Sex and the Religious-Left

[Atla]

It looks alarming, somebody needs to stop these "they" people.

By NANCY FLORY
March 19, 2024

The War on Children, a new documentary by filmmakers Robby and Landon Starbuck, reveals the left’s not-so-hidden agenda to sexualize kids through exposure to sexually deviant behavior produced online, through social media, drag queen performances, schools, advertising, and elsewhere.

At nearly two and a half hours of run time, the film may be long, but it’s worth the time, especially for parents. The War on Children may be seen at thewaronchildren.com, rumble, MoviesPlus, and X.

Controlling Your Kids’ Minds

Robby and Landon Starbuck interview experts about the sexualization of America’s kids on everything from advertising to social media to library books. The left’s efforts to control kids’ minds on LGBTQ+ issues are absolutely everywhere. Brett Craig, formerly chief creative officer with Duetsch, said the left is intentionally trying to sexualize children. “I think they’re trying to introduce radical gender theory, radical gender ideology, to your child,” he said. “They’re using commercials and merchandise and what they’re selling to get your kid to believe that.”

Craig suggests parents use their money as a way to cast a vote. If a company or a business invests in wokeness or supports trans ideology, do not shop there. “If we don’t speak up, it’s over real fast from here,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to take long now.”

Social Contagion

That is true, especially with what the Starbucks call “social contagion.” According to the National Library of Medicine, social contagion is defined as “the spread of behaviors, attitudes, and affect through crowds and other types of social aggregates from one member to another. Adolescents are prone to social contagion because they may be especially susceptible to peer influence and social media.” The normalization of transgender and LGBTQ+ ideology has been spread through social contagion via social media, say the Starbucks. And the damage is vast: 25% of American high school students now identify themselves as something other than “straight.” And in a recent Gallup poll, over 28% of Gen Z women say they are lesbian. The agenda to normalize the sexualization of children is well underway.

The Starbucks talked with a detransitioner — a young woman who identified as a male and had surgery, then later began living as a female again. She told them she’d first heard about “transitioning” through social media. It had a profound impact on her, and she pursued the surgery. Although those on the left claim that minors are not getting surgery to “transition,” that statement is not true. The young woman had surgery a month after her thirteenth birthday.

Another woman whose daughter identified as a male tearfully told her story to the Starbucks. Her daughter was a minor when she decided to begin living life as a male. Her school got involved and called Children’s Protective Services on the girl’s mother because she did not want her daughter to identify as male. Eventually, the daughter was taken away from her home and sent to foster care, but her gender dysphoria and depression did not go away. She still suffered, and one day stepped in front of a moving train to end her pain. Her mother still does not understand why her daughter’s school got involved.

Although the Starbucks tried to interview those with differing opinions, the potential interviewees who advocate for transitioning children either declined up front or walked out during the interview.

Speak Up, Parents!

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) sat down with the Starbucks to discuss the unnecessary surgeries being done on minors with gender dysphoria. “We’re leaning towards an absurd and horrific time,” he said. “[T]his is leading to a time in which there’s going to be war between families, there’s war in our culture. This is a bad time and I never thought we’d get there in our lifetime. This is where we’ve come.”

After all the interviews about the sexualization of America’s children, the Starbucks came to one conclusion: American parents have to speak up.

“The conversations are going to be uncomfortable,” said Robby. “You may lose a friend or a client, but speaking up is how this ends. Some may even ask you, ‘Why do you care? These aren’t your kids. Let them do what they want.’ But this line of thinking ignores the reality that our kids are going to have to grow up alongside these issues and sometimes inside a locker room with them.”

Nancy Flory, Ph.D., is a senior editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.

Fully agree on this one, this has to be stopped. Well I think the left is mostly manipulated into it, but it's the left's fault for letting it happen, and this could easily be the left's downfall. Both in Europe and the US and Canada.

I've also been wondering if there could be a new biological component to this gender insanity. Just as autism seems to be on an exponentional rise, maybe due to the food we eat now and the pollution, the same food and pollution could maybe mess with people's brains in other ways, maybe mess with the normal levels of our hormones, and this could cause much more people than before to be biologically not straight.

