kerrichinchilla
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,501
Men are taking estrogen and sucking helium so they can get off pretending to be pregnant. How is this not a mental illness?
LGBT+ movement starting to backfire (part 2)
- Thread starter JoChris
- Start date
AJ The Aussie
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2
If I wasn't laughing at this, I would cry
kerrichinchilla
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,501
That's not even the worst I've seen. here are some of the other things I've seen ( with pictures, but ill spare you those)
1/ men who pretend they are women are taking tomato soup, freezing it into ice cubes, and then inserting those ice cubes into their anus and pretending the melting soup is a period.
2/ men stealing women's used tampons and sanitary towels then wearing or inserting them to pretend they are having a period
3/ a man stole women's sanitary towels wore them and then urinated in them through the day and then masturbating to it when he gets home. He mainly got off on stealing pads off of women he knew at work, he thought it was powerful to look at them while peeing in the pad.
3/ A man who stole used tampons and pads from his female roommates, then proceeded to ring out the blood and make period blood tea, because in his words ''he couldn't afford estrogen to change sex so he had to do this, thinking it would work''.
4/ ( less disgusting but still sick) men going on miscarriage groups and pretending they have had a miscarriage to get off.
5/ men taking drugs to cause stomach cramps so they can pretend they are in labor or having a period.
6/ men inserting life-size baby dolls into their anus and then pushing them out so they can pretend they are giving birth
7/ men taking HRT and other female hormone drugs to make 'breast milk' then actually trying to feed their living real human babies this 'breast milk' because it validates/sexually excites them
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,759
This is truly evidence of a world going mad. They are not even doing this in "sympathy/support" for females... it seems purely done in order to fuel their own psychosis.
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,759
That elite member of the Epstein-class has shown herself to be a pervert proponent of CREATING and MAKING LEGALLY AVAILABLE pornographic materials for children. Thats like Weight Watchers utilizing Paul Prudhomme's fried chicken recipes to help the morbidly obese manage their diets and then giving them Mountain Dew and fen-phen to wash it down with smh.
irrationalNinja
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2017
- Messages
- 693
Yup. The “Oppression Matrix” started by the feminist lie and extended to people with transgenderism has grown beyond feminist control.
That’s funny to me: watching the dog bite the hand that feeds.
kerrichinchilla
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,501
What feminist lie? Feminism came into being because women were classed as non humans by law. They had no rights to their own bodies (husband's could r*pe wives legally up to the 90s) they could not own money or bank accounts, have mortgages with out husband or father's permission (again up to the 90s), couldn't vote, husband's could decide if their wives died, and be beaten with a stick no bigger than the husband's thumb. Among other issues.
Porn first off was and still is a CIA mind control experiment to degrade sexual ethics and norms on a wide scale (nothing is sacred and all things are transgressed with time, it is not fanaticism to say that pedo porn will be legal through porn consumption eventually), it is also innately leftist/liberal by nature and also clearly nihilistic. Because it is rooted in our biological desires (the sexual urge), it is something that is able to penetrate the minds of even the most conservative people (Especially in the internet age when anybody can access anything in 2 minutes).
The idea of adding Feminism to that is basically implying the attempt to try to make straight men gay (as if porn didn't already have that in it's intentions already), it can't really be anything that porn already isn't with it's inclusivity of both straight and LGBT contents.
You can't remove objectification from porn, when porn is only about the visual and not the tangible, the relational, the experiential.
These feminists don't get that they should be seeking real life partners and loving them sincerely, not making porn.
Another irony there is that porn made a cultural rise with the growth of feminism, which isn't coincidental. The more distance you try to make between men and women, the more 'objectification and sexism' will be there because of the deeply unhealthy and toxic situation between the sexes.
Anyway both feminism and porn have no redeemable qualities, both destroy society and promote violent nihilism. Feminism has ironically left the biggest dent on women than anything else, it has fundamentally pushed towards levels of sexism and objectification against women on levels that "patriarchal" men could never ever compete with.
