicious teen, in the other hand, contraceptives need to be used with head and not given away like candy

    just put in google adolescent and this garbage appears:
    “Pregnancy and child bearing occur before adolescent girls are fully developed, exposing them to great health risks.”

    just by putting “adolescent” in google and first thing are saying is to fuck young girls is a bad idea, and that it is normal to have a child and a family with an adult woman, thanks but I will not throw my life down the toilet, you and I both know that is false and even that teenage pregnancy is not only normal but even healthy in many cases! but millions believe this garbage!!

    “for medical research 15 is the minimun of age girls can be healthy pregnant”
    “But if you fuck a 15 yrs girl is rape!”
    therefore you just have to fuck with an angry adult women and that if they do not pull down the toilet your child, because nothing guarantees she is not a psychopath, or a cultural Marxist feminist nut

    although not exactly at what age is best to have to adolescents to have children, I would wait better at 15 just in case, but I repeat that these people are comparing to a 9 yrs old girl becoming pregnant is the same that becoming pregnant at age of 12 or 13 or even 16 or 17!!

    and what the two of 40, I do not know who would want to do that, if they want to have children can have them with any young girl in any case, women would be more useful and better be teaching boys how to enjoy life instead of being another bitter old hag with another guy embittered for their age, if you want to feel young and healthy (which is a better feeling than need to dating with another boring people) go with younger people and rejuvenate !!

    • holocaust21 says:

      I agree with a lot of what you say but you still haven’t specifically explained WHY dating adults is damaging, so I’m still left to conclude it is harmless 😛

  7. ephebophiliaismyreligion says:

    unless you do not mind me writing a new Bible here, only I can tell you:

    Yo dawg, I heard you like dating adults, so we put a adult in your 15yo girl so you can bang adults while you bang 15yo girls 😉

  8. ephebophiliaismyreligion says:

    It was just the Yo Dawg meme, bro, where have you been all this time to not know that? you had to bang with every 15yo girl in the world to not know about it!

    the dangers I have explained more or less but again having a feeling of being with people older or younger is natural, if someone dating people of their age, then he or she does not have that natural feeling, that means no love but animal attraction, and then happens what happens, they are jealousy, obseson and unnatural sex, a young person you dating can be jealous but if not mentally aberrated (like an adult attracted person is) then that jealousy or possession does not reach more and all happy.

    the other danger and harmful thing to dating an adult is just not to do the same with a teenager, so that even if more or less good and not harmful to be with an adult, will not experience or a third, of pleasure love and happiness, like if you follow a religion that is not true, maybe is not a harmful sect and there’re is all okay, but you could NOT access the true religion and save your soul or just see the truth that there is nothing more and your whole life is an illusion.

    if you say that only have sex with an adult occasionally it will not happen anything wrong, that you’re still dating teenagers, you’re wrong if you think you can not happen anything wrong, venereal diseases and a probable psychopath if you leave pregnant may annihilate your seed (if you do not mind then nothing happens) and in a stable relationship with an adult simply the chances of happening that are prolonged, besides losing your life and the opportunity to be with young people, that is the difference

    and you tell me what can happen also with teenager, well it is debatable, in a healthy society would not happen, because nobody would be aberrated mentally, psychology and psychiatry would be banished and then this world would not be dominated by crazy and insane

    you should not see it as “what would be wrong with me if dating adults?” but “If I believe my life is better on creating a society based on dating between adults and adolescents all evil would end and would be happy”

    even now in this teen-corrupted sick society just compare between evil adults and evil adolescents, remains still lesser the number of evil adolescents than evil adults !!

    an adolescent is less evil by nature, and an hebeephebophile adult is also less bad, while a “normal” adult almost certainly mentally aberrated, psychopathic and degenerate without moral for society, the chances of getting any damage is almost 90 % at the best, so it’s a lottery the fact of get damaged or not, and you seed too, and the species in general

    remind you that the attraction is inherited, like congenital disease is inherited, so every time you reproduces these reproduction in is a hit or an error, and 2 adults procreating is almost 100% of a new adultophile, in that case just pray for that children is healthy and has not lost its natural hebeephebophilia or be incurable

    just forget about science you know, if they even exist what we call “science”
    Here is science which can be as crazy as the new sexology based on hebeephebophilia, why not?

    another reason is simply that feminists are among the crowd of women, as National Socialism among German women in the 40s, and feminism is a no-no for you and anyone with brains, even feminism is already reaching girls as young as 13, damn paedo-hypocrites

    • holocaust21 says:

      Well your idea still lacks any sound scientific reasoning. But yes, your idea is probably up to the standards of evidence of other religions (christianity, islam, feminism). And yes much of what is called “science” is often propaganda, it’s not that the scientific method isn’t a useful tool of getting to the right answer, it’s just that most people accept the “trust me I’m a scientist” statement and then believe whatever shit they say even if the science is flawed. Also you have to be an intelligent person to read a research paper and point out its potential flaws.

