Why I Choose Life Along the Risen Lord Whose Birth I Honor Every Christmas

NOTE: All events from Code Geass described below are from the TV series, not the movie complimation canon.

 Now, it's no surprise Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, Jesus, the Son of God, every Christmas. It's even in the name, "Christ's Mass", the very day is a celebration devoted to Him.

However, for those who are not Christian, let me give you a fictional example of why sometimes you just need to put faith in someone and follow them despite the fear of death.

The anime Code Geass, which featured an alternative universe where Japan was under the tyrannical heel of Britannian domination. The Japanese in that universe were treated as second-class citizens, their land renamed "Area 11", their resources selfishly hoarded by their oppressors, and they were even branded "Elevens" instead of being allowed to be proud of their own culture.

Sure, they wanted to rebel, but most of their rebel factions were scattered, poorly led, and their Brittanian overlords had Knightmare Frames (KMF), basically robots, that had ensured their conquest and now continued to ensure their domination of Japan.

Enter Lelouch vi Britannia, an exiled prince, and son of Britannia's leader Charles vi Britannia. Due to resenting his father for both exiling him and refusing to clarify why his mom got murdered one day, he had been quietly planning how to overthrow his father's tyranny and make a better world for his sister, who had been exiled alongside him. He wasn't blind to how the Japanese (as Japan had been where he was exiled) were being oppressed either, and after gaining the titular Geass (his being the ability to command anyone to do what he said like a king), he decided he was going to be the liberator the Japanese needed. However, both to conceal his identity (especially from his relatives) and because he knew the Japanese would not be entirely comfortable taking orders from a Britannian, he disguised himself as "Zero", a masked man who proceeded to work miracles for the budding resistance, freeing key figures from being executed, managing to humiliate key officers overseeing Japan's occupation, and helping the ragtag resistance become the Order of the Black Knights, who were now in open rebellion against their oppressors.

Using his wits and Geass, Lelouch had (under his guise as Zero) become the messiah to those who had been oppressed, and he had become enough of a threat despite the limited resources he and his growing army had that Britannia decided enough was enough.

So Lelouch's elder half-sister, Cornelia li Britannia, was sent to put down the Black Knights. Cornelia was put in charge of Area 11 because she was an effective general in her own right and Lelouch knew she'd be a dangerous foe.

By the time it came time to face her, he and his comparatively tiny force were on a mountainside overlooking the region of Narita, and approaching them was Cornelia's elite KMF forces. He had a plan, but his forces started panicking, and one of them, Tamaki, was about ready to flee.

Lelouch (as Zero) then showed why he was a true leader. Making a move as if to draw his pistol to shoot Tamaki, he instead presented it to the man, telling him,

"Even since you decided to follow me, you have two choices. To live with me, or die with me."

Tamaki wavered as Lelouch waited for him to grab the gun and try to save himself, then he and the others decided to trust Lelouch had a plan.

Their faith was rewarded. Sure enough, the Battle of Narita was a victory for the Black Knights, who despite overwhelming odds delivered a humiliating bloody nose to the Britannians.

Now, the lesson of that fictional example should be obvious: Sometimes to you need to put faith in someone, and you need to be willing to live or die by the faith you put in them.

However, in the fictional example, the leader the Black Knights put their faith was a mortal man, a fact both they and he well knew, but he was the only one who held salvation for them all in their hands, and they trusted him to deliver and he did.

Now, Christians serve a real example of a Messiah, one who is even more impressive who also offered humanity a chance to be saved if they follow him.

For those who read the Gospels of the New Testament, Jesus offered his disciples and humanity in general his own promise of delivery from the oppressions of this existence:

 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Now, unlike the fictional example I gave, Jesus never took a single life. If anything, Jesus was a man of peace in his mortal form, yet he too was set upon by enemies who desired his life be taken, and he was put on a cross by the Romans for, ironically, being the King of the Jews (which was actually true), yet instead of being willing to trust him to the point of death, they gave him up to die.

Sure enough, he died on that cross, remained in a tomb for three days, then proceeded to prove why his promise in the name of God was worth everything by raising Himself from the dead, appearing before those who had thought him slain, proving to them all why even death itself was powerless before Him. He then ascended to Heaven, leaving all who took up the cause of Christ (the name Christian comes from this) the promise death is nothing to fear, as those willing to live and die to this world in His name shall not perish, but they shall join him in living eternal in a world free from oppression and pain forever.

Every December 25th, we celebrate when God, via Mary, had his Son be born in a manger in Bethelthem, so that He might deliver us all with the promise of eternal life. Every Christmas is a day when we celebrate when God brought not just the Jews, but all of humanity a reason to feel joy, knowing that no matter what this world does to bring us misery, His Son was born to ensure that ultimately, that misery will never be our eternal chains. Rather, we Christians celebrate the birth of Christ because it was the day the eternal chainbreaker was born to deliver the world, that nothing might stand against Him nor those willing to follow him.

If you are Christian, I rejoice with you this season where we honor that birth, where we give the birthday of God's Son the honor and joy it deserves. If you are not a believer, I urge you to put your faith in God and His Son Jesus, that you might rejoice with us in life eternal.

If you do not wish to, I pray you change your mind before you draw your last breath, because like Christ I too want you to be saved, and I urge you to have faith as I do. This Christmas, all Christians pay homage to the Risen Lord, and it is my solemn prayer that as Christ was born to save us all, that more will be reborn by putting their faith in Christ, and we all have even more rejoice this blessed Season.

Laughing At Stupidity: Satanic Temple Edition

 Because I like sardonically roasting idiocy, I decided to take a gander at the primest stupid I could find, and when I stumbled across this, I knew it was some AAA level idiocy.

Now, just to get any possible bias out of the way, yes, I'm a devout Christian, but no, the mere fact people want to worship Satan does not offend me insofar as such is their choice. If they choose to do so in good faith and with an informed conscience, so be it.