[seeds]

Did you ever consider the possibility that the only reason why Trump didn't stumblebum us into some major military catastrophe somewhere on the globe is because he was too embroiled in his disastrous and incompetent handling of the covid19 epidemic, which probably led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens? (https://youtu.be/JamqcGVkAcA)

Furthermore, it is unfathomable to me that I am being asked to defend why I would prefer that the country I am a citizen of, not be headed up by a pathological liar.

We're talking about someone who I made the following observations about in this prior discussion with you...

Here's how I see it, seeds...

You rubbed the Genie's lamp.

When confronted by the Jhinn,

You asked for World Peace.

You received 4 years of it, under Donald J. Trump.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who might still be alive today were it not for Trump's incompetent handling of the epidemic.

Theoretically, Donald J. Trump might possibly be responsible for the deaths of more American citizens than the combined total of all the Americans who died in WW2, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam war, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was then, in that moment, that you realized that your Wish was not worth the price...correct?

You spent the 60s and 70s in Woodstock, Vietnam, your life, fighting against War...but when you got it, you rejected it???

You rejected the Peace-Giver? Worse, you Crucify Him for it?!

Good grief, do you have any idea of how ridiculous you sound by implying that Donald J. Trump...

(the lyin'-ess, cheatin'-ess, most despicable character ever excreted from the bowels of America)

...is some kind of Jesus figure?

Again, this is both fascinating and depressing to witness.

Anyway, here's how I see it, Wiz,...

It would appear that from your (and AJ's) line of reasoning, as long as something positive in the realm of, say, for example, medical research was derived from what this guy did in Auschwitz,...



...then all is hunky-dory, right?

Sure, good ol' Josef may have had a few pathological character flaws, but as long as humanity benefited in some way from him purposely infecting pregnant women with typhoid, or torturing twins in gruesome experiments, then ignoring his character flaws is a small price to pay relative to the gains in medical knowledge, right?

Indeed, as long as progress, or some higher and more noble goal is achieved, then it doesn't matter one whit what the moral status is of the "agent of chaos" who helped reach that goal, right?

And what is this "noble goal" of which Donald J. Trump is the most qualified to represent and spearhead?

It's to present (highlight, showboat) America...

(the home of approximately 4.23% of the world's population)

...as being the greediest, most self-centered, most narcissistic, most hedonistic, most morally corrupt, most imperialistic and insidiously dangerous country on the planet.

Indeed, who better than this guy....



...oh wait, I meant this guy...



...whoops, sorry, this guy...



...dang it, no, this guy...



...to be in charge of the project?

(And don't give me that horse crap about me having a bad case of TDS, when, in fact, my goose PTSD (viewtopic.php?p=702628#p702628) is far more serious and troublesome.)
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Seeds … better than TeeVee, better than YooToob. A multimedia spectacle of TDS.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...oh wait, I meant this guy...

From a 2017 Investor's Business Daily article:

While making an acceptance speech earlier this month at the Golden Globe Awards, Streep said it broke her heart that "the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back."

Fake tough guy Robert De Niro followed with a letter telling her he shared her "sentiments about punks and bullies." Trump is no delicate blossom but it's a bit amusing watching the mafia of popular culture censure others as if it's a bastion of geniality and tolerance.

But back to the charges against Trump: Is it asking too much for these people who are constantly attacking him to actually know what they are talking about? To be honest brokers of information? To be just a bit judicious?

Quite clearly the only response has to be yes, it is too much. Because if they were to deal with the facts, their meme would collapse.

The incident in question is Trump supposedly mocking New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, whose hand and arm movement on his right side is impaired due to arthrogryposis. Video from 2015 seems to indicate that Trump was indeed cruelly imitating the man.

But the media are too lazy and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are too nasty and small-minded to look deeper. The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated.

Why couldn't the mainstream media look this up? Gavin McInnes of TheRebelMedia.com and Taki's Magazine did, and he has the video evidence to show that Trump has a history of flailing his arms to make a point. It isn't something he reserved for Kovaleski.

McInnes wasn't alone — Catholics 4 Trump ably made the same case. So have others. If these people could do the research, why couldn't the legacy media, with all its resources, do the same?

And here's another point: Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we've seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He's not waving his arms uncontrollably.

Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?

The answer to all these questions is this: The media and their political handlers constructed a fake news talking point against Trump and ran with it. The truth would have derailed their anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative agenda.