      However, the one problem with your religion going global is, it seems, no one cares. The other religions marketed themselves well, yours seems to lack a selling point with most people. Mind, the other religions also have been around a few thousand years longer giving them time “to grow” – perhaps if you’re patient…!

  9. tbds says:

    You should monitor and post articles about UN, “anti-CSA” NGOs, International regulations & committees. They are VERY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Their own dangerous agenda affects all states in the world.

    “Committee on The Rights of The Child” by UN http://ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-PHL-CO4.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
    “While noting the adoption by the State party in 2007 of Act No. 8571 amending the Family Code and the Civil Code, that prohibits marriage under 15 years of age, the Committee is concerned that children aged 15 to 18 may get married with their parents’ consent. It also notes with concern that the very low minimum age of sexual consent of 13 years increases children’s risk of sexual abuse and early pregnancy.”

    So they propagate age of sexual consent of 13 years is “very low”, maybe 16 “low”, and eventually propagating the age of consent to be 18.

    “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
    child prostitution and child pornography” http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_on_the_Sale_of_Children,_Child_Prostitution_and_Child_Pornography
    “Concerned about the growing availability of child pornography on the Internet and other evolving technologies, and recalling the International Conference on Combating Child Pornography on the Internet, held in Vienna in 1999, in particular its conclusion calling for the worldwide criminalization of the production, distribution, exportation, transmission, importation, intentional possession and advertising of child pornography, and stressing the importance of closer cooperation and partnership between Governments and the Internet industry,”

    Article 2 “(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.”

    Inciting “criminalization of the production, distribution, exportation, transmission, importation, intentional possession and advertising of” “simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation”
    In the context, “child pornography” includes underage(teen) pornography, is real or simulated of any type of sexual activities. They also declare them as “victims”

    I’ve noticed they are working with so-called “anti-CSA” NGOs like ICMEC(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Missing_%26_Exploited_Children). These NGOs are also very dangerous. THEY ALL SHOULD BE DISMANTLED. I’m finding a way to do so.

    There should be more blogs, forums, organizations against them. I’ve found blogs and forums but not yet any organizations.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Interesting points there on how CSA hysteria is very much a “top down” institution and the UN appears to be near the head…!

      If you know more about how the UN is peddling this nonsense than me – and it sounds like you might – then you’re welcome to make a guess post if you wish. Or indeed, to solve the lack of blogs problem feel free to start your own blog, I’m sure to link to it 🙂 The more blogs the better!

      As for organisations I think the problem they have had is two fold:

      1) Getting funding when governments won’t fund them, corporations won’t fund them, normal people due to the propaganda they’re exposed to either won’t fund them or are afraid to.
      2) The risks of being “hunted” by the feminists. PIE, NAMBLA etc are famous examples of massively miscalculated campaigns where the feminists got the better of them.
      3) Just a general lack of good people actually bothering to get involved in these issues

      That said, I do think the political environment now is actually better than it was 30 years ago, there’s a lot more people who have been affected by these issues or feel things have gone too far and so it will be easier to get support. There are also more and more organizations sprouting up that I think do relate to trying to stop this, for instance:

      Consenting Juveniles this one has been created by Marshall Burns who seems to be a tech millionaire of sorts who has researched the reality that juveniles do infact consent to sex and huge numbers are wrongly piled on sex offender registries.
      A Voice For Men/Justice For Men & Boys Party – I know the men’s rights organisations have tended to spread paedohysteria themselves in the past, but I’m hopeful that this is part of the idea of “making men’s problems into women’s problems” i.e. chucking women in prison for sex offences so as to get the other (female) 50% of the population behind the idea of reversing tough sex offender laws. I know MRAs are all acutely aware that men are frequently put under suspicion for paedophilia and would like, at a minimum, some increase in due process. I think if they can help to expose the feminist lies and start throwing them out then the whole paedohysteria narrative will seem less compelling.
      Reform Sex Offender Laws – The American reform sex offender laws movement to abolish the sex offender registry.
      CURE – Campaigns generally to reduce incarceration, they have come out against Sex Offender Registries in the past.