However, what I'm about to mock is done because what they claim as their basic creed is an ouroboros of fart-huffing contradictions that deserve sporking.

https://archive.ph/IQXZ2

https://thesatanictempleoregon.com/about-us/

(My comments in bold, original text in italics)

The Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religion and is an IRS-recognized religion. Our Oregon Chapter strives to be a space of conscious, inclusive behavior in a hostile society. We also strive to model the core values of TST.

Right off the bat, we got some foolish contradiction here. Now, religion can be one without a standard godhead or group of deities, but they call themselves SATANISTS, as in, devotees of SATAN, who is recognized by two other religious faiths as a supernatural personage, namely Christianity and Judaism. Their entire "religion" is built on the premise of a lie right from the start with this in mind.

As for their Oregon chapter goals, you guys want to venerate rebellion (as Satan is considered a rebel against God), hence the name, but rebellion goes directly against the concept of being inclusive. Satanism, by definition, is about being offensive to what is considered morally normal by society because they are anathema to the Satanist.

These guys just need to come clean and admit they were too lazy to make up a clever name for their lame parody of religion and use the Satanist name just to be offensive.

The Satanic Temple has 7 Tenets:

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

You guys stole this from secular humanism. Even most people of religious faith of nigh all denominations can agree to this concept in its most fundamental sense. Actual Satanism revolves around rejecting morality, so this alone has nothing to do with actual Satanism.

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

Yet another high-minded ideal that has sod all to do with the actual veneration of Satan. Admittedly, actual Satanism does spit on the concept of laws they deem in restraint of their own propagation, so to a degree this pays lip service to the concept of Satanism, but actual Satanists do not want "justice", they want the freedom to do what they want with no moral shackles. True justice involves the imposition of some moral framework, even if it's only a secular one, on others.

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

Now, I can't really have an issue with this on the surface. This basically says "you have absolute free will to do what you want to yourself because you are its sole master. However, yet again, this is not an original concept and has been stated in many other ways by other religions, beliefs, ethical frameworks, and even legal arguments. Granted, a moral framework like Christianity or Islam would place restrictions on what is permissible to do to your own body in terms of morality, but the free will to do so anyway remains.

All this vagueness is saying is something any libertarian or free will absolutist could say minus any religious faith. 

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.

Congrats guys, you have just played yourselves. By your own logic, you make no sense. How can you promote "inclusion" when the right to offend creates EXCLUSION. Logic 101, guys.

Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.

More galaxy-brained contradiction. Actual Satanism happily distorts the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths to serve their purposes because the whole point is REBELLION against those faiths. The malarkey you guys are spewing is "trust the science" with a hypocritical statement that science shouldn't be distorted to fit one's beliefs.

If you guys were actual Satanists, distorting facts is kinda what you are supposed to do, rebellion means overturning the laws of reality if that would serve your rebellion's purposes.

People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

Am I dreaming or are they espousing something that most moral frameworks say is a moral net positive? But seriously, Satanism, while it acknowledges Man is faulty, they have the self-centered view you should do what you consider best for you, screw anyone else. By default, actual Satanism encourages amoral sociopathy. This laughable failure at claiming the name of Satanism is espousing a secular version of the Golden Rule, which runs directly counter to actual Satanism.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

What does this mean and why do you think it should be applied to anything that calls itself Satanist? This is incredibly meaningless, sounds all nice and high-minded, and ends on a vaguely anti-intellectual note, which is really off for a group whose prior espoused tenets involve huffing one's own intellectual farts.

In addition, our chapter chooses to take a hard line stance on homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and bigotry of ANY kind. Safety is key.

You guys are just a bunch of soy-chugging atheists doing a bad parody of actual religion if you believe this. Actual Satanism is about sowing division and encouraging rebellion against order. You are claiming to want to support current societal cause celebres meant to ensure social conformity, which runs directly counter to actual Satanism, which would seek to foment chaos and strife.

I'm just going to end this by saying the IRS really needs to take a closer look at you guys, your cause is a logical mess of things that make no sense all done in the name of a deity who, by your own admission, you supposedly do not believe in yet whose name you wear around your necks with pride.

I suggest you guys go back to the drawing board and come up with something better, Heck, even the Pastafarians are less stupid than this, if only because their beliefs were intentionally meant to be silly. You guys are actually serious and even more laughable as a result.

My experience buying some New York Yellow Cheddar from Murray's

 I recently, because I wanted to try better cheese than is usually shipped via the supermarket, ordered some New York Cheddar from an outfit called Murray's.

Now, I only ordered a pound, so I got two 0.5lb hand-sized blocks of cheese, which is fair. Murray's promised the cheese would be well preserved and fresh on arrival, and thanks to good packaging, included ice packs, and having the cheese wrapped securely in cheese paper, they were as good as their word.

Now, here is my review of the cheese:

First off, this is not a very good "sandwich cheese, it's fairly hard and is not going to slice evenly, but I'm the type who can eat my cheese neat, so that's not a problem. It's a good dinner plate cheese, and complements various dinner meats, and goes well with beverages like some red wine if you'd like to enjoy a classy vintage with the cheese.

As for taste, it's hard but not tough to chew. It has a really zesty tang to it, definitely is a lot more distinct in its umami (savoriness) than regular supermarket cheddar, and it's fairly moist on the inside, meaning it will melt in your mouth very well.

Again, this is not a cheese I would buy in small quantities if you wish to eat it on the regular. It's better purchased in bulk and served as part of a dinner platter or eaten neat if you ask me.

Overall, I'm pleased with my experience buying this cheese and would recommend it to anyone who wants something a bit sharper and more distinct in taste than regular supermarket block yellow cheese.

Some political realtalk for both the Left and Right of American politics

 This post is going to be a bit of me, as a political centrist, thumping the noses of both the American Left and Right a bit because some of their political beau ideals are just unrealistic. As the man in the middle, I want to explain why your extreme positions are not going to work and going to suggest some compromise positions. The compromises are not likely to give all of what either side wants, but they are far more realistic and achievable. I will address the topics of abortion for my hypothetical.

