November is anti-porn month, so I decided to write about porn all month long for 7 reasons:
1. To boost traffic to the site (it's worked).
2. The anti-porn people are obnoxious. They are just as bad, if not worse, than the vegans. How do you know if someone is a vegan? They never shut up about it, that's how. They're always so smug and self righteous, as all stupid people who have a little bit of knowledge think they are.
3. The anti-porn people are creepy and they are clearly a cult, and I've written about cults before.
4. The anti-porn people are hypocrites who only focus on men using porn and don't care one tiny iota about women using porn.
5. The anti-porn people fundamentally confuse cause and effect. Feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce is destroying relationships between men and women, and since everyone needs an outlet for the sex drive that is what is driving men toward porn. Porn is the symptom of the destroyed relationship between men and women, it is not the cause of the destroyed relationship between men and women. Restore traditional gender roles and 99% of porn eliminates itself.
6. The anti-porn people may be wrong. They present no data, only doctrine. At least show me the studies that demonstrate that the brain can be rewired to such a dramatic extent as the anti-porn people allege. If that was possible I would think it would have huge implications elsewhere in the world. Instead of traditional schooling, for example, we could just use some sort of knowledge porn to make children smarter, condensing 12 years of schooling into a single year. We could have war porn to make super soldiers, surgery porn to make perfect surgeons, pilot porn to make perfect pilots incapable of human error. We could have prison porn to rehabilitate gangsters, thieves, and murderers. We could rewire the brain using therapy porn to get cripples to walk again. The possibilities are endless.
And instead of trying to save humanity through exploring these techniques, the anti-porn people want to end the experiment into rewiring the brain, just like the anti-drug people don't want us to experiment with extremely safe substances like psilocybin and marijuana, but do want to keep extremely dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol perfectly legal.
7. Even if the anti-porn people are right about #6, how is that necessarily bad? How is it bad removing men with an addictive personality from the gene pool? I would think that keeping certain weak and pathetic men from breeding would be better for the species.
This was certainly an interesting topic, and because I've been very busy I've in no way exhausted everything there is to say about porn, so you can expect more in the future, along with more usual subjects.
Showing posts with label Cults. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cults. Show all posts
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Friday, November 8, 2019
Martin Goldberg on Porn
Because I'm not bored as hell by the topic of porn just yet, here's the first of two videos from Martin Goldberg, Mr. Economic Invincibility himself. This one deals with porn directly. Here he presents a rational, balanced perspective and actually brings up one of the few good points on the subject, that porn can be an excuse for some men to not take risks with women.
He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.
Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.
Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
He also brings up what he admits is a weaker argument, that porn may be better than anything you can expect in real life.
Now, I don't usually speak from experience, because I tend to lean on the more theoretical side, but given the subject and the wonder and mystery any potential readers may have, from what I've seen in my day, I honestly never thought the chicks in porn videos looked all that great (and the amateurs are just that, regular off the street people who you do see every day, if you run in those circles of chicks who have lots of tattoos and daddy issues). Furthermore, speaking, as it were, about what people seem to be referring to almost exclusively, of the whole dick entering various parts of a woman type videos, it always seemed laughably stupid and awkward to me, like the stupidest possible ways of having sex just to make sure everything is on camera. That just never did anything for me.
Also, and he doesn't bring it up in the video but other people have brought it up, the whole serial escalation argument. You first see a picture of a tit, then you get bored of tits (as if that was even possible) so now you have to start watching like finger bang videos, then get bored of that and you have to start watching bukkake, then you get bored of that and have to start watching real videos of real life rape, and then you're bored of that and have to go out and commit rape yourself, then it escalates even further and all of a sudden you're Jeffrey Dahmer. All I have to say is fuck off, escalation. You can smoke a whole forest of weed and never have the desire to go to crack, and then from crack to meth, and then from meth you're hanging yourself in your closet like Robin Williams. Escalation is bullshit, weed is not a gateway drug, and Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
The Cult of Anti-Porn
It's November, so now I have to watch all the quasi-religious freaks try to look special by denouncing porn.
Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.
I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.
And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.
So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.
The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.
Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.
The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.
Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.
It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.
Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.
Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.
The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.
They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.
Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.
The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Let me start out by saying that this has nothing to do with my or your opinion of porn, this is just how utterly creepy the anti-porn people are and how they all say the exact same thing, like none of them have ever had an original thought.