      But perhaps you were referring specifically to an organisation dedicated to fighting things at the UN level?

    • Willhem says:

      Finally someone speaks against that vile piece of shit called the UN, although I already comment right here that the UN was the root of the problems.

      The first vile piece shows that the objective is simply to destroy (ie genocide) hebephilia and natural relationships in puberty, I explained before that the ultimate goal is to destroy human sexuality and turn humans into animals servants easy to handle and process.

      if holocaust21 and you do not mind, I’ll tell both what their plan, to get an idea:
      – Prohibit natural relationships between adults and pubescent (or between themselves, in the absence of an adult), first to 16 (who the most have passed puberty!!) and then to 18, to finish off any “late pubescent” that can remain a danger
      and this is made because is demonstrated that not having sex at puberty is extremely harmful and can reach permanent mental damage (see the current statistics of dementia and violence)
      so you get a mass of degenerates, first, obsessed with adults, so become mental aberrates, and then, given their level of dementia, with a chance to go to a psychiatrist or psychologist, or support these, only they’ll put more shit in the head of the aberrated person. So we have a diseased but manageable masses.

      – The worst and most disgusting aberration ever created: the “adolescence,” the vilest trick of the psychiatrist to consider ‘infantile’ young pubescents and give an unnatural development to the young, imagine an adult being treated like a child, incapable, mentally alienated and sexual deviant that poor guy would become a mental aberrated person (ie a desviation of the natural behavior) well, imagine the same but since ‘adolescence’ (young adult is its name)
      the consequences in which we see, millions of young people in its own apartheid, without political and sexual rights of any kind, locked in concentration camps called “secondary schools” to continue with the tale that are ‘big children’ instead of young adults who marry and have children as mandated by the nature or simply having an older couple and a study an college career, not years of useless garbage.

      – And of course pornography, basically it is obvious, they would pervert humanity with it (and already have left almost irreparable), promoting only adult pornography, as I said before to make them sexual aberrates, incapables to enjoy love and sex with young, but instead, enjoy low sexual violence and valueless sex with other aberrated and ugly adults.

      – Another UN (and feminism) agenda is antinatalism and eugenics, the reduction of beings that are not needed to work and only bother, so hence the hatred about teen pregnancy, they always tell them to use contraceptives as if not even a teen in Earth want to be a mother !! many wants and better with adult men !!

      About the ‘teen pregnancy’ we have to pull down the myth that the minimum age for a healthy pregnancy is 15, it’s just a piece of vile crap, of course you have to use contraceptives with a teen because those sub-human bastards abduct the baby for ‘child protection’ and his innocent head full of shit would have another aberrated on earth, but this shitty myth must be strictly erradicated.
      The age I mean all the time is, of course at 12 or 13, please is better to abstain from idiocies as supporting pregnancy at age nine and say that puberty come at that age, that’s an mistake just some old religions are ignorant about biology, disregard them.

      A guy in twitter, very intelligent, told me that all this is enforced because the concept of “human rights”, these stupid concept has replaced every (stupid too but lower) Local age for their UN sactioned law, for example in English common law AoC was 13, then, thanks to new and invented ‘human rights’ now is 16, and soon will be raised to 18, in my opinion, we must replace alleged ‘human rights’ with radical natural rights, as ‘coming of age’ at the onset of puberty, you see is not a bad idea.

      Humans not have rights for the simple fact of being human, but by the fact that natural beings, in fact some Catholic countries has the AoC ever at 13 or 12 !! human rights justified aberrations such as antinatalism, but natural rights, assert however, the right to exist, you realize, are not human rights, they are Nazi laws !!

      • holocaust21 says:

        Well, human rights are supposed to be rights against the law, so, in other words, the law can’t step beyond “human right” boundaries. However, the bastards somewhat perverted this and started using “rights” as a way to make more laws…! Whether you call it human rights or natural rights they will come up with the same Orwellian arguments (if you’ve read 1984 it talks of the ‘Ministry of Truth’ which deals in Lies, and other institutions all called the opposite of what they actually do!).

  10. moreholocaust says:

    Do you read Deutsche? very interesting book here!