This is a very polarized topic. Now, I'm a devout Christian, but as Jesus said, we live under both the laws of God and the laws of Men. Ergo, while my ideal is the former, the only thing that is realistic is as best can be arranged under the latter.

Here are the extreme positions of both sides:

Left: Abortion rights should be as liberal and unrestricted as possible.

Right: Abortion should be criminalized and made illegal for any reason.

Now, let's be real here. Abortion is never going to be completely eradicated, either legally or illegally done, nor is everyone going to support allowing it. Here are more realistic goals for both sides to strive for:

Left: Allow abortion to be as liberally permitted as far as the laws of the states that support it will condone.

Right: Seek to limit the scope of the permissibility of abortion and make sure it is intensely regulated where it exists.

The Left would likely complain my suggestion is too limited and the Right would complain so long as abortion exists it is sanctioning child murder. Well, here's my rebuttal to both sides.

Neither of you are wrong on the essentials, but what I suggest is the best you can realistically hope for under the laws of a secular democratic republic. If you don't like that, well, sorry, best you can realistically hope to achieve.

If The Transgender Lobby Claims They Aren't Deviant Sex Pests, Then They Need To Police Their Own

As the title says, I really want to believe that not every single person who claims to be transgender is a deviant, sex-obsessed pervert using their "trans" status as a shield for being absolute dumpster fires of humanity who want to be insulated from criticism, but more and more evidence keeps mounting every day these people are largely peopled by some of the most fetid scum on the planet.

For example, the transgender crowd claimed that the story that some guy claiming to be a woman creeping on people in a Calfornia spa was a transphobic hoax initially, but when it started to look harder and hard to deny, they kept moving goalposts and even blamed the victims to avoid having to face the ugly truth:

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1433586845179318273

https://archive.ph/rm0r0

https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident/

https://archive.ph/fbSFa

Short version is that everyone the transgender crowd tried to shout down and cancel for calling out a creeper turned out to be right. Sadly, even now there are still deluded people carrying water for the creep in question or trying to disavow them as not part of the trans community despite the creep in question proudly claiming the transgender identity for themselves, fessing up to everything (while, true to form, denying any wrongdoing) alleged, and having a known rap sheet for having pulled these stunts in the past.

I'll just be blunt and brief: Own this GUY, and yes, that's a man. He claims to be transgender and he brings ill repute on you. You have two choices. Either condemn what he did and prove you have enough decency to police your own community and throw out the creeps you claim you aren't, or carry water for this pervert and prove you are everything you deny.

The transgender crowd has claimed for the longest time they deserve to be regarded as normal as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. However, while the LGB have their creeps and deviants, and while they aren't perfect, I've seen far less issue from them owning up to their own bad apples, and far more of them seem to be able to be a part of a civil society without disrupting it. 

By contrast, if social media is any indication, most transgender people (save actual professional trans porn types, they seem to be fully aware what they do is indeed a sex fetish for pay and some of them seem sane enough to be fully aware of it if their SFW Twitter posting is any indication) are either women who can't hack being women and mutilate their breasts and get a fake penis because they think they'll be able to make it like a man better or porn sick men in dresses getting fake breasts and getting their penises turned into gaping wounds (some of the more deluded think these necrotic holes they have to artificially keep open are just like an actual woman's vagina, I kid thee not, some of them are that insane), thinking this gives them full access to the ladies room where they expect actual women to have sex with them, lesbian or not. 

Alternatively, some of these types are just gay men who took sissy porn (this incredibly demented subset of porn where they fetishize being used for sex from what I'm given to understand) way too seriously and basically let their freak flag fly about how they basically want to be the target of tranny chasers (essentially men who are gay who basically want the guys to look like women). We also have a lot of legit mentally unwell types who not only think get a hole drilled where the penis used to somehow give them the same body parts as a real woman or the even more horrifying mentally deranged who want actual female body parts they have NONE of the internal plumbing to support put in them to become the woman they fetishize (and nigh all of the men wanting to be women appear to have knowledge no deeper than pornography about what women are really like), their health and ability to keep breathing be damned.

From where I'm sitting, the deviant creeps seem to outnumber the quiet, law-abiding, socially respectable types by a wide margin. Again, I confess I find it darkly ironic the actual trans porn stars seem to be the most self-aware and readily admit they do what they do because they get paid to be a fetish. Conversely, most of the sickest and most deviant creeps, again if social media is any indication, seem to be the types who swear up and down being trans is more than just sex but their actions betray them as constantly masturbating to their own reflections.

This all said, at the end of the day, I'm a live and let live type. Obey the law, don't disturb the peace, and keep your personal business personal, and whatever you choose to do with your life is your business. Unfortunately, more and more transgender types keep showing up like the creep mentioned in the above links who are just proving the people who claim all transgender types are just mentally ill perverts using being trans as an attempted get out of jail free card for what sick reason they deem fit as those who have a point.

That said, let me end this with a warning to the transgender crowd. Assuming you do, at your core, have a bunch of decent people, well, the creeps and sickos are signal boosting you in all the wrong ways, and if you do not rein them in, you will just continue to give those that despise you more reason to do so.

That said, you have a choice. Either police your own community better and prove that you (like the gays, lesbians, and bisexuals you claim as fellow travelers) can integrate into a civil society like anyone else, or admit your enemies are not wrong to consider you a pernicious and deviant blight on society who want to get away with murder (in some cases literally) and whatever else you believe the trans identity should give you carte blanche for.

Why it's important to remember when Jesus said he came not to destroy but to fulfill the covenant

 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:17-20

Now, most Christians are familiar with this, but this post is written to explain why so many Christians and non-Christians tend to get this wrong.

I shall address each group that tends to get this wrong in turn and explain further.