This, of course, is not the only Trump lie the media and the TDR sufferers have tried to immortalize. McInnes, a controversial and provocative fellow who has described himself as a "western chauvinist" and "anarchist," covered the Top 10 Trump Myths last week. It's a skillful takedown of the narrative that was carefully crafted to vilify Trump — and by extension the deplorables who voted for him or against Hillary Clinton — and delegitimize his presidency.

The lesson here is while the Democrats, and the branch of the DNC that's also known as the media, are doing all they can to smear Trump as a depraved, crude and hateful man, the people who best fit under those terms are his accusers.

[Gary Childress]

...oh wait, I meant this guy...

From a 2017 Investor's Business Daily article:

While making an acceptance speech earlier this month at the Golden Globe Awards, Streep said it broke her heart that "the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back."

Fake tough guy Robert De Niro followed with a letter telling her he shared her "sentiments about punks and bullies." Trump is no delicate blossom but it's a bit amusing watching the mafia of popular culture censure others as if it's a bastion of geniality and tolerance.

But back to the charges against Trump: Is it asking too much for these people who are constantly attacking him to actually know what they are talking about? To be honest brokers of information? To be just a bit judicious?

Quite clearly the only response has to be yes, it is too much. Because if they were to deal with the facts, their meme would collapse.

The incident in question is Trump supposedly mocking New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, whose hand and arm movement on his right side is impaired due to arthrogryposis. Video from 2015 seems to indicate that Trump was indeed cruelly imitating the man.

But the media are too lazy and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are too nasty and small-minded to look deeper. The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated.

Why couldn't the mainstream media look this up? Gavin McInnes of TheRebelMedia.com and Taki's Magazine did, and he has the video evidence to show that Trump has a history of flailing his arms to make a point. It isn't something he reserved for Kovaleski.

McInnes wasn't alone — Catholics 4 Trump ably made the same case. So have others. If these people could do the research, why couldn't the legacy media, with all its resources, do the same?

And here's another point: Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we've seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He's not waving his arms uncontrollably.

Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?

The answer to all these questions is this: The media and their political handlers constructed a fake news talking point against Trump and ran with it. The truth would have derailed their anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative agenda.

This, of course, is not the only Trump lie the media and the TDR sufferers have tried to immortalize. McInnes, a controversial and provocative fellow who has described himself as a "western chauvinist" and "anarchist," covered the Top 10 Trump Myths last week. It's a skillful takedown of the narrative that was carefully crafted to vilify Trump — and by extension the deplorables who voted for him or against Hillary Clinton — and delegitimize his presidency.

The lesson here is while the Democrats, and the branch of the DNC that's also known as the media, are doing all they can to smear Trump as a depraved, crude and hateful man, the people who best fit under those terms are his accusers.

It's mockery of the weak for being weak essentially. But such is life, I suppose. There seems to be a need for us humans to rate people according to their circumstances and mock them accordingly.

[Harbal]

I reflect back to you, and to the readership here obviously, that to define my position (which is rather mild in fact) as *perverse* when my position was the normal stance just a few short years back, indicates that your views have been produced through an enormous 'transvaluation of values'. In some sense I stop there and don't carry my critical analysis further. I simply note that a man of your generation (a product of the attitude-shifts of the 1960s period to all appearances) hold to a set of ideas and views about a range of things that, for a generation or generations past, were inconsiderable.

The age at which I would have started to become aware of homosexuality roughly coincided with the decriminalisation of it in the UK, so I was never really aware of its being against the law. When you know something is illegal, it is bound to colour your attitude towards it to some extent. As I remember it, people of my generation treated homosexuality as a joke; something to be laughed at, and made fun of. I suppose if we had cause to think about the nitty gritty of it, most of us would have felt revulsion, but I certainly remember no hostility towards it from my peers. Since then, gay relationships and gay culture have become more and more normalised, and my attitude has developed alongside that into one of complete acceptance. Whenever I have tried to look at the phenomenon objectively and analytically, I can honestly say I don't see what the issue is. If emotional and physical relationships are as important and necessary to homosexuals as they are to heterosexuals, and it seems to be the case that they are, then it would be cruel to inhibit their freedom to experience them in the same open way that the rest of us take for granted as a right. To object to the full acceptance of homosexuality on the grounds of its not being natural seems unreasonable to me; human beings do lots of things that are not "natural". Every time we travel on an aeroplane we are doing something not natural, or every time we consume sugar; the human body was not designed for the intake of sugar in such a concentrated form. And how can we be certain it isn't natural? Maybe homosexuality has an evolutionary function, or did have at some time during the course of human development.