    Uncle Sam’s sexual hell conquered the world

    The new witch hunt “child molester” and the global dehumanization of sexual offenses under US dictation

    1 What is in this book? or: A new hysteria surrounding sexual offenses
    I Europe Background: a fairly humanised Sexualstrafrecht around 1975
    2 A sketch of sexual criminal law in Germany before 1990
    3 Criminal Law and sexuality – an intermediate viewing the Age of Enlightenment
    II The US Sexualstrafrecht – its historical development and today’s reality
    4 First, a little about the United States and their criminal law in general
    5 America’s Puritan heritage: basic character and history of the US Penal Code
    6 An Air of Freedom: America’s Better Time (1965-1975)
    7 The destruction of the better time: the new Kinderschänderwahn is grown (1975-1990)
    8 The Return of the scarlet letter (1990-present)
    9 A islamoïde definition of child pornography (1984-present)
    10 psychiatrization, castration, annihilation of the person
    11 everyday at an inhumane law
    III Uncle Sam’s sexual hell conquered the world
    12 For the function of the sexual offenses in Monopolismus
    humanity 13 The American Kinderschänderwahn imposed
    14 For Germany: The Americanization of sexual offenses since 1990
    The new Kinderschänderwahn is grown
    German Wahn processes after McMartin patterns
    Criminalization of youth sexuality – the new Schandparagraph 182
    An American definition of child pornography
    Laws, Laws, and More Laws
    Preventive and psychiatrization
    15 Kinderschänderwahn, witchcraft and the spiritual legacy of Friedrich von Spee
    When the Inquisition convenes – A meeting of the “Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons” on censorship of KETZER LETTERS for defending the held in the Swiss hostage director Roman Polanski
    names Directory
    Proof of picture quotes

  11. CMPML, Department of System Failure.

    A selection of Words of the Primordial Lawbringer during the time of the Great (repeating) Catastrophe.

    The central Ritual of my Religion.

    Here I present the foundation of my religion : The Book of Law. It contains the instructions to perform the Supreme Ritual. This is the central Rite
    on which my society is based. It is a manuscript. Maybe somebody is interested in publishing it? It is my ‘Dianetics’

    Originally Posted by ####
    I can’t tell if this is parody, satire, jest, or serious.

    All of it. It’s my version of the old geocentric ideas about the Universe, the Alchemical, using it for their poetic/artistic value. I added all
    our new planets, new important metals, like Uranium and Silicon etc. It’s a satire of thinking, if you will, using nonsense to express sensible things
    because … is there anything that makes sense? Serious in the sense that I’ve been investigating how to use Aesthetics as a logic to circumvent
    logical issues that arise when studying the Universe.

    Originally Posted by ####
    What does your religion say about women’s role in society?

    The central Ritual is about defeating CHAOS, symbolized as ‘banishing the Evil Snake’. Due to the context in which the sumbols are placed, it means
    Universal Disorder. Everybody’s already performing the Supreme Ritual, in that you have to defeat the disorder of your own bodies by keeping it fed etc.
    The ideas of Right and Wrong expressed in that way transcend mere considerations of Male and Female. That said, the active Formula is, as Aleister
    Crowley correctly deduced, Solar-Phallic in nature. I deduced it independently, though I was aware of Crowley’s ideas, as ‘Warrior Lord of the Sun’.
    You can’t get much more solar-phallic than that! It requires a different Morality. This is why Nietzsche chose Zarathustra as his ‘Warrior Lord’.

    Originally Posted by ####
    Can anyone play?

    Planet Unicron. In the mythology that Simon Furman created, Unicron was originally a God of CHAOS, only concerned with devouring everything.
    Primus was the God of Light and they were both trapped in the physical world inside asteroids after a fight. I can’t remember the exact details.
    Now, Unicron chose to change the asteroid so it could take on his old appearance. Hence, the giant robot planet.
    Primus took a different route : He created a race of robots that could develop to become powerful enough to defeat the original enemy, the
    CHAOS-bringer. But they got morally confused as to what combatting CHAOS actually meant and you had two groups fighting each other. The one,
    compassionate for the weak, the Autobots and the Master Moralists, the Decepticons. Because of this civil war they never became powerful enough.
    In the original comic it’s actually Optimus Prime who starts to realize that you have to be beyond good and evil to fight the real evil, CHAOS,
    and surrenders to the Decepticons. Egalitarians would interpret the story differently. They’d say that Optimus, as an Egalitarian, understands
    the greater evil better because Egalitarian morality is superior. But in the comic it’s hinted that Optimus is actually going through a transition
    where he realizes that Master Morality isn’t all bad. There’s some Megatron-Ratchet hybrid abomination, that got created when the space-bridge
    exploded, that nobody of the Autobots knows what to do with. Optimus uses violence in a scene that explicitly shows his mental struggle in this area.