Non-believers: A very typical canard of non-believers, especially atheists looking for a cheap "gotcha", is to randomly quote one of the Old Testament laws as if they still apply, and whenever Christian try to explain Jesus fulfilled their ceremonial and ritual purpose while any moral law on their founding remains unchanged, that's when they drop one of two punchlines

1. That Christians pick and choose what they want to believe.

2. That we are not consistent.

Both are false and for the same reason. The original covenant was between God and the Israelites, who would become known in New Testament times as the Jews. Non-Israelites/Jews could enter into the covenant but had to become culturally Jewish in order to do so. When Jesus fulfilled the original covenant and began what Christians refer to as the new covenant, he simply did away with the need to become culturally Jewish.

That does not mean a Christian cannot observe the ceremonial and ritual law that applied to the Jews, insofar as possible in modern-day, that is still possible, and as Jesus said above, that's even laudable. However, the ceremonial and ritual aspect was fulfilled by Jesus becoming the perfect sacrifice, therefore, while we are not allowed to pretend the past did not happen (as Jesus put it, not an iota or dot of all that came before will be done away with), we do not have to observe the ceremonial and ritual aspects, while we are not allowed to pretend they never happened nor are we to forget their moral purpose, which is to be a holy people dedicated to the glory of God.

Jews: The Jewish community may find it strange Christians are told the "letter" of the law (the ceremonial and ritual laws that bound the Jews to God) is not strictly required, while the "spirit" (the moral aspect) still does apply. As I mentioned above, no Christian is, unless God specifies otherwise (such as when Peter was told any edible animal could be eaten, regardless of the clean and unclean laws), barred from honoring the ceremonial and ritual laws. However, Christians believe Jesus fulfilled their purpose when he became the perfect, sinless sacrifice on the cross in a way no mortal atonement could ever fulfill. Also, when Jesus died on the cross, the veil that separated the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part of the temple, from the rest of the world, was rent asunder.

When that happened, Jesus became the middleman between ourselves and God, allowing us to redeem ourselves by being a sacrifice utterly bereft of sin, thus being the only perfect thing in God's eyes capable of being seen without flaw for our redemption.

Ergo, no Christian MUST still follow the ceremony and ritual that bound the Jews, so long as we do not forget why it was done and still honor all the moral reasons behind it, as Christians, like the Jews, must set ourselves apart as holy to the Lord as the Jews had to.

Christians: In the modern-day, most Christians have no problem with all I said above, it's almost taken for granted in most denominations. However, that was not always the case.

Early on in the history of the church, some, especially in the early church, wanted to reject that Jesus was ever born in a mortal form, wanting to believe he was wholly divine in form as well as spirit, partially because they did not want to accept the past of the Old Testament, and partially because they did not understand why Jesus had to be born a mortal man with God's own spirit.

As to the first objection, Jesus himself made it clear: We MUST accept that past, no matter how ugly, controversial, or unappealing it may be. It happened. You deny that past, you deny God.

As to the second, this is why Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of the Jewish law. Under the Jewish covenant, when Man sins, one had to sacrifice an animal in the presence of the Lord to atone for sin. However, no mortal sacrifice could ever be done without it being a flawed being, as imperfect as the party who sacrificed it, so no sacrifice could ever be a permanent one to atone for our sins.

However, when Jesus died on the cross, he gave his own mortal flesh up as the sacrifice we could never make ourselves. Jesus was born a mortal, but his spirit remained utterly divine, and no blemish of evil or sin had stained him when he died. Therefore, he was the fulfillment of all the sacrifices made before, and thus that act of sacrifice proved the ultimate one for the rest of eternity for our own sin, provided we accept Jesus as our Lord and that through him is the way to the Father.

In essence, Jesus fulfilled the original covenant, and what follows since is us honoring that fulfillment so long as we remain in honor of the history, intent, and purpose of all that came before it.

American process cheese and why I cannot stand it

 Now, this is gonna be weird, because it's about food, a subject I don't usually discuss, but because I was reading about the history of cheese recently, I figured I might share this, as it's both an opportunity to vent my spleen about something I don't like and a chance to inform the public on something.

First off, my dislike of American processed cheese does not mean I do not recognize its value. It's commonly used in various products like cheeseburgers in restaurants because it is very good for cooking purposes. Nor do I think the invention itself was a bad one, I just don't prefer it.

That said, let me explain a bit about the history of said cheese.

The inventor was James Kraft, the same guy whose last name you might be familiar with who created the Kraft Foods company, and the product Kraft's Macaroni and Cheese. Now, Kraft made process cheese as a way to make a common form of cheese that would be easily made in large batches and easily preserved.

Not a bad concept, here's how it works.

1. Process cheese is a hybrid cheese product, using a combination of cheeses or cheese-related products, like Cheddar and Colby.

2. It's a spinoff of traditional cheese-making, meaning it takes existing cheese made via the original cheese-making process and transforms it into American cheese.

3. The key to American cheese is the adding of an emulsifier or a type of binding agent that prevents the easy separation of the oil and water content of the cheese. This is typically done to prevent their separating before, during, and after the cooking process, which can cause a mess, make the two properties separate in an unappealing fashion (like how milkfat can separate from actual milk), and also prevents the spoilage and contamination that results from the poor adherence of the two properties.

As a result, you get a cheese that cooks well, melts onto food without being overly goopy due to the fat or overly runny due to the water, and can be easily preserved.

Now, here is why I personally am not a fan of it:

1. Due to the fact it uses an emulsifier, it has a high amount of retained sodium and fat content compared to most traditional cheese. For health reasons, it'd be better to avoid eating this in sizable amounts.

2. The emulsifier process serves to bind oil and water together and that's why you may notice American cheese has an oily yet wet look in certain temperature regimes. It tends to taste strange because, typically, oil and water usually separate over time or during temperature changes, and it can taste somewhat "plastic".

3. My final reason for not liking it is, to be blunt, I'm a bit of a cheese snob. Sure, American process cheese can be very thinly sliced for sandwiches and for other purposes, but considering points 1 and 2 and the fact I prefer the taste of traditional cheese due to the fact it is not saturated in preservatives like emulsifiers, so it avoids having the taste of being "artificial".