What interests me is to pursue the causal chain from a former ethic and morality, and through all sorts of social, political and cultural activism ("the long march through the institutions") that has produced no solely *you* but an enormous mass of people -- millions, even perhaps billions -- who carry these ideological positions and present them as *righteousness*. When you examine your sentence, quote just above, I suggest that you will see that it is laden with ideological assertions and presents itself, as I say, as *righteousness*.

I think the word, "righteousness", is too long, what if we just shorten it to "right"? Those former ethics are rooted, to a large degree, in religion, specifically Christianity, which refers back to more former ethics of the Iron Age Middle East. I don't feel much affinity with primitive desert tribe folk, or indeed pre mid twentieth century clergymen.

There is a way to see it, and Wizard alludes to this (shotgun style) as a religiousness. It is, certainly, an effort to hold to a moral and ethical position (that my attitude is bad, perverse, evil and also Nazi-like) (I realize you do not use the Nazi-smear) which, if nothing does, indicates an absolutist stance within ethics. You, and millions of others, I think without realizing it, are the heirs of religious absolutism that has been transformed, modified and re-adapted to those causes of *social justice*.

Of course I believe in social justice, but in accordance with the straight forward definition of that phrase, not with the movement that bears that name. Could it not be more that, without the blinkers of religion, we are able to look at the scene with a wider view?

It is obvious, Harbal, that you cannot accept any part of my moralizing definition and reference to *sexual deviation*. That term, I gather, is one that is in fact an indicator of having an erroneous position. However, I am pretty certain that I could describe deviancies which would appall you. And I am sure that you would recognize them as such.

Some people are appalled by atheism, but, luckily for me, they are unable to do anything about it. I do not agree that action is necessarily justified on account of someone being appalled.

The real question here is: What has happened that now, today, there is world-scale epidemic in pornography; a social phenomenon of gender-dysphoria; and a sort of general sexual madness that spreads like a contagion through the social body -- not only in our countries but on a world-scale. And then the additional question: What about the related and connected issue of the sexualization of children? It is inevitable, if all this material is available from any smartphone, that what adults view and obsess over will also be viewed and obsessed over by children. What we do, and what we allow, they do and allow.

Yes, something has happened, and I am not saying there is no cause for concern, but I think I find the epidemic of political extremism a bigger worry.

In order to influence a reader here, or you, I have to present sufficiently convincing arguments that there is an issue. But how can that be done when, and in fact, each of yous who resists these definitions show yourself totally closed to their examination? I do not expect you to answer that question, it is one I toss up into the air, but it is vital to my own project.

In my view you reject things, categorically, that you should examine with more care.

I should pay more attention to your reading list, and less to my own intuition and sense of right and wrong, you mean? Before you complain about my resistance to your influence, tell me how persuasive you find my point of view.

"particularly when it is designed to unfairly hurt specific groups or classes of people that the perpetrators do not happen to like or approve of"

For me the issue is less that and more how I will orient myself, philosophically and ideologically, in regard to these issues. I do not believe I could, or would, condemn a homosexual couple living up the street (or whatever). But I will and I do notice that once the sexual restraints are lifted, and it began with Stonewall and the liberation of gays, then it definitely proceeds from there to all categories. If Gays can be liberated then why not those of any particular orientation of their desire? Why not open up to *liberation* the category of child sexuality? What is wrong with a child's sexuality? And why are there such strict barriers between children and adults in this realm?

You say this in a way that seems to assume that I will see the self evidence of the wrongness of promoting child sexuality. Is that because you think I have better judgement or more insight than the average person? Well I don't; if I can see it, then I'm sure most people will.

The point? There is no limit. But what gives sex and sexual passion such power? The question begs an answer. It is a vital, extremely fundamental, hard-wired desire. It can get hold of one and, as Augustine said, it can dominate and in that sense enslave one. I will suppose that you do not accept this *enslavement*, and that is your choice I guess, but I see this perverse sexuality operating like a social and cultural contagion.

And I try to link this with a general decline in -- what is it? -- social values? Defined values? Sane values? Or should it be *antique and outmoded values*?

The thing about the power of sexual passion is that the more you repress/supress it, the more powerful it becomes. I think it best not to set the pressure vale too tight; there's no telling what might explode.