    Originally Posted by Liber418
    Look not so deeply into words and letters; for this Mystery hath been hidden by the Alchemists. Compose the sevenfold into a fourfold
    regimen; and when thou hast understood thou mayest make symbols; but by playing child’s games with symbols thou shalt never understand.

    Come to think of it, that comic book series dealt with issues of good and evil as a main theme, it seems. The Autobot Matrix of Leadership is lost
    somewhere and some small creature makes it his home. The Matrix, who only knows ‘goodness’, is intriqued by the creature that seems to only run
    under the principle of self-interest. The Matrix gets ‘corrupted’ but it remains the question what corruption actually means.

    This is the Megatron-Ratchet hybrid they don’t know what to do with :

    Should they kill it or preserve life at all cost?

    All of this going on while in the background the CHAOS-bringer doesn’t care either way makes it a very good Mythology usable for religious purposes.
    Much better than Star Wars; In the latest trailer it looks like an army of radical feminist robots have gone back in time to a galaxy far, far,
    away to convince everyone that the Mystical Force is really nothing but little bugs inside your cells. Midichlorianism, they called it.
    The Emperor would have had them all burned at the stake for such blasphemy …

    Those eighties cartoon and comic series where usually about ‘good’, defined as compassionate for the weak, egalitarian, and ‘evil’, self-interested
    only, obsessed with power. This fits nicely whithin Egalitarianism as long as the good guys always win, bad guys are stupid etc. But not too much,
    otherwise who’d buy the awesome looking ‘evil’ toys? But when you introduce the concept of senseless destruction, beyond good and evil, you end up
    contemplating Nietzschian ideas. Emirate Xaaron gets possessed by Primus at some point, the Good God of the Transformers and to Optimus it doesn’t
    feel right. He’s realizing that Primus, as the fundamental opponent to CHAOS, is a Master Moralist as well in that he’s close to the Decepticons
    in demanding absolute obedience to the Leader. The whole purpose of the Transformers existence is as Primus’ army to defeat the CHAOS-bringer; Any
    division therein cannot be anything else than disorder fundamentally, due to the absoluteness of the dichotomy of the concepts of ‘order’ and ‘chaos’.
    So going against Primus because of Egalitarian sentiment is merely CHAOS in disguise, which upsets Optimus who represents the very spirit of
    Nowadays, any moral question is fundamentally played out _within_ an egalitarian context, never questioning egalitarianism itself anymore.
    So the bad guy is pathetic, to be pitied, mentally ill etc. He’ll often agree with you. So the depth of the Nietzschian moral questions is replaced
    by the ‘depth’ of the (materialistic) psychological analysis. For technical reasons, materialistic, Free Will denying, psychology cannot have
    a consistent morality, so you tend to see the morality of the characters in such movies spin off towards absurdity.
    Grey’s Anatomy, crueler than Salo. And Kick Ass … the first one I didn’t recognize until later, until after a certain review about this movie
    that also questioned the dubious morality … but the second Kick Ass was without any doubt utterly vomit inducingly morally repulsive.

    Another example of insane morality : In Star Wars 7 there’s a pink female Darth Vader in the army of the Dark Forces. (Egalitarian Dark Forces. See?)
    And then the oh-so good guys laugh at the prospect of her getting slowly crushed to death. That makes me feel … uneasy.
    Egalitarianism trumps human suffering? That was never the intention of the declaration of Human Rights.