I've been writing The Urban Mystic since February 2006, 13 years, and have never once talked about porn, that I know of. It just never crossed my mind. I never saw it as anything compelling to write about. But what I have written about a lot is cults, and these anti-porn male feminists are a cult, and just like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnessism, Islam, Neo-Nazism, "We Wuz Kangz", they're all fucking insane.
And let me just expand on that last bit, while I have explained before in great detail why Mormonism is a cult, and is decidedly anti-Christian, and is demonstrably false, I still think that most Mormons are good people, which is something that I cannot say about other cults. Even though Mormonism is a cult, and most Mormons are crazy and wrong, it is a cult that by and large makes people more friendly.
So, after almost a decade and a half, here is a very, very brief introduction on the cult of anti-porn.
The anti-porn people miss the fundamental reality that they are confusing cause and effect.
Porn is not a cause, porn is an effect.
The cause is feminism destroying healthy relationships between men and women. I'll get into that in more detail later in the month, but for now just run with it and see where it leads.
Without a woman with which to fulfill his biological imperative, a man is going to execute that base level programming alone. Plain and simple. Unless you're one of those 1 in a million who is able to become a monk and sublimate sexual energy, you absolutely will not and cannot (and should not) overrule three billion years of evolutionary hardwiring.
It's not some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people. White people are the army that keeps Jews from being exterminated, it profits them not to eliminate their defenders when half the world's Jews won't even touch a gun. That's the problem I have with the Neo-Nazis who try to say everything bad that exists is the deliberate action of the Jews to exterminate white people, is that it's self-contradictory. If the Jews, who supposedly run the world, are so smart to create this global conspiracy to wipe out whites and replace them with blacks and Arabs, then surely those same Jews would be smart enough to realize that blacks and Arabs would do what they've always done, which is turn Jews into third-class dhimmi serfs should white people stop defending their Jewish overlords. Any Jewish conspiracy to eliminate white people would really be cutting off their rather prominent noses to spite their face. It makes no sense.
Most porn today is actually produced by amateurs, people who are exhibitionists, but even the corporate stuff is war profiteering. A gulf exists between men and women that was created by anti-male laws and social customs that have been created over the past 50 years, and pornographers are just taking advantage of that situation. Just as someone selling toilet paper for a million dollars a sheet in Venezuela didn't create the shitty economy in the country, the pornographers didn't create the anti-male climate we are living in, they are just taking advantage of it.
Eliminate feminism and porn vanishes all on its own as the market naturally dries up.
The anti-porn people also are hypocrites, in that they focus exclusively on getting men to stop using porn and don't give a toss about the billions of dollars women spend each year on porn. The most profitable franchise of the past decade has been a pornographic rape fantasy for women. But the anti-porn people be like "Women can hump pillows all they want as long as men don't let one single sperm come in contact with the air!" They are holding men and women to different standards.
They also think that 100% of all porn contains dicks. They think 100% of all porn is videos of men fucking women, with dicks front and center. Wasn't it just last year, or maybe even earlier this year, where the most common search results of major porn sites was released for every state? What did those results reveal? First of all, that women watch porn too, and second, that the number one search for both men and women in all 50 states was "lesbian". Most people watch porn that has no men in it, therefore the whole argument that you're cucking yourself for watching porn goes out the window if you're only looking at women.
Is Playboy not porn? Is pictures of naked women not porn? Are cam girls stripping and masturbating for money and attention not porn? The anti-porn people seem to have a paraphilia for videos of dicks, so much so that they hallucinate the existence of dicks where dicks do not exist. Either that or they are really afraid of their own latent homoerotic desires.
The anti-porn people are young, impressionable, dick-obsessed, male feminists who are living in a utopian delusion who seek to score with women and gain status among men by showing off how they manifest superpowers while calling other men out as being lesser beings in a quasi-moralistic crusade that is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
The Non-Problem of Porn
It's November, so the anti-porn cultists are coming out of their basements, with those disgusting, stained mattresses they live on because of all the nocturnal emissions they have from never getting it off, and they have to bray in the streets about how they stopped nutting for fifteen hours and have now become motherfucking immortal and can now see through time and fly.
Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.