This all stated, I just speak for myself only. If you like this type of cheese, you do you. However, in case you don't or wondered why it may not appeal to your palate, I hope this article was more informative for your needs.

Jessica Alves, if you are reading this, you will never become a real woman, and what you want to do to get there is going to result in your death, so stop now

 If people want plastic surgery, fine. If you want to get surgery to be a woman (or a man), whatever, the current things in question, so far, are cosmetic surgery only, you can do whatever you want with your body if you like.

However, there is a point where you reach the limit of what is feasible, reasonable, and sane and need to stop.

This is going past that:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9908667/Jessica-Alves-travels-Brazil-transgender-woman-womb-transplant.html

https://archive.ph/WE2tZ

Jessica Alves, born Rodrigo Alves, formerly wanted to be a human Ken Doll. Okay, weird, but whatever, go for it. Then they decided they wanted to be a human Barbie.

Again, weird, but whatever, do what you have to do.

But now they are basically trying to commit suicide because they have drunk the Koolaid "men can be women" so badly they literally believe they can get a natal woman's uterus implanted in them, which will allow them to have children because they "want to be a mum".

This is absolute insanity.

I know, we live in a day and age where some guy with linebacker shoulders and a five o'clock shadow can claim he's a pretty princess, and those that refuse to play along get called bigots for calling what we see as what it really is, but this is crossing over the line of mere illogic, this is stepping into "Josef Mengele" territory.

First off, this has been tried a grand total of ONCE, to a Danish artist named Lili Elbe, and they died three months afterwards due to the body having a massive septic reaction to the body part in question, meaning not only did it reject the uterus as a legit body part, it had such a violent reaction to what it deemed a foreign invader it proved FATAL. Said reaction was severe enough it triggered cardiac arrest because the foreign tissue was deemed such poison the bloodstream was trying to kill it but couldn't because some madman literally implanted it in a way the body could not expel.

It's worth noting sane and reasonable transplants of organs that have a chance to work and be attached in a manner they could function have a high chance of rejection (even to the point of being fatal to the transplantee) even now, simply because the human body does not, under any circumstance, adjust well to anything the body did not naturally produce on its own. Legit transplants can still go horribly wrong even if you try to make things work as well as possible because of this.

Further, you need a lot more than just a uterus to conceive. Natal women have a lot of interdependent plumbing and a body structure that was designed from day one for the conception, carrying to term, and the birth of a child, men don't. Further, if you want a child, adopt one, that does not require you to toss your own life away to accomplish. Further, Alves has made it clear they don't want to give birth to experience the joy actual women have bringing life into the world, they want to give birth to validate their own delusions they can be a real woman. The theoretical baby is just a prop in a sick game of playing pretend that will never come to pass.

This isn't even transphobia, it's basic biological FACT.

With that in mind, whoever the doctor is willing to do this, congratulations on continuing Mengele's sick legacy. To Alves, I say this out of legitimate concern for you as a human being, STOP, THIS IS GOING TO KILL YOU, YOU WILL NEVER BECOME A WOMAN AND THIS WILL END YOUR LIFE IF YOU THINK IT WILL!

There is a reason I despise humoring the people who think biological gender is something they can decide to change any day they feel like it because it leads to things like this madness. Men cannot be women, women cannot be men. The best you can do is live-action role-play, but you will never be able to do so on a 1:1 basis with someone who was legit born as the gender you want to be.

I can only hope and pray that if this ends in the tragedy it's guaranteed to end in, the world finally wakes up and quits catering to the mentally ill who think biological facts can be discarded simply because they feel otherwise.

It cannot, and if Alves goes through with this for real and dies, I will mourn their passing because they are obviously a mentally ill plastic surgery addict and the will have taken the delusion of being a real woman to the point of no return, from which the only destination is death. If they have anyone who actually cares for their well-being, I beg them to stop Alves from jumping over this cliff. If Alves ever reads this, you are mentally ill, not even trying to be cruel, this is literally true, you are wanting to do something there is known medical precedent is not going to work and will kill you, please get help instead of fatally mutilating yourself and going under the knife of some sicko trying to play God.

Some things I want to say to the left and right as a political centrist

 These days, politics is utterly polarized, with both the left and right (and I refer to American politics in particular) rabidly against the views of the other side. I know honorable and reasonable people on both sides of the political fence, but some are just rabid dog-level tolerant of a dissenting opinion or even mere disagreement. I'm a socially conservative classic liberal, and that makes me rather centrist. Admittedly, a bit sympathetic to the conservative side, but I refuse to reject liberals out of hand, not all their ideas suck.

However, the below is directed at the lunatics and extremists on both sides who cannot agree to disagree without being hateful about it.

This said this is just a callout at some things each side does that really need to stop or at least be re-evaluated.

1. To the RIGHT, if I have to hear you screech and moan about immigrants, the LGBT, or whatever else you deem to be screwing up the country, then by all means keep it confined to those who are disturbing public order or otherwise being a visible and notable detriment to society. Any LEGAL immigrant or member of the LGBT who simply wants to live quietly, pay their taxes, make a positive contribution to society, and otherwise act chill and respectful when disagreed with needs to be left alone. I don't care if you hate their skin color, their religious views, or their sexuality. So long as none of those things prevents them from being an orderly, law-abiding citizen, I'd rather live next to those people than any right-winger who is shallow enough to assume the things I mentioned above, on their own, invalidate an otherwise stainless record as a productive citizen.

2. To the LEFT, I know you all think being "woke" means you are so much more progressive than the people I called out in my first point, but I suggest you read this first:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/202108/the-psychology-wokeism

As the article points out, you can easily become just as much of an insufferable, nasty human being when "woke" as when you are not. Just because you hate bigots does not eliminate the fact that you HATE, and while hating bigotry is noble, you should try to reform the bigot, not despise them, else all you've become is bigoted yourself, just with a different target. If you want to set a better example, then do that. Hating Hitler is fine, but demanding the same persecution Hitler did in reverse is just the same crap you call out, you just think you are the one who is morally justified when really both you and Hitler are detestable people.