    What you all fail to understand here is that Art is a reflection of society and its ideas about morality. You can tell a lot about a peoples by
    studying their Art. So it’s not irrational to give examples of what I consider to be true moral degeneracy by studying Art and the change of concepts
    of Right and Wrong in it. For example, I can bring up the Transformers comic again, there’s a scene where one of the Decepticons rather gets zapped
    to death by a broken space-bridge than ever disobey the one who gives him this suicidal command : Lord Straxus. The complete and utter disregard
    for (human?) life is what made the character truly evil back then. And now I have to root for Jedi/Rebels who are supposed to represent the
    archetypical good as having utter disregard for life and the suffering of others? Excuse me? Are those the good guys? And the bad guys they have
    more explicit disregard for human life, then? Or they merely look like Nazis? The whole concept of right vs. wrong seems to be degenerating here.
    Of course, my feelings on this matter are clear. I’ve already said that Moral Psychology cannot even define its terms and that’s your societies
    ‘moral compass’ and that reflects in your art. That is, the problems of Slave Morality that were always there, the morally ambiguous hero etc. ,
    are becoming more and more apparent to the point where the good guys are now showing as much disregard for life as the bad guys of the old
    movies, stories, cartoons etc.

    I look at it this way : There’s no reason the Transformers could ever exist, except as children’s toys. At least, it’s very difficult to come up
    with a good origin story. Of course they were always there, robots came from Cybertron etc. The Quintessons don’t appear in the cartoon until
    after the movie I think, and it still doesn’t make for a good Origin of the Species. Who created the Quintessons? There has to be some kind of
    mythological God there at some point.
    The movie is a bridge between the present and future period (2005?). It’s … ‘inspired’ by Star Wars and that’s where Unicron comes from.
    Death star? We need a Transformer Planet! Voiced by none other than Orson Welles in his last role before he died. Much better animation than
    the series, hair metal etc. But still a commercial. Done to replace a bunch of toys with another bunch of toys, this time especially designed
    for animation.
    The comic book series I’m referring to was done at the time the interest in the Transformer toys was waning and the writers had more artistic freedom.
    That, and Furman took over as lead writer. So they could do a comprehensive story based on the original ideas, exploring more mature themes.
    The question of right and wrong and what that actually means, for Gods and men (robots). And that nowadays nuance, complexity or maturity
    usually means materialistic psychology and not mythology and the Divine. And when I read fiction about giant transforming robots I want to hear
    a story about things that are greater or inspire to greatness and not psychological noodlings about feelings. Combine that with Transformers
    and you get the Micheal Bay abominations; You have to turn everything into a teenage fart joke to meet the requirement of ‘seriousness’.
    Much like they can never take Genealogy of Morality seriously as a theory of human behaviour. So you can say that Michael Bay’s Transformer
    movies suck because of Friedrich Nietzsche.

    To get back to the OP, the Book is about finding out what the ‘precedence’ of the symbols is. Even if you adhere to a purely materialistic
    psychological world view you can still ask the question which symbols are the most comprehensive in meaning or are the most powerful or taboo.
    As it turns out, you will attempt to find the Solar Formula of Free Will. The idea is that Free Will is an impossibility, but that doesn’t mean
    everything to the Universe, it just means that physically you’re looking for an exaggeration rather than an impossibility on where Free Will,
    or the illusion of Free Will in that case, comes from. The Sun is the thing that can fulfill those requirements seconded by the Moon.
    From an evolutionary perspective, after the Dinosaurs died out due to the blocking of the Sun, the Mammals that survived where the ones
    looking for the Sun. That’s the most plausible physical explanation for the existence of Free Will. The Sun diddit. How? That’s crazy but you
    can deduce it must be the Sun in that field of crazy. The field of logical trivialism.
    You can immediately see that the Formula must be Powerful by the nature of the case; If you have some amount of understanding control over the very
    physical mechanism by which Free Will appears to have entered our world, Boom! The Nazis where quite close to the Solar Formula but if you assemble
    the Machine even slightly off it will explode, taking the World with it. Properly assembled, it’s a Machine of the Perpetual Motion of Law.
    It creates and establishes Law. For Law is the thing that needs to be perpetuated and rectified forever.

    Commercialism only appears in the absence of a belief in religious Salvation; Only then can the Merchant become more powerful than the Priest.
    An seemingly endless supply of ‘treasures’ that ultimately all turn out to be corrupt, causing Cancer, CHAOS, because the fundamental enemy
    never disappeared. An Osiris-Slave-Hell appears; You’re all fighting for your organs and brains and eyes and arms and legs;
    The Amalekites appear, those that are very close to the Path but ultimately fail, becoming the greatest danger of all because of that.
    The parables of Horus and Seth, Cain and Abel. The slaughter of the Brother in Innocence is what establishes the Goodness of Master Morality.

