H/t to VD for these F-35 links:
Are you tired of winning yet?
Yep. The love of money is indeed still the root of all evil. Jack Dorsey is proof of it. So is Kenneth Cole, Diane von Furstenberg, and Bloomberg’s Peter T. Grauer. And so are more than 170 other top executives.
They all signed the “Don’t Ban Equality” pledge, which states:
Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time. When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities and our economy are better for it.
Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers. Simply put, it goes against our values and is bad for business. It impairs our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the well-being of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and out.
The future of gender equality hangs in the balance, putting our families, communities, businesses and the economy at risk.
Ladies, kill the lives inside you so that you don’t have to take maternity leave, and perhaps leave companies altogether to raise families. Kill and stay. Kill and make your companies money. Kill and go shopping.
Minds have to be far, far gone to call killing the lives inside would-be mothers “reproductive care”. Skip that.
Companies, as has long been said, want women in the “workforce” so that the pool of workers is about doubled, which drives down wages, which ensures greater profits for the bosses. This is the same reason unlimited immigration is desired.
Workers without kids, which include all or most of the LGBTQWERTY crowd, are also cheaper to hire, at the least because of reduced insurance costs and maternity leaves.
Now I was watching old people’s TV (Svengoolie) and up popped a commercial you might have seen, featuring Tom Selleck. He said how the old are growing poorer and need money. “But then there’s that six trillion”. Which apparently was the amount boomers have socked away in their houses.
The actor advised getting a “reverse mortgage”, which is in essence pre-selling your home to the bank before you die, for a price which must be less than your relatives would get, since the bank gets to take its cut due to the loan. It would be best if houses stay in families. As it is, the reverse-mortgage money will be used, to some extent, for toys, vacations, and other nonessential items.
It’s true the banks won’t keep the homes and will sell them. But the cumulative result due to the churning and needless spending means the net flow of capital is away from citizens toward the oligarchs. Meaning companies have discovered another way to get rich quick (it takes decades to build capital in a house), to the detriment of society. It also throws a weak acid on families as houses move ownership.
Usury, as everybody but everybody knows, does the same thing; moves capital from citizens to oligarchs. The rate at which this occurs varies according to value of labor. In times when labor becomes more valuable, as when innovation occurs, the pain of usury is less. When labor value flattens (at whatever level), usury inexorably drains money from the poor and feeds the rich. We had a good century or so of innovation, funded, it is true, in part by the proceeds of usury. Yet only the hopeful thinks it will last forever. And anyway, innovation only slows the rate of transfer, but it does not reduce it to zero. And the ends never justify the means.
Curiously, again, everybody knows this. Everybody at the top, that is. So why is it still allowed?
Usury was always condemned as akin to sodomy in all civilized countries. It is banned in Islam-based cultures now. Yet it is celebrated as essential in ours. Well, it is no coincidence sodomy is celebrated in the same way.
Credit cards are usurious, but also essential. You can’t fly without one, or stay in most hotels, or rent a car. Yes, they can be used in a wise way, which is to never ever never ever never use them for loans, and merely as a payment vehicle. But the people least able to do this don’t.
Talk radio is filled with ads to help people “reduce their credit card debt”. This implies a few things. The obvious is that many have debt. The less clear is that credit card issuers build into their usury a guessed-at bad debt rate. Meaning they tacitly encourage bad debt. And bad debt, like usury itself, also causes money to flow in the wrong direction.
To support this site using credit ca
Taught by Kilo, a friend and current member of the SOF community, this is a course normally only offered to Special Operations Personnel. But the information needs to be out there for those willing to take advantage of it.
Noah built the ark before the flood. This course will instruct the student on how to proactively prepare for the day when they may be unexpectedly or unavoidably exposed and their persona or that of their family exploited with nefarious intent by malign actors. Digital force-protection, identity management, and the minimization of online signatures will be thoroughly covered in multiple tiered levels. Awareness regarding the tracking and fingerprinting of digital devices will be explained and countermeasures to mitigate their effectiveness will be learned.