3. To the RIGHT, I know you are addicted to believing the worst, but protip, the average person and especially the people on the other side aren't inclined to change their minds when you are ranting about apocalyptic consequences if they don't. Even if you are correct, screaming the sky is gonna fall if you are not immediately believed is just as bad as what I called out the left for in point 2. Not everyone can be convinced to see things your way, and even less will bother to care if you are constantly bloviating that unless your conservative views triumph, society is gonna die. Liberals have yet to usher in the end times despite your bellering they would the past 600 or so times they did something you didn't like. Not saying it WON'T happen, but the cry wolf effect means if you ever happen to be right one day on that score, no one will believe you because your previous hyperbole killed any desire to take you seriously.

4. Now back to the LEFT, just to sum this up, fine, I get it, you think conservatives live in the past, refuse to "get with the times", and are fed up with them protesting every single societal change you want to push through. With that in mind, I want you to consider something. The butterfly effect states that if a butterfly flaps its wings in one place, it will eventually lead to a tornado elsewhere. While it's not always going to be true, maybe you might want to apply some serious long-term thinking to your leftist ideals to make sure, long-term, they will not have effects you did not adequately plan for or foresee. Conservatives may not like change, but they do prefer stability, and while change is going to be inevitable, it's not always desirable. If you want to convince a conservative to embrace change, you need to better convince them why it would be foolish to delay it and do so with dispassionate reason. Not all conservatives are a monolith who will never meet you halfway. Sure, on some topics, yes, you could point a loaded gun to their heads and they'll die for certain positions, but that does not mean that all of them are, by default, beyond compromise or convincing. However, that requires you to argue the virtues of why change is preferred to not changing instead of just treating them like Luddites. Sure, Ned Ludd was no fan of the Industrial Revolution, and he was an idiot in the sense he hated the idea of the economy becoming vastly more efficient and able to provide what people wanted easier. At the same time, pollution on a large scale that is of global concern finally became possible on a measurable scale as a result of said Industrial Revolution, so while Ludd's desire to turn back the clock was unrealistic for the reasons he wanted, it did lead to something even you can admit is a bad thing.

This all said, just because conservatives and people on the right, in general, resist change doesn't always mean they are wrong. Maybe not right to resist if for the reasons they don't like it, but still is worth seeing if there is a good reason to resist change even you'd agree with before committing.

Nazism, and why the people who call people Nazis today are ignorant of it's meaning, especially those claiming to be Communist

 Note: If you are from Germany, this post will address some content from the official NSDAP program in a purely academic context only. The author does not endorse Nazism (and in fact has no love for it) and only wishes to cover selected excerpts in English translation under premises that would be legal under the laws of the United States and limited exceptions provided by German law for the purposes of educational and scholarly comment. If you are a German citizen and believe further reading would be unadvisable regardless, please do not read any further.

We live in a day and age where certain political types, like those ANTIFA types that are common on social media, call their enemies "nazis" and "fascist", to the point it's become the new "faggot" (this term was a derogatory slur against gays, but devolved into a common generalized internet insult), and based on what I can tell, their definition of Nazi is basically "whatever they have been told to vilify", instead of knowing what the Nazis actually stood for. Since most of the people of these people are of a hard-left political persuasion, they assume Nazism (typically associated with the right, despite the fact it does have actual socialist ideas as well) is anyone on the right, no matter the degree of their actual affiliation with the right side of politics, especially the American political right.

Now, I've always considered myself a classical liberal (with conservative sympathies), but I've always been the former first, meaning I support the right of the individual over the state insofar as that does not harm the rights of any other individual. In short, I prefer just enough conservatism to safeguard liberalism's more general aspects, which is a generally centrist position. However, such nuance seems lost in this day and age where many seem to prefer black and white labels in a world that is far more shades of gray.

That said, below is the original NSDAP (THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY, aka "Nazi") programme circa 1920 in italics, my comments in bold for any comments and notes. Aside from formatting for readability, the original text is unchanged.

The Programme of the German Workers’ Party is limited as to period. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been content achieved, of setting up fresh ones, merely in order to increase the dis-content of the masses artificially, and so ensure the continued existence of the Party. 1. We demand the union of all Germans to form a Great Germany on the basis of the right of the self -determination enjoyed by nations. 

The opening lede is revealing. One thing the Nazis claim is that unlike their opponents, they will cease to agitate for revolution and change once it has been achieved. Until then, they planned to keep stirring the pot. Ironically, Communists of old and today claim the same.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German People in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. 

This provision is a direct shot at the humiliating circumstances and treaties that Germany was put under after the end of World War I.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the nourishment of our people and for settling our superfluous population.

This position is an anachronism by modern standards, but at the time this was drafted, colonial possessions and the belief in their need to provide living space for the people who owned said colonies was very much a credible idea, particularly to the Germans, who were land poor in regards to arable lands.

4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. ' No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation. 

This is the first time racism rears its ugly head in the Nazi creed. You could easily switch a few words around and turn this into a screed against any political enemy you want by simply replacing "Jew" and "German" with different targets.

5. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to foreign laws. 

This is an outgrown of extreme nativism, or the belief only native-born people deserve rights and everyone else deserves to be second-class citizens at best. Ironically, many leftists of the extreme bent simply invert the logic and want the native-born to be the oppressed minority in the contemporary day.

6. The right of voting on the State’s government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the country, or in the smaller localities, shall, be granted to citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupting custom of Parliament of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or capability. 

This is a really generic veiled way of saying "only people we consider proper Germans should have political power". You could easily change a few words for whatever political position you want.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens of the State. If it not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded from the Reich. 

