Tweet
Many Christians talk about Darwinism and libtardation as if they are synonyms. This is understandable. Absent a coherent creation story, Godlessness has not a leg to stand on, and evolution is the best they've got.
But is it enough? No. Noooo-ho-ho. As I will show, evolutionary theory is less than insufficient in justifying liberalism—they are totally incompatible, and even the slackest adherence to Darwin completely obliterates the liberal holy cows.
1) Negroes
Negroes are primitive. We're honest Christians and since God hates all liars, we don't dance around the facts. Everyone knows Negroes are primitive. They know it. They look more like apes than people with their prognathous jaws, sloped foreheads, wide noses, and coarse, woolly hair, and as anybody who's been downwind of one on a hot summer day will tell you, they don't smell like other people either.
But it's more than just skin-deep. Statistics about Negro violence are staggering, gobsmacking—to the point where even a seasoned Grand Dragon might shake his head in wonderment at the "hate facts" printed on the Department of Justice website. Blacks are 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice-versa, 100 times more likely to rape whites, and 140 times more likely to rob them.
The average IQ of the American Negro is 85, a full standard deviation below that of whites; on the Dark Continent itself, scores range from the low seventies, teetering on the 'tard threshold, to a near-protozoan 59 in Equatorial Guinea. In contrast, Koko the Gorilla's IQ is thought to fall between 70 and 95. Disease figures rival even those of the precious homosexuals (whom we'll return to shortly).
And the more money we chuck at 'em, the worse it gets.
Evolutionists claim that all people diverged from a common ape-like ancestor a few million years ago. That as time went on, we evolved into humans and shed most of our simian traits. Since Negroes have clearly failed to do so, they must be less human than the rest of us, perhaps about 250,000 years behind. According to Darwin, these "niggers" are just dirty beasts, no more worthy of personhood than your run-of-the-mill chimp. There's absolutely no reason not to enslave or wipe out the lot of them. They should not be voting and for the love of all that is good and decent, there sure as heck should never be one within a grenade's toss of the White House. According to Darwin.
As Christians, we reject such racist nonsense. We believe Negroes can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
2) Homosexuals
Here, it gets even worse. Just what is homosexuality? A filthy, repulsive perversion? A state of rebellion against God and one's own body? A value-neutral lifestyle choice? An inborn, immutable genetic condition? A source of pride? An illness?
One thing it is not, is normal. Radical sodomites will tell you they comprise 10% of the population, but the actual figure is closer to 1 or 2%. In contrast, between one half and one third of all people will develop cancer during their lifetimes, and nearly a quarter will die from it. By any measure, cancer is a more common, natural, normal condition than homosexuality.
Does this mean we should stop treating it? Should we attack oncologists as "bigots" or "carcinophobes" and tell cancer survivors they really do have cancer, will always have it, should accept it and be proud of it, and are delusional nutcases for claiming to be cancer-free? When they are seen in cancer wards meeting with patients to share their own experiences and offer hope, should we take photos of them and put them up on pro-cancer blogs, trumpeting them as evidence that those who purport to be treated will inevitably backslide in cancerdom? Think about that for a minute.
Not only is sodomy more abnormal than cancer—it is far more destructive. Being molested or "recruited" by a cancer patient won't make you sick, too, but that's not true of homosexuality. Most people who develop cancer don't do so until after 50; most homosexuals don't even make it to 50! People with cancer still get married and have children, which, according to Darwinian theory, is the single driving purpose behind all life. Homosexuals don't. If homosexuality has a genetic component (there's no proof of this whatsoever), it is by definition a dysgenic trait. A disorder. A disease. The DSM classed it thus until 1973, and the Pentagon still does.
Wow! That's harsh. That's about as bad as it can get for homos under a Darwinian wordview... right?
Wrong.
One of the criteria by which life is defined is the ability to reproduce. Another disease-spreading parasite, the virus, is exempted from the tree of life because it cannot reproduce on its own, without a host, just as homosexuals cannot do so without a surrogate or turkey baster.
In other words—by the doctrine of evolutionism—HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT EVEN ALIVE!
They are literally lower than pond scum on the Darwinian ladder. Their position is more akin to that of the feces they eat: produced by biological processes and expelled from a living animal, they themselves are merely clumps of semi-organic matter. They can be tortured and killed by the truckload with no moral repercussions.
Such nihilistic hate is anathema to Christians. Homosexuals can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
3) Rape
This one's simple. Liberal say rape bad. Darwin say rape good. The more children you have, the better the chances your DNA will survive to the next generation—and the quickest way to make children is through rape. Ergo, the soundest evolutionary strategy is to rape as many women as possible.
True Christians would never sanction rape except as a tool of war. We believe in the strictest monetary penalties for this chiefly Negroid crime, and in extreme cases even execution. Women are God's baby ovens and should be treated with respect. They are sluts by nature, but they can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
When we call liberalism a mental disorder, we're not just flinging insults. It involves such profound cognitive dissonance and logical contortions that in order to adopt it, one must by necessity have either a few dozen screws loose or a willingness to loosen them, figuratively speaking.