    You believe that an anti-egalitarian society cannot be stable, and that history proves this to be the case. In a nutshell, I assert that an
    anti-egalitarian society can be stable, but that it was never properly implemented. And that egalitarian sentiments are solely due to
    bad leaders; If there were only good leaders, good defined as increasing order, and destroying the rotten, in a sustainable way, nobody would
    ever prefer egalitarianism. Much deeper, that beyond considerations of history, Free Will is actually what it’s all about in the Universe.
    And that any ‘move’ against Free Will is making it believe it isn’t Free, Slave Morality, which forms the scale of negative Free Will.
    So the interplay of Slave and Master morality is how Free Will is formulated. Civilization is then seen as a fall into Slave Morality,
    necessary for metaphysical reasons. So the rise of, for example, Christianity was not just a historical accident. And because of the rigour
    of the denial of Free Will found in the present-day method of science, some kind of limit of this descent is reached. The limit
    of Slave Morality, the limit of the denial of Free Will. (Neuroscience.)
    What the Universe is formulating then is some kind of absurd anti-hierarchy. The worst at the top and the best at the bottom. It’s a miracle
    that such a system can ever be stable at all, so it looks like your society has the evidence in its favour. But in reality it’s just
    the Universe going to the limit of some absurd state. And it needs to have some kind of implementation to reach that weird state and that’s
    why you have those weird religions where all of a sudden somebody thinks it’s a good idea to start worshipping a guy nailed to a cross.
    Slave Morality. It never makes any sense/is inconsistent but the Universe MUST reach such states.
    In the realization that you’re oppressed, that the current Law doesn’t make sense to you, lies the formulation of Free Will. That’s Life!
    Now, if the limit of Slave Morality is reached, the limit of oppression, you’d expect to see a enormous fight for Liberty occur at the end of it.
    That would be the establishment of proper Master Morality. A stable state, think Charlemagne, a Just King operating under a Just Law.
    Nietzsche was the one who noticed that Civilization could be given this alternative interpretation; The Free Will centric one. Evidence for this
    theory just means evidence for the inconsistency of Slave Morality. Slave Morality cannot be anything else than simply the denial of
    Free Will. This is why it’s so important to me to reiterate that Moral Psychology cannot define its terms while running under Slave Morality.
    You don’t believe in this Just Kingdom any more, you think it’s a fairytale, because of all the bad leaders, especially the one that took bits of
    Nietzsche, and got quite close, to the Solar Formula. The improper implementation of the Solar Formula, the Holocaust, gave the final backbone
    to egalitarianism as a dominant moral code. Needless to say, I think I know the proper formula.

    Originally Posted by ####
    So, DAESH, but based upon Transformers comics instead of the Koran.

    If you follow me, you have a chance at defeating Unicron, the CHAOS-Bringer. The dichotomy goes to the limit : Unification that is Love,
    or Division that is CHAOS. And that is the trial of Optimus Prime that you all have to go through : To understand the true nature of Goodness,
    that is not Egalitarian; Doesn’t fight for the Weak.
    (And to the true Scientists still out there : See how Symbology works? It’s the next Theory of Logic. If you follow me, you will not abandon
    the Scientific Method.)

    The reason for the Transformer references is in my symbolic system a new category appears that was never there in other ‘occult’
    systems : Vehicles. ‘Transformers’ captures the mythology and awe of the Vehicle, like the Ancients were in awe of the planets and stars.
    It’s a natural extension to such a system.

    Their education has forced a lot of them to be unable to think dissident thoughts at all. They can’t parse my ideas because of that.
    Newspeak cannot interpret the Declaration of Independence. It just becomes : Thoughtcrime. I’m an idea-terrorist.

    Originally Posted by ####
    How does being “united in love” co-exist with the burning, crucifixion and shooting that you advocate?

    Originally Posted by ColonelKurtz
    I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that…
    but you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror… Horror has a
    face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared.
    They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces… seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children.
    We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see.
    We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried,
    I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn’t know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it…
    I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead.
    And I thought, my God… the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.
    And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men… trained cadres.
    These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength…
    to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral…
    and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment!
    Because it’s judgment that defeats us.

    It’s the Paradox of Love you didn’t understand before. Master Morality is a misunderstood Good.

    There’s also the scene where the soldiers, in a panic, kill all civilians on a boat. And then they want to be ‘compassionate’ to one of them? The whole movie
    is about the moral hypocrisy of Western compassion. That’s why Willard shoots her. And they’re upset with him because he isn’t … ‘compassionate’. And they
    just executed an entire boat of people!!!