This is another reference to the fact Germany had little arable land and the NSDAP didn't think anyone who wasn't a native-born German should be taking food to eat they believed only native-born Germans should eat. An anachronistic position in the modern-day to be sure.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who entered Germany subsequent to August 2nd, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

Here is where we find a point easily found in leftist counterpart creeds of the time. Communist countries also were similarly exclusive of anyone from outside their borders and suspicious of non-natives.

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties. 

This is some pretty generic boilerplate, but the veiled implication is that it extends only to those the Nazis believed should be considered actual citizens. Everyone else could get bent. Left and right movements throughout history have expressed similar sentiments about who they considered unworthy of political rights, the Nazis are not unique in this.

10. It must be the first duty of each citizen of the State to work with his mind or with his body. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good. We d e m a n d t h e r e f o r e: 

This is something you could find in a communistic or socialist tract, ironically enough. In this sense, the Nazis and Communists were basically on the same page.

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. 

Again, you could find similar logic in communist tracts. Both Nazis and Communists hated the idea of anyone making money they did not directly earn by their own effort.

Abolition of the Thraldom of interest 

12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore ruthless confiscation of all war gains. 

This is a bit of foreshadowing that if the Nazis ever got in power, this is what they would do. In effect, they basically admitted any war they started would be to enrich the state only.

13. We demand nationalisation of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (Trusts). 

Another item you could find in similar form in Communism and socialism.

14. We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. 

Another item you could find in similar form in Communism and socialism.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age. 

This is actually pretty tame. The United States has Social Security for this purpose.

16. We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalisation of wholesale business premises, and their lease at.a cheap rate to small traders, and that extreme consideration shall be shown to all small purveyors to the State, district authorities and smaller localities. 

This is a key point where Nazism and Communism differ. Communism tried to stamp out the idea of the individual business, Nazis encouraged it, but with the caveat those small guys on the food chain kicked back to the rest of the economy instead of just making a profit without regard for anyone else. This is basically capitalism with socialist sympathies.

17. We demand land-reform suitable to our national requirements, passing of a law for confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes; abolition of interest on land loans, and prevention of all speculation in land*. We demand ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc. must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race. 

Again, an area where Nazis and Communists are not all that different. Both hated the idea of land speculation and profiteering, except the Nazis hated it because they felt it screwed over the common man, while Communism was more about how it was abhorrent deviance from the ethos all property was public property and all people were joint employees of the state. The former at least gave lip service to capitalism, the latter was openly contemptuous of it. 

19. We demand that the Roman Law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a legal system for all Germany. 

This provision really only makes sense in a historical context. The antecedents of the modern Roman state were descended from the Germanic tribes the Romans never managed to conquer, and this is a blatant nationalist and cultural appeal to those of Germanic descent.

20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement, the State must consider a thorough re-construction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Comprehension of the State idea (State sociology) must be the school objective, beginning with the first dawn of intelligence in the pupil. We demand development of the gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expence of the State. 

This is noble in theory but with the veiled implication the school system was to make people obedient to the ideals of the state above all else, with the latter half not a bad thing on its own, but when combined with the other half, is really saying "we want everyone to be educated to be drones of the state, no matter their social standing". Communism is not much different in intent on that score.

21. The State must see to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labour, increasing bodily efficiency by obligatory gymnastics and sports laid down by law, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the bodily development of the young. 

Again, sounds fairly tame, but keeping in mind how the Nazis earlier stated how if you didn't do useful work they had no love for you, this is basically saying "we want to stamp out laziness and make sure everyone is working their butt off for our ideal state". Again, Communism has similar beliefs.

22. We demand abolition of a paid army and formation of a national army. 

This is a bit unusual, but a bit of context. The German army prior to the end of World War I was run by a bunch of blue-blooded types who traced their ancestry back to guys who bought their commissions in the military instead of earning it. This is basically insisting everyone should be a soldier on merit. The Communists again believed in pretty much the same thing.

23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lying and its dissemination in the Press. In order to facilitate creation of a German national Press we demand: (a) that all editors of newspapers and their assistants, employing the German language, must be members of the nation ; (b) that special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear. These are not necessarily printed in the German language ; (c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participation financially in or Influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravention of the law shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German concerned in it. It must be forbidden to publish papers which do not conduce to the national welfare. We demand legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature of a kind likely to disintegrate our life as a nation, and the suppression of institutions which militate against the requirements above-mentioned. 

This is an area of DEFINITE "could apply to anyone with a few word changes". Both Nazis and Communists wanted all sources of information to reflect their views, nothing else could be tolerated, and they wanted to wipe their backsides with the concept of dissenting opinions.

24. We demand liberty for all religions denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within us and without us, and is convinced that our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle : The Common Interest before Self. 

This is a veiled way of saying they wanted religion to be a tool of the Nazi Party in order to ensure loyalty to their ideal, hence their attempt at making Positive Christianity (the Nazi approved variant) the only legal variant of state religion. The Communists suppressed religion as an opiate of the masses, except when it could be used as a tool to make people more compliant with the Communist state. The Soviet Union and modern-day China have done and still do this. 

25. That all the fore-going may be realised we demand the creation of a strong central power of the State. Unquestioned authority of the politically centralised Parliament over the entire Reich and its organisation ; and formation of Chambers for classes and occupations for the purpose of carrying out the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to go straight forward to sacrifice their lives — if necessary - in securing fulfilment of the foregoing Points.

Munich, February 24th, 1920. 

Again, Communism, at least in the form it has generally emerged in any state in known history, has tended toward the same model of centralized power in which a strong ruling body is the only political power that decides the laws and enforces them. Nazism was simply the fascist equivalent.

In essence, as regards the Nazi platform (note all of the above was originally mostly penned before Hitler took them over, he did not change very much at all of their basic platforms), it is indeed racist, nativistic, and very bigoted to anyone not considered under the protection of whom they considered worthy of the right of citizenship. At the same time, a lot of provisions save a few points are highly interchangeable with socialism and communism, so for all the modern people (especially those of communist or socialist sympathy) who call their opponents nazi or fascist, it's worth noting they had a considerable overlap on many key points, so said insult is not as easy a conversational "gotcha" as they would like to believe.