Coincidentally I just found this book a few days ago (cause the author is a podcaster I like) and it really covers some potent elements connected to the thread topic:
Library Genesis: Jasun Horsley - The Vice of Kings: How Socialism, Occultism, and the Sexual Revolution Engineered a Culture of Abuse
Library Genesis is a scientific community targeting collection of books on natural science disciplines and engineering.
libgen.rs
On second thought, the logic that these leftists are playing with is basically accelerationism isn't it?
Not only that but it is "we have a problem, so we'll make it worse" instead of addressing the cause of the problem. Brings me back to the problem associated with technology how so many people (including a certain UFO fanatic on here) think that technology can do no evil (even when it constantly does) and that we cannot undo anything, so that we should just go to the extreme conclusions.
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,759
PREACH!!
sugarprincessxox
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2019
- Messages
- 718
UH, OH BECAFEFUL! YOU'RE BEING "TRANSPHOBIC"!
kerrichinchilla
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,501
TempestOfTempo
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,759
Wow. Do those images really go into their national curriculum materials?
Interesting comment from someon on youtube:
By focusing on the particulars of these issues, the root of it remains opaque. James Lindsay has mapped these ideas more thoroughly than anyone. Hegel is the real source of the metaphysical (I.e. quasi-religious) underpinning of these movements. It is his idea that through the dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), humanity would reach a godlike state of perfection. It is then through criticism (antithesis) that humanity progresses toward that state. That is the source of “critical theory”. It is the source of Marx’s call to tear down all existing social conditions. Marx mapped it onto economics. Nietzsche, eugenics, and Hitler, mapped it onto evolution through Darwin. The New Left maps it onto culture and identity.
The religion is “progressivism”. The “eschaton” is Utopia (communist or otherwise), the Ubermensch, the Master Race. It is, per Hegel, the inevitable march of human progress. Those who stand in its way are “on the wrong side of history”. Adherents may debate the exact forms it will take. But they all branch off of that core religion, which believes that once all existing conditions, institutions and culture are torn down, a metaphysical Utopia will arise.
In that dialectical world view, born in Western Civilization, Christianity is one of the primary “theses” which must be attacked. Its attackers are therefore (importantly) not NON-Christian, but rather ANTI-Christian. And from a Christian standpoint, Satanic, whether the deceived progressive recognizes themselves as such. So it is not correct to call it the result of Christianity gone wrong, as if some genuine believers took a wrong turn. Rather, if you position yourself as the opposite of something, its antithesis, you are going to take on a similar shape, but backwards, from the thing you’re opposing.
When you read the actual core proponents and inventors of these various “woke” permutations, their nature becomes clear. They are neo-Marxists who want to tear down existing social institutions, structures and norms in order to prepare the society for a Marxist revolution. They say so. They don’t hide it. It is not the existence of various identity groups, but rather their mobilization into a set of political demands and a coalition that is the marker of the New Left. That’s why, as this video shows, they have a trans flag with a Communist fist on it. As does BLM. They’re not hiding who they are. They are constantly looking for new oppressed groups to add to their intersectional coalition of revolutionaries. And the US is vulnerable because of the legitimate past issue of slavery.
In the Bible, it is not a coincidence that the name “Satan” means “accuser”. “Critical Theory” serves the same function. If you think of the US as Job and progressives as Satan, you won’t be that far off. Except that Job had fewer sins to point to.
It is also probably not a coincidence that all of this evil emerged primarily from Germany, after the Protestant Reformation. I am a Protestant, and the Reformation was a conservative movement to bring the church back to is original, biblical, intended state. But some undoubtedly saw it as an opportunity to not only throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church, but of Christianity itself. And that’s where the snowball began to roll.
So in summary, the religion here is “Progressivism”. It believes that by destroying everything “old”, humanity will arrive at Utopia, perhaps by evolving into some higher, godlike state of being. In the particulars of this video, that means transcending nature and physical reality.