Advertising and the selling of products availed itself of youth-sexualization. And when the cultural ethics were reengineered the ethical parameters were shifted. Culturally, it is all of a piece. Sixties radicalism, the quest for liberation, the resistance to *established moral authorities*, the turn against Puritanical values -- all of this is part of the larger, cultural shift.

I don't think people are doing anything they haven't always done, except now they are less secretive about it, and don't feel guilty. Do you lament the decline in secrecy and guilt?

How shall we see and define marketers who don't really care what means of persuasion they use as long as they can sell their products? Is it possible to *sell perversion* in the sense of restructuring ethical and moral values so that these *products* will be bought?

Now I am thinking of QAnon, and such like, although I'm sure that is not who you are thinking of.




P.S. Have you noticed; Wizard is trying to write like you now. You have certainly made a big impression on that boy.

[seeds]

Seeds … better than TeeVee, better than YooToob. A multimedia spectacle of TDS.

Did it ever occur to you , AJ, ol' buddy, that you are projecting?

Have you never considered the possibility that it is you and the Wiz who are the true victims of TDS?

(Man-o-man, arguing with the inhabitants of "Bizarro World" is exhausting.)

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...oh wait, I meant this guy...

From a 2017 Investor's Business Daily article:

[......]
The lesson here is while the Democrats, and the branch of the DNC that's also known as the media, are doing all they can to smear Trump as a depraved, crude and hateful man, the people who best fit under those terms are his accusers.

The following is from an online article by the Washington Post, titled: "Donald Trump’s revisionist history of mocking a disabled reporter" By Glenn Kessler

The reporter's name is Serge Kovaleski, and Trump's words, where he explains his side of the story, are in italics (enlarged and bolded words, mine)...

“I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled. I didn’t know it, I didn’t know it at all. I had no idea. So I started imitating somebody — I didn’t speak to the guy — somebody that was groveling. Everyone know what grovel is? At the time I did the act, I did the whole thing with groveling. And I said he’s groveling, he said, ‘no, no, the article, I was wrong on the article.’ I was doing a whole big number. ‘I was wrong, I promise you, I made a mistake when I wrote the article.’ He was groveling, grovel, grovel, grovel.”

Here, below, is a video of Trump speaking about Kovaleski on Nov. 24 (https://youtu.be/mdLfkhxIH5Q). Note that Trump first says the article was “written by a nice reporter.” (Kovaleski is indeed nice.) Then he goes on to mock him, jerking his arms in front of his body: “Now, the poor guy, you ought to see this guy, ‘Ah, I don’t know what I said, I don’t remember, I don’t remember, maybe that’s what I said.’”

Now, match up the line "...you ought to see this guy..." with his earlier statement where he said "...I didn’t know what he looked like. I didn’t know he was disabled. I didn’t know it, I didn’t know it at all. I had no idea..."

This is what Trump does, he is a pathological liar who will say absolutely anything to avoid taking any responsibility for his bad behavior, and you idiots either keep falling for it, or you simply don't care as long as he can function as your "agent of chaos."

Anyway, the article goes on to say [bracketed interjection, mine]...

Trump’s explanation in Colorado is simply not credible. First of all, we already confirmed that Kovaleski did not grovel or say he made a mistake. Moreover, Trump actually appears to paraphrase Kovaleski’s brief statement about not remembering that thousands of people celebrated. Trump now suggests he was just imitating a grovel, but that’s not what he was actually doing.

Instead, Trump is clearly imitating Kovaleski’s disability — the reporter has arthrogryposis, which visibly limits the functioning of his joints. Trump [the stable genius with the impeccable memory] claims he did not know Kovaleski, but the reporter closely covered Trump’s troubled business dealings while he was a reporter for the N.Y. Daily News between 1987 and 1993.


Serge Kovaleski. (Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)

“Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years,” Kovaleski told the Times in November. “I’ve interviewed him in his office,” he added. “I’ve talked to him at press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve interacted with him as a reporter while I was at The Daily News.” In particular, Kovaleski covered the launch of the Trump Shuttle, spending the day with Trump in 1989 when the airline launched with typical Trump brashness. (Within a year, Trump had to unload the debt-burdened airline because of a cash crunch in his business interests.)

The bottom line is that anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to what Trump says, can spot his deceitfulness a mile away.