Here is the only honest video on the subject ever created, not surprisingly by Styx.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Cults: Veganism
Lierre Keith is a writer, radical feminist, food activist, and environmentalist (three out of four isn't bad). She's written a book, The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability, that exposes the cult of veganism and how it is destroying the planet (literally).
Amazon's description:
Part memoir, nutritional primer, and political manifesto, this controversial examination exposes the destructive history of agriculture—causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil—and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating—or not eating—animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.
Agriculture is tremendously destructive of the environment. The vegan lifestyle is actually the least environmentally friendly of all possible options. Forests and fields need to be cleared, habitat needs to be destroyed, aquifers need to be drained, and oil needs to be drilled to make fertiliser. The system of agribusiness we have in place right now is only possible due to massive government subsidies and petrochemical fertiliser. 5 billion people are alive today because of artificial phosphate fertilisers and ground water irrigation. Those phosphates won't last forever, and neither will the groundwater, just like the guano. Personally I suspect there's two or more centuries worth of oil that remain to be exploited, but phosphates and ground water are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, and I don't put much hope for future utopianisms. Old methods of agriculture can only supply food for about two billion people, not seven, and it takes millions of years for aquifers to fill with water and caves to fill with shit to be used to grow food for five billion real people who will die if they don't eat anything.
There was a great discovery in 1802 of something called guano. Guano is bird shit, and it is perfect for fertiliser (and for making explosives and gunpowder). The great powers of Europe waged wars and colonised the entire planet in search of guano. For thousandsof years seabirds had crapped on tiny rocks and islands, creating piles of guano hundreds of feet thick, and it only took about a century for all the guano to be mined. How long will it take for all the groundwater, phosphate, and oil to be mined? 50 years? 100? Some places like Saudi Arabia, which had tremendous aquifers, have already depleated their groundwater in a single lifetime. They engaged in massive agriculture, growing cash crops like alfalfa and soy that use a tremendous amount of water, and now that they've run out they are buying up water in the United States to grow soy on US soil, depleating our own water reserves.
Some people, most people I would assume, place hope in "future science". "Future science will solve all of our problems!" Has it? Most animals were not designed to eat corn (a human invention of the Andes peoples). But the government subsidises corn, and petrochemical fertilisers can grow a ton of it cheap, so tons of corn are grown and fed to animals to fatten them up quickly. Those animals, because they are eating junk and living in their own shit in cages too small to move, need to be pumped with antibiotics to keep from dropping dead. Massive reliance on antibiotics in factory farms have produced superbugs that are now resistant to all of our drugs of last resort. Just this year colistin, a drug so potent and toxic that it was used only to combat bacteria that would respond to no other treatment, has just met its match in drug resistant superbugs. How could this happen? Because although colostin was only very rarely used in humans, China pumped tons of the stuff into pigs and chickens to keep them from dropping dead in hideously polluted factory farms. Just this May the first colostin-resistant bacteria was discovered. We have no idea if that bacteria has escaped into the wild. Even if it has not we're not too far away from a time when all antibiotics are rendered useless (unless we develop new ones, and there haven't been any new antibiotics in decades). In a single lifetime we have seen the rise and fall of drugs to combat disease.
It's not just superbugs, it's our own bodies too. We're not designed to ingest massive quantities of grown hormone, antibiotics, estrogen from birth control that ends up in the water supply, and all the other toxic crap we're putting into food to grow lots of it really quick and make it last forever.
What if "future science" doesn't solve all of our problems? What is "future science" anyway? It's that stuff no one wants to invest in because it's not two hundred year old science. I love oil. I'm sitting on oil, typing on oil, looking at pictures projected on oil, in a house lit by oil, and I eat food that exists only because of oil, but maybe we should be investing in things beside oil because it's stupid to rely on only one kind of power source, just in case something bad happens to it?
Getting beyond that, the human body isn't designed to eat a plant diet. Most plants are toxic and need to be cooked to destroy those toxins before it is safe to eat them. Even then, most plants aren't too good for your body anyway, and cellulose is impossible to digest, so most of what you're eating just ends up filling the toilet. Some animals can digest plants, animals with very long, complicated guts. Pack hunters like humans, have shorter guts designed to digest meat from animals with longer guts. Herbivores do all the work, we get all the benefit. It's win-win really. Cows, sheep, and pigs are tremendously successful species, because they taste good. Domesticated animals have a very good chance of reproducing. That's why there are billions of them. These animals have thrived, while their wild counterparts have gone extinct, because they have adapted to life under human control. Eating meat keeps many species from going extinct, keeps wilderness land from being destroyed and turned into farms, and provides the human body what it needs to survive.