Why is it authoritarian, rather than liberal? If they were so sure of what they declare to be the inevitable future, why would they need to impose it by force? Well, the obvious answer is that they’re wrong, and they live in a fantasy world, and the only way their fiction can survive is to silence not only speech, but thought. But in their imagination, it is a result of believing that it is their mission to bring about these transformations of the entire human race, and also their repeated, horrifying catastrophic failures have led them to create the villain of “fascism” as an ever-present counter-possibility to their Utopia. In doing so, they deny the manifest reality that fascism, Nazism, and even the communist dictatorships they seek to disavow, are actually their own creation. Because in their tautological fiction, if it went badly, it must, by definition, not be their fault. Because burning down existing structures can only unleash the inherent good.
So at its core, from a Christian point of view, it can be simplified as a denial of sin, of the fallen state of man, and of a desire to supplant God, to become gods. Which, once again, is the nature of Satan.
To some progressives (Brett Weinstein is in this camp), at best, Christianity was a once-useful stage of human development, which we have now transcended. But they would like to keep whatever parts of it they still like, while discarding what they reject. As if it was just a phase that we learned a few things from. It is in that muddled ground that you find some thinking that they can have “affirming” churches. Because they will keep some of the form of Christianity, and a vague (and false) generality about “love”, but they don’t actually believe it. They just want to let some of its trappings hang around until they’re no longer needed. Which is why those churches shrink and die. They’re meant to. They’re a transitional step towards atheism, which is “progress”.
By focusing on the particulars of these issues, the root of it remains opaque. James Lindsay has mapped these ideas more thoroughly than anyone. Hegel is the real source of the metaphysical (I.e. quasi-religious) underpinning of these movements. It is his idea that through the dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), humanity would reach a godlike state of perfection. It is then through criticism (antithesis) that humanity progresses toward that state. That is the source of “critical theory”. It is the source of Marx’s call to tear down all existing social conditions. Marx mapped it onto economics. Nietzsche, eugenics, and Hitler, mapped it onto evolution through Darwin. The New Left maps it onto culture and identity.
The religion is “progressivism”. The “eschaton” is Utopia (communist or otherwise), the Ubermensch, the Master Race. It is, per Hegel, the inevitable march of human progress. Those who stand in its way are “on the wrong side of history”. Adherents may debate the exact forms it will take. But they all branch off of that core religion, which believes that once all existing conditions, institutions and culture are torn down, a metaphysical Utopia will arise.
In that dialectical world view, born in Western Civilization, Christianity is one of the primary “theses” which must be attacked. Its attackers are therefore (importantly) not NON-Christian, but rather ANTI-Christian. And from a Christian standpoint, Satanic, whether the deceived progressive recognizes themselves as such. So it is not correct to call it the result of Christianity gone wrong, as if some genuine believers took a wrong turn. Rather, if you position yourself as the opposite of something, its antithesis, you are going to take on a similar shape, but backwards, from the thing you’re opposing.
When you read the actual core proponents and inventors of these various “woke” permutations, their nature becomes clear. They are neo-Marxists who want to tear down existing social institutions, structures and norms in order to prepare the society for a Marxist revolution. They say so. They don’t hide it. It is not the existence of various identity groups, but rather their mobilization into a set of political demands and a coalition that is the marker of the New Left. That’s why, as this video shows, they have a trans flag with a Communist fist on it. As does BLM. They’re not hiding who they are. They are constantly looking for new oppressed groups to add to their intersectional coalition of revolutionaries. And the US is vulnerable because of the legitimate past issue of slavery.
In the Bible, it is not a coincidence that the name “Satan” means “accuser”. “Critical Theory” serves the same function. If you think of the US as Job and progressives as Satan, you won’t be that far off. Except that Job had fewer sins to point to.
It is also probably not a coincidence that all of this evil emerged primarily from Germany, after the Protestant Reformation. I am a Protestant, and the Reformation was a conservative movement to bring the church back to is original, biblical, intended state. But some undoubtedly saw it as an opportunity to not only throw off the shackles of the Catholic Church, but of Christianity itself. And that’s where the snowball began to roll.