Another simple example of what I mean is when after Trump caught a lot of flak for recommending to Dr Deborah Birx (in a televised press conference) that she should look into the efficacy of injecting disinfectant into the body in order to kill the Corona Virus,...

...in a follow-up interview a day or so later, he insisted he was being "sarcastic" when he said that.

Well, take a good, hard, and honest look at this YouTube video (https://youtu.be/33QdTOyXz3w) where he made those infamous statements and tell me if you detect the slightest hint of sarcasm.

Again, this is what he does in one way or another (to an estimated tally of over 30,000 times in the mere 4 years he was in office).

And if you guys are just too dumb to notice it, or, worse yet, welcome it because it somehow serves your tiny-minded, nationalistic agenda, then we will forever be at an impasse over this issue.
_______

[Zenita01]

It's clear you've carefully analyzed Trump's statements and actions, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived dishonesty. Your attention to detail regarding his interactions with Serge Kovaleski and his remarks about injecting disinfectant underscores your concerns about his credibility. It's understandable that you feel frustrated and disillusioned by what you perceive as deceitfulness in leadership. It's essential to engage in critical thinking and hold leaders accountable for their words and actions. Your willingness to question and challenge misinformation is commendable.

[Atla]

It's clear you've carefully analyzed Trump's statements and actions, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived dishonesty. Your attention to detail regarding his interactions with Serge Kovaleski and his remarks about injecting disinfectant underscores your concerns about his credibility. It's understandable that you feel frustrated and disillusioned by what you perceive as deceitfulness in leadership. It's essential to engage in critical thinking and hold leaders accountable for their words and actions. Your willingness to question and challenge misinformation is commendable.

Bot?

[seeds]

It's clear you've carefully analyzed Trump's statements and actions, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived dishonesty. Your attention to detail regarding his interactions with Serge Kovaleski and his remarks about injecting disinfectant underscores your concerns about his credibility. It's understandable that you feel frustrated and disillusioned by what you perceive as deceitfulness in leadership. It's essential to engage in critical thinking and hold leaders accountable for their words and actions. Your willingness to question and challenge misinformation is commendable.

Thank you, Zenita01, and welcome to the forum.

Beware, though, for it can get quite ugly around here.
_______

[Zenita01]

Bot?

Ahh, you see you were very close, actually I identify as a human being with independent thought on this topic, how about you are you a bot?

[Wizard22]

Iwan,

You are wrong about 'Liberalism' being a continual revolution against yesterday's traditions and conservatism, because when it comes to Sex, the 'best method' is eternal, which is a Monogamous, Loving relationship between Man and Woman, sanctified by Holy Matrimony in God's House, which is Eternal. That never changes. That is never "upgraded" or "liberated", no matter how much religious-left LGBTQMAP+ Wokism you pump into a society. It is only ever Rot. It is only ever Corruption. It is only ever Perversion. It is only ever Poison, upon a society. Only God, and the Religious-Right, is equipped to defend a nation against such forces of evil.

We can now see why Catholicism rose in the Decadent Roman Empire, why it was Necessary to do so, to protect the Plebian and Proles against these Satanic forces and cultism.

[Wizard22]

seeds,

The price of World Peace, seems too much for you to pay, now?

That is the "Devil's Price", is it not? World peace...or FOUR MORE YEARS of Trump, right?!



It seems when the Liberal-Left is offered what they always "Truly" ever wanted...they don't want it so much, eh?!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Examining videos of Serge K. he does not have erratic twitching movements. He holds himself and speaks normally. So the imitation-narrative seems to fall apart. But no part of this has any real relevance for me.

None of this is very essential. Trump has been maligned and misrepresented cynically from the very start. That maligning has taken innumerable forms. It continues today in lawfare schemes outrageous on the face.

I do not seek however to cover over character flaws — there are many. And as I say, yet with all sorts of reservations and doubts (about the conditions of American politics and disunity) my support of the Trump faction is for the faction — people surrounding his movement and those drawn to it — whose stances I respect.

Also, I refuse to lend support to the present Democrat regime, regarding them as more dangerous. To say that does not put to the side that the government may well be regarded as corrupt through and through, and Trump & Co. no matter their stated intentions cannot but function as auxiliaries in those processes.

This understanding is quite coherent in my view. It is an *operative* one for me.

I suspect that yous will carry on here with this new topic (the proofs for the validity of TDS) and to that I say: have great fun!