    False compassion is a more horrifying form of violence than anything seen before. The one method of torture that is worse than Scaphism.

    The best example of limiting case Moral Hypocrisy would be to juxtapose Salo with Grey’s Anatomy. In Grey’s Anatomy, the torture is worse and lasts longer
    for the victims. And it’s to laugh at. Like Salo, taking pleasure in others’ suffering. Except that in Salo the torture is less, and the pleasure is greater.
    So an egalitarian society, due to the process of increasing Moral Hypocrisy, will at one point show cruelty beyond what the cruelest dictators of the
    past were capable of. The hidden danger of Equality is exposed. And if the Declaration of Human Rights is about decreasing human suffering, it should
    drop the requirement of Equality asap.

    Full consent is exactly the same as full obedience. So you’re saying that you can only impose your will on people if they are fully obedient to you.
    And how do you get them to be fully obedient to you? Dictators of the past have used force. In your society, your education makes it impossible
    for them to disobey. You’ve merely perfected the totalitarian state in this way. Congratulations. This was the problem Tocqueville was trying to
    prevent : Mild Despotism. You’ve reached it.

    End of Document.

  12. SicktoDeathofMisandristBigots! says:

    I just have to ask, sorry, but is your photo of Stratford upon Avon graveyard?

  13. I’m in the process of starting my own game company. I’ve released three games for free to show that I’m serious. They should work on a reasonably modern pc. The space shooter and car racer ideally should be played on a big screen TV with surround sound. And using a game controller with analog sticks. This game company, RogierSoft, will have a more positive attitude towards male subjects and is openly supportive of GamerGate; Against political correctness destroying art.


  14. Willhem says:

    Do you know a site or forum dedicated to people attracted to adolescents and not children?

  15. I have started my own state.
    This is its law :

    This is the national anthem :

    Here you see me performing the flag ceremony. The flag is yet to be made but at the end you can see the design I have in mind.

    The State is ruled by the College, which is a kind of freemasonic neo-pythagoras school.
    It is also called the Thelemic State since Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law.

  16. Education and academia is child abuse, mind rape, nowadays. They are provably incapable of understanding important areas of mathematics, basically anything related to Euler’s formula and symmetry and simplicity in general; Anything that requires some philosophical desire.
    It’s all just obfuscated by psychologized, feminized blub blub blub blub blub.
    By the time they’re around twenty-five, most kids have become completely incapable of creative or even correct rational thought.

  17. A Message from the Primordial Lawbringer of the CMPML concerning the Vortex of Daemons.

    I’ve been debating Nietzschian philosophy for a while on the International Skeptics Forum, a forum frequented by members of the academic community.
    The discussion was on objective morality.
    I argue the Nietzschian theory that right and wrong originally meant what feels good or bad, in a purely animalistic way,
    and that the so-called ‘thou shalt nots’ only arise due to the influence of civilization. You can therefore always come up with your own system. To argue for consensus
    implies regression; where does consensus come from? someone or some group or tribe always has to come up with in the first place, so why not you?
    Academic ‘scientists’ however even though they agree with the Nietzschian theory that group consensus decides morality, cannot accept even the possibility of the
    further conclusion, and settle for group consensus morality as dogmatic thereby acting in the same way as the religious whom they despise on this very issue.
    This is of course complete and utter hypocrisy, but more important is the issue of science.
    The academic community has been polluting science to make it appear as if their version of morality, carefully hidden by the words ‘sane’ and ‘insane’, are objective
    in the scientific sense. And that is simply not so. The words ‘sane’ and ‘insane’ coming from a ‘reputable’ scientist always turn out to be nothing but moral
    judgements in disguise. (Example : When you’re violent, you’re implicitly insane. Why? There’s no science; Violence is _bad_, a moral judgement. The lie is the fact that they
    claim it as a science. Therein lies great suffering.)

    But that was not the reason I got banned.

    I got banned when I started questioning Agile methodologies.

    Agile methodologies, even though they’re ‘just’ software development methodologies, have taken up the meme for religious belief; That’s where the human impulse
    towards this now apparently resides.

    And so RogierSoft will market a new software development methodology : The Beautiful Waterfall.

    It will replace this meme with a new one. Resistance is futile.

    End of Document.

  18. The CMPML sanctioned swearword to use against such ‘scientists’ is ‘motherfucker’, implying degeneration due to incestuous partner selection.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s