So in summary, the religion here is “Progressivism”. It believes that by destroying everything “old”, humanity will arrive at Utopia, perhaps by evolving into some higher, godlike state of being. In the particulars of this video, that means transcending nature and physical reality.
Why is it authoritarian, rather than liberal? If they were so sure of what they declare to be the inevitable future, why would they need to impose it by force? Well, the obvious answer is that they’re wrong, and they live in a fantasy world, and the only way their fiction can survive is to silence not only speech, but thought. But in their imagination, it is a result of believing that it is their mission to bring about these transformations of the entire human race, and also their repeated, horrifying catastrophic failures have led them to create the villain of “fascism” as an ever-present counter-possibility to their Utopia. In doing so, they deny the manifest reality that fascism, Nazism, and even the communist dictatorships they seek to disavow, are actually their own creation. Because in their tautological fiction, if it went badly, it must, by definition, not be their fault. Because burning down existing structures can only unleash the inherent good.
So at its core, from a Christian point of view, it can be simplified as a denial of sin, of the fallen state of man, and of a desire to supplant God, to become gods. Which, once again, is the nature of Satan.
To some progressives (Brett Weinstein is in this camp), at best, Christianity was a once-useful stage of human development, which we have now transcended. But they would like to keep whatever parts of it they still like, while discarding what they reject. As if it was just a phase that we learned a few things from. It is in that muddled ground that you find some thinking that they can have “affirming” churches. Because they will keep some of the form of Christianity, and a vague (and false) generality about “love”, but they don’t actually believe it. They just want to let some of its trappings hang around until they’re no longer needed. Which is why those churches shrink and die. They’re meant to. They’re a transitional step towards atheism, which is “progress”.
irrationalNinja
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2017
- Messages
- 693
That’s one version.
Here’s another: Feminism came into being because some “marginalized” women were sold a cultural Marxist fiction centered around hating what they had and wanting what men had. Now feminists have their idealized world and are still unsatisfied. Sounds just like transgenderism.
irrationalNinja
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2017
- Messages
- 693
This.
kerrichinchilla
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,501
What i state is not ''a version'' it's reality. It's clear you just have a bias against feminism based on the classic anti-feminist rhetoric that hasnt changed for over 100 years.
For one if you knew feminist history properly you would know that first wave or suffrage was actually quite conservative. In fact, many suffrgettes hated second wave feminism and the sexual revolution. They were also anti marxist. They fought for their rights becasue they wanted teh right to be a part of the political and social dealings in their countries, which in cluded voting, buying, selling, be able to use doctors or even be a doctor, they were mostly pro capitalism. They just wanted teh right to choose for themselves, not to be beaten or raped legally, or to be locked up in asylums when a husband or father didnt want her around any more, the right to an education, the right to own money, buy or rent a house and have job security.
Second wave was less capitalist BUT only slightly. The whole burning the bra thing was a myth dreamt up by journalists, the closest you can get is during a beauty pagent oin the 1970s women wanted to burn aprons but couldnt get a purmit so instead placed aprons in a bin. Additionally, second wave fought for workers rights, ALL workers male and female, in many countries women workers contributed to walk outs, in some countries like Switerland they pretty much shut the country down leading to better working conditons, benefits and rights. The Uk saw introductions of maternity leave, manditory holidays of 28 days a year, later paternity leave, health and safety laws and other work benfits. Second wave feminists were at the forefront of these introductions. Which actually contributed to capitalism.
Third wave WAS about consumption, dressing, make up, buying and image. Its very capitalistic, the 80s business woman, female libertation through indepeant working. There was nothing remotely marxist about it. IT was about being the equal if not the same as men, women acting and looking like men.
Fourth wave which is the current wave of feminism has however split in two. There is liberal feminism, which is mostly about trans rights and yes is more marxist in nature. Then there is radical feminism which is a return to second wave ideals.
Attachments
irrationalNinja
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2017
- Messages
- 693
Imho, man-hating is futile.
Equal rights were inevitable in a civilized society. It was men who granted them.