That said, there's a right and a wrong way to raise animals. The factory farms that pump animals full of antibiotics is the wrong way. What's the right way? Read the book.
Amazon's description:
Part memoir, nutritional primer, and political manifesto, this controversial examination exposes the destructive history of agriculture—causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil—and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating—or not eating—animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.
Agriculture is tremendously destructive of the environment. The vegan lifestyle is actually the least environmentally friendly of all possible options. Forests and fields need to be cleared, habitat needs to be destroyed, aquifers need to be drained, and oil needs to be drilled to make fertiliser. The system of agribusiness we have in place right now is only possible due to massive government subsidies and petrochemical fertiliser. 5 billion people are alive today because of artificial phosphate fertilisers and ground water irrigation. Those phosphates won't last forever, and neither will the groundwater, just like the guano. Personally I suspect there's two or more centuries worth of oil that remain to be exploited, but phosphates and ground water are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, and I don't put much hope for future utopianisms. Old methods of agriculture can only supply food for about two billion people, not seven, and it takes millions of years for aquifers to fill with water and caves to fill with shit to be used to grow food for five billion real people who will die if they don't eat anything.
There was a great discovery in 1802 of something called guano. Guano is bird shit, and it is perfect for fertiliser (and for making explosives and gunpowder). The great powers of Europe waged wars and colonised the entire planet in search of guano. For thousandsof years seabirds had crapped on tiny rocks and islands, creating piles of guano hundreds of feet thick, and it only took about a century for all the guano to be mined. How long will it take for all the groundwater, phosphate, and oil to be mined? 50 years? 100? Some places like Saudi Arabia, which had tremendous aquifers, have already depleated their groundwater in a single lifetime. They engaged in massive agriculture, growing cash crops like alfalfa and soy that use a tremendous amount of water, and now that they've run out they are buying up water in the United States to grow soy on US soil, depleating our own water reserves.
Some people, most people I would assume, place hope in "future science". "Future science will solve all of our problems!" Has it? Most animals were not designed to eat corn (a human invention of the Andes peoples). But the government subsidises corn, and petrochemical fertilisers can grow a ton of it cheap, so tons of corn are grown and fed to animals to fatten them up quickly. Those animals, because they are eating junk and living in their own shit in cages too small to move, need to be pumped with antibiotics to keep from dropping dead. Massive reliance on antibiotics in factory farms have produced superbugs that are now resistant to all of our drugs of last resort. Just this year colistin, a drug so potent and toxic that it was used only to combat bacteria that would respond to no other treatment, has just met its match in drug resistant superbugs. How could this happen? Because although colostin was only very rarely used in humans, China pumped tons of the stuff into pigs and chickens to keep them from dropping dead in hideously polluted factory farms. Just this May the first colostin-resistant bacteria was discovered. We have no idea if that bacteria has escaped into the wild. Even if it has not we're not too far away from a time when all antibiotics are rendered useless (unless we develop new ones, and there haven't been any new antibiotics in decades). In a single lifetime we have seen the rise and fall of drugs to combat disease.
It's not just superbugs, it's our own bodies too. We're not designed to ingest massive quantities of grown hormone, antibiotics, estrogen from birth control that ends up in the water supply, and all the other toxic crap we're putting into food to grow lots of it really quick and make it last forever.
What if "future science" doesn't solve all of our problems? What is "future science" anyway? It's that stuff no one wants to invest in because it's not two hundred year old science. I love oil. I'm sitting on oil, typing on oil, looking at pictures projected on oil, in a house lit by oil, and I eat food that exists only because of oil, but maybe we should be investing in things beside oil because it's stupid to rely on only one kind of power source, just in case something bad happens to it?