In this course, a few of the topics students will learn are to:
• Understand the difference between security, privacy, and anonymity
• Protect yourself and…
View original post 278 more words
It is impossible for a man to become a woman. It is possible, and growing more frequent, for a man to pretend to be or to believe he is a woman. It is even more possible for him to do so in a society that convinces him it is a good, even noble, but certainly possible idea. Which is to say, a society that has lost its way.
That a man cannot turn into a woman was always obvious throughout all human history, a truth just as obvious as that sun is hot.
It is still obvious, to those who care to think about it. If you want the “science” (the scare quotes denoting this field of human endeavor is now as corrupted as any other), you can read the report Sexuality And Gender, 143 pages of showing it still takes two to tango, that nobody is born “gay” or “trans” or (although they don’t say it) necrophiliac or pedophilic. Therefore, since none of these things are innate, they must be learned.
If they are learned, they must be taught. And if they are taught, somebody has to do the teaching. Who is that?
Increasingly, all of us. Or so is the conclusion reached after reading PRRI’s new survey on “America’s Growing Support for Transgender Rights“.
“More than six in ten (62%) Americans say they have become more supportive toward transgender rights compared to their views five years ago. By contrast, about one-quarter (25%) say their views are more opposed compared to five years ago.”
That one-quarter probably represents the winnowing effect, the “radicalization” produced as the meek are strong-armed into abandoning Reality, leaving the most stalwart behind. Plus the increasing requirement that everybody express an opinion on the subject.
“Conservatives” and white evangelicals—and not, sadly, Catholics—are the most Reality-based; 37%-43% opposed. “Liberals”, obviously, the least. Yet still some 10% of them, probably all old, still retain their reason.
A clear majority of all except Republicans support allowing men who believe they are women access to nuclear and other advanced weaponry. Republicans were at time of the survey at 47%, up from 37% just two years ago, so the majority may already be here.
Same kind of numbers about allowing men who think they’re women into ladies’ shower rooms, but this is not yet a majority.
Just over half (55%) of Americans believe there are only two genders, including 43% who say they feel strongly about this. Four in ten (40%) Americans believe that there is a range of possible gender identities, including nearly one-quarter (24%) who say they feel strongly about this.
Just over half of Americans are therefore nuts. In the colloquial sense of that word. Say it better: half have succumbed to the endless propaganda pushed by our leaders (in corporations, media, and government). This includes those in the “I F[——]g Science!” crowd: see Researchers Don’t Believe Scientific Sex Exists.
The current survey finds majorities of Americans consistently oppose religiously based refusals to serve gay and lesbian people across a range of public actors and institutions: by small business owners (57%), licensed professionals (67%), adoption agencies (60%), and companies providing wedding services (55%).
Add to that the Voting Fallacy, which says that once a majority believes an act is moral or good, that act becomes moral or good, and we’ll soon see religious coercion. Yes, religious. The Perversion Puritans will mandate non-freedom of association. Well, the Constitution died long ago.
The Church has stepped into the fray with the document “Male and Female He Created Them“—which oddly doesn’t quote from “There are not such things as gays“. The document uses too many words, and is somewhat meek, in the manner of a right-handed-man entering an arm-wrestling contest as a southpaw.
Some critics take that farther and say the Vatican is cooperating in neo-paganism. Says Dr. van den Aardweg:
Basically, it is an ideological document. It is not specifically Catholic, in spite of some lip service. It essentially makes a plea for a kind of atheist-humanist/socialist sex education, presented as more or less Catholic. It gushes over the boons of a social model of sexual education monitored by “professional experts” on the basis of naively supposed ever-deepening insights into sexuality in the current human sciences. It represents the kind of illusionary and sentimental talk about education and “affectivity” characteristic of the immature and superficial humanistic psychology of the 1960s, but now proclaimed as ‘higher wisdom’ by a Vatican Congregation whose members run half a century behind the times. It is ‘dialogue’ and ‘listening’ and ‘openness’ all over again. But no listening to the divine teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality, marriage and the family (for these seem in need of ‘restructuring’).
He has a point. It isn’t until eleven pages in that any criticism of “gender theory” begins, and begins with these watery words “Nonetheless, real life situations present gender theory with some valid points of criticism.”
Why the Church lost the ability to say this is right and this is wrong is, however, a story for another day. At least here they do back in, but shyly, into saying transgenderism is wrong.