Basically, those who use the term "Nazi" as an insult really should be more cognizant of what it stands for, many of the things the Nazis believed in are not too much different from Communists, which is what many of the people who use the term as a pejorative profess to believe in or sympathize in the modern era as of the time of this writing.

Evil I was not aware humanity could sink to in the name of Isabella Loretta Janke

 I wrote I planned to sit back and just watch the horror of the Chris-chan raped his own mother business, but new information has come to light as to the fact he was goaded into it by someone who frankly, if they indeed are guilty of all that is alleged, should never breathe free air again:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/isabella-loretta-janke-bella-the-chris-chan-incest-troll-and-her-clique-of-extremely-sick-people.96787/

https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Isabella_Loretta_Janke

According to information dug up on all this, here's the high points, check the above links for more:

1. This woman already is provably guilty of psychologically tormenting students at her university and has admitted or been proven to have murdered animals, including dogs and hamsters.

2. She apparently has the morals of utterly unhinged sociopath, cannot tell the truth on anything, and apparently feels no guilt for any of her actions whatsoever.

3. Goaded Christian "Christine" Weston Chandler into committing incestual rape with his own mother, was stealing money from him, and ultimately planned to get Chris to commit suicide, the last to cover her tracks and for her own sick amusement.

4. Had several other accomplices who, like her, sat on information about all these crimes and are accomplices to these depraved acts.

5. While unproven, ANYWHERE that was discussing this that could be DDoSed (including ED and the Kiwi Farms) was hit was a massive and highly sophisticated DDoS attack, one that would have required a massive amount of knowledge and resources, and is still ongoing. Speculation is that Janke was behind it to deny the evidence of her alledged crimes leaking further.

Note: Above sites may still be intermittently down.

6. More and more has come out indicating this woman has a long history of depravity, sociopathy, and otherwise having an utter disregard for the law, morality, and mortal life (both human and animal) in general.

7. This matter is confirmed to be under investigation. All I have stated above is my own knowledge of the situation based on the information of others, please wait for legal confirmation before taking anything as gospel in a legal sense.

On a personal note, since this is just me commenting on Janke's confirmed actions thus far, independent of any legal stuff:

This woman is deranged, depraved, and in my opinion, should never breathe free air again, preferably should rot in the darkest, most remote cell on Earth where she can never harm anyone ever again. She manipulated an incredibly mentally ill and highly gullible man into committing depraved acts for her own sick amusement, has done this to others before, has tortured and murdered animals, and apparently has no concept of morality, decency, or any shred of remorse, only frustration she got caught.

The fires of Hell cannot burn hot enough to torment the soul of someone who can do all this and be willing to keep going simply for their own sick amusement from where I'm sitting.

Why mental illness needs to be taken seriously

 This is going to be a dead-serious post about a topic that is very personal to me: Mental illness is something I believe everyone should take seriously.

First off, I'm a diagnosed autist with Aspergers who suffers from an anxiety disorder. I see a therapist regularly, take medication for it, and dearly want to minimize the limitations it places on my life. I have been deeply depressed, to the point of attempt suicide and thankfully not succeeding. I still wake up at night from nightmares of my more messed up days and I never want to be as much of a mental basket case as I was then.

With this in mind, I just want to say I despise how social media has given people the belief touting your mental disorders as a proud part of your identity is a good thing. I refuse to consider my own problems a good thing and seek every instance of being able to do something constructive about them. I do not want pity for those mental disorders, I refuse to celebrate them, and if I could live a perfectly normal life without them, I'd be grateful. Since that is not on the table, I take them seriously because I do not want to be in some of the darker places I've been.

I've been reduced to shrieking in terror at the littlest things, obsessive over the most minor of things to the point of madness, and have become as emaciated as a scarecrow and lost enough sleep my hold on reality got so bad I could ask myself if I was crazy and be scared to get an answer. Those days were horrifying and I never desire a repeat. I'm a much more mentally healthy person, albeit I still need regular therapy and medication, and I have every intention of following both as much as I do my Christian faith, which I try to remain devout in.

With that in mind, I address the readers here: If you or anyone you consider trustworthy believe you have a mental imbalance, disorder, or need mental help in any way, please keep the following in mind.

1. Nothing good can come from ignoring the problem.

2. There is no shame in getting help. If you refuse to help yourself, there is shame in any harm you cause yourself, because you had the means and power to prevent it, you just refused to do so when you could have done so.

3. Don't self-diagnose. See an actual mental health clinic and professionals. You are not competent to judge your own problems because you will naturally be biased towards yourself, and if your mental state is unbalanced, you will be even more unable to separate facts from your own opinion of yourself.

4. Go into it expecting you will need to change. Therapy is a cooperative process. You will be expected to answer in honesty and good faith about your issues, you will need to take advice and criticism of your habits and lifestyle, and you will need to remember you need to seek help for an issue beyond your own power alone.

5. It is not a one-stop cure-all. I've been in therapy for years on end now, likely will be for the foreseeable future. Mental illness does not heal like a broken arm or leg, it's much more complicated and may not ever entirely heal, but it can be treated and improved on. However, this ultimately will require your best efforts to make sure it has any impact at all on your well-being.

Beyond the above pointers, I just want to add I am NOT a mental health professional, but you should defer to them if any of my above advice conflicts with theirs.

Thoughts on the Steam Deck and whether I plan to get one

 It's been awhile since news of the Steam Deck has been out, and I just wanted to share a few thoughts about it.

First off, Valve claims to learned a few lessons from the SteamOS petering out, and the Steam Deck is apparently an application of learning a few lessons from that experience. The particular high points of what seems to be lessons learned I plan to note and comment on.

1. The system itself is rather expensive, especially if you spring for the $699 version, but given it intends to make most Steam games run on a portable system, the price is lower than I expected, though while I remain optimistic