Getting beyond that, the human body isn't designed to eat a plant diet. Most plants are toxic and need to be cooked to destroy those toxins before it is safe to eat them. Even then, most plants aren't too good for your body anyway, and cellulose is impossible to digest, so most of what you're eating just ends up filling the toilet. Some animals can digest plants, animals with very long, complicated guts. Pack hunters like humans, have shorter guts designed to digest meat from animals with longer guts. Herbivores do all the work, we get all the benefit. It's win-win really. Cows, sheep, and pigs are tremendously successful species, because they taste good. Domesticated animals have a very good chance of reproducing. That's why there are billions of them. These animals have thrived, while their wild counterparts have gone extinct, because they have adapted to life under human control. Eating meat keeps many species from going extinct, keeps wilderness land from being destroyed and turned into farms, and provides the human body what it needs to survive.
That said, there's a right and a wrong way to raise animals. The factory farms that pump animals full of antibiotics is the wrong way. What's the right way? Read the book.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Cults: Mormonism
Two videos, both produced by former Mormons. The first is a short primer on what Mormons actually believe, including God once being a mortal man from another planet who only later became God, spirit children being transported to Earth to live in human bodies, and becoming gods to rule over your own alien planets. Runs 4 minutes.
In the next video a former temple worker proposes a challenge as to what exactly will count for evidence that Mormonism is a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith and his successors. Runs 13:40.
In the next video a former temple worker proposes a challenge as to what exactly will count for evidence that Mormonism is a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith and his successors. Runs 13:40.
Cults: How Mind Control Works
Former Mormon and physician Joshua (last name unclear) explains how cults employ mind control using the BITE model (Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, Emotional control) of Steven Hassan, famous cult expert. He explains the specifics with examples from Moromonism: how they control what you can, and cannot read, who you can and cannot interact with, what you can wear and eat, lies they tell about doctrine until you are higher level initiates, and exhausting members with constant activities. Runs 29 minutes.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Cults: Scientology
Another hour long documentary, Secrets of Scientology, in which former top brass within the church blow the lid off its devious nature. Any thinking human already knows Scientology is an admitted scam invented by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard to make loads of tax-free money.
The people in this video still believe in the doctrine of Scientology, but they reject the authority of the Church of Scientology, which is an evil, monolithic entity that seeks to control the lives of all its current and former members. They wish to start a reformation within the religion to turn it into something legitimate instead of a cult bent on gaining money and political influence.
The people in this video still believe in the doctrine of Scientology, but they reject the authority of the Church of Scientology, which is an evil, monolithic entity that seeks to control the lives of all its current and former members. They wish to start a reformation within the religion to turn it into something legitimate instead of a cult bent on gaining money and political influence.
Cults: Jehovah's Witnesses
I'm beginning a new series on cults. A cult, as I will define it, is a political organization that masquerades as a religion, has a highly secretive structure and promises revelation of secret knowledge for ever increasing amounts of money (tithing), isolates members from their families and the outside world, is highly litigious, says that all other religions are wrong, or evil, and promises to correct all the errors with knew knowledge, uses brainwashing tactics on its members, and presents a view of the world and religious facts that is obviously wrong. The three main cults I will focus on are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Scientology. They all have pretty much the same structure, and, as we will see, both Mormonism and Scientology are forms of ET religion with very similar cosmologies.
To begin the series here is an hour long documentary film Witnesses of Jehovah.
The Watchtower has made about 20 "prophecies" of the exact date of the end of the world over the past 200 years that have all failed. They say that only 144,000 of their select Jehovah's Witness members will go to Heaven, and they've all already gone there so Heaven is completely full already. The Bible itself says that the 144,000 are all from the 12 tribes of Israel, so they are ALL Jews. The Bible also says way more people will go to Heaven than just that handful of Jews. Their doctrine blatantly contradicts all the stuff that is definitely true or at least probably true about the Bible. In fact, if Jesus said it you can be sure The Watchtower teaches the exact opposite. Jehovah's Witnessism is fake.
To begin the series here is an hour long documentary film Witnesses of Jehovah.
The Watchtower has made about 20 "prophecies" of the exact date of the end of the world over the past 200 years that have all failed. They say that only 144,000 of their select Jehovah's Witness members will go to Heaven, and they've all already gone there so Heaven is completely full already. The Bible itself says that the 144,000 are all from the 12 tribes of Israel, so they are ALL Jews. The Bible also says way more people will go to Heaven than just that handful of Jews. Their doctrine blatantly contradicts all the stuff that is definitely true or at least probably true about the Bible. In fact, if Jesus said it you can be sure The Watchtower teaches the exact opposite. Jehovah's Witnessism is fake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