So take your pick: Darwin or liberalism. You can't go to Hell and eat it, too.
But is it enough? No. Noooo-ho-ho. As I will show, evolutionary theory is less than insufficient in justifying liberalism—they are totally incompatible, and even the slackest adherence to Darwin completely obliterates the liberal holy cows.
1) Negroes
Negroes are primitive. We're honest Christians and since God hates all liars, we don't dance around the facts. Everyone knows Negroes are primitive. They know it. They look more like apes than people with their prognathous jaws, sloped foreheads, wide noses, and coarse, woolly hair, and as anybody who's been downwind of one on a hot summer day will tell you, they don't smell like other people either.
But it's more than just skin-deep. Statistics about Negro violence are staggering, gobsmacking—to the point where even a seasoned Grand Dragon might shake his head in wonderment at the "hate facts" printed on the Department of Justice website. Blacks are 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice-versa, 100 times more likely to rape whites, and 140 times more likely to rob them.
The average IQ of the American Negro is 85, a full standard deviation below that of whites; on the Dark Continent itself, scores range from the low seventies, teetering on the 'tard threshold, to a near-protozoan 59 in Equatorial Guinea. In contrast, Koko the Gorilla's IQ is thought to fall between 70 and 95. Disease figures rival even those of the precious homosexuals (whom we'll return to shortly).
And the more money we chuck at 'em, the worse it gets.
Evolutionists claim that all people diverged from a common ape-like ancestor a few million years ago. That as time went on, we evolved into humans and shed most of our simian traits. Since Negroes have clearly failed to do so, they must be less human than the rest of us, perhaps about 250,000 years behind. According to Darwin, these "niggers" are just dirty beasts, no more worthy of personhood than your run-of-the-mill chimp. There's absolutely no reason not to enslave or wipe out the lot of them. They should not be voting and for the love of all that is good and decent, there sure as heck should never be one within a grenade's toss of the White House. According to Darwin.
As Christians, we reject such racist nonsense. We believe Negroes can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
2) Homosexuals
Here, it gets even worse. Just what is homosexuality? A filthy, repulsive perversion? A state of rebellion against God and one's own body? A value-neutral lifestyle choice? An inborn, immutable genetic condition? A source of pride? An illness?
One thing it is not, is normal. Radical sodomites will tell you they comprise 10% of the population, but the actual figure is closer to 1 or 2%. In contrast, between one half and one third of all people will develop cancer during their lifetimes, and nearly a quarter will die from it. By any measure, cancer is a more common, natural, normal condition than homosexuality.
Does this mean we should stop treating it? Should we attack oncologists as "bigots" or "carcinophobes" and tell cancer survivors they really do have cancer, will always have it, should accept it and be proud of it, and are delusional nutcases for claiming to be cancer-free? When they are seen in cancer wards meeting with patients to share their own experiences and offer hope, should we take photos of them and put them up on pro-cancer blogs, trumpeting them as evidence that those who purport to be treated will inevitably backslide in cancerdom? Think about that for a minute.
Not only is sodomy more abnormal than cancer—it is far more destructive. Being molested or "recruited" by a cancer patient won't make you sick, too, but that's not true of homosexuality. Most people who develop cancer don't do so until after 50; most homosexuals don't even make it to 50! People with cancer still get married and have children, which, according to Darwinian theory, is the single driving purpose behind all life. Homosexuals don't. If homosexuality has a genetic component (there's no proof of this whatsoever), it is by definition a dysgenic trait. A disorder. A disease. The DSM classed it thus until 1973, and the Pentagon still does.
Wow! That's harsh. That's about as bad as it can get for homos under a Darwinian wordview... right?
Wrong.
One of the criteria by which life is defined is the ability to reproduce. Another disease-spreading parasite, the virus, is exempted from the tree of life because it cannot reproduce on its own, without a host, just as homosexuals cannot do so without a surrogate or turkey baster.
In other words—by the doctrine of evolutionism—HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT EVEN ALIVE!
They are literally lower than pond scum on the Darwinian ladder. Their position is more akin to that of the feces they eat: produced by biological processes and expelled from a living animal, they themselves are merely clumps of semi-organic matter. They can be tortured and killed by the truckload with no moral repercussions.
Such nihilistic hate is anathema to Christians. Homosexuals can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
3) Rape
This one's simple. Liberal say rape bad. Darwin say rape good. The more children you have, the better the chances your DNA will survive to the next generation—and the quickest way to make children is through rape. Ergo, the soundest evolutionary strategy is to rape as many women as possible.
True Christians would never sanction rape except as a tool of war. We believe in the strictest monetary penalties for this chiefly Negroid crime, and in extreme cases even execution. Women are God's baby ovens and should be treated with respect. They are sluts by nature, but they can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.
When we call liberalism a mental disorder, we're not just flinging insults. It involves such profound cognitive dissonance and logical contortions that in order to adopt it, one must by necessity have either a few dozen screws loose or a willingness to loosen them, figuratively speaking.
So take your pick: Darwin or liberalism. You can't go to Hell and eat it, too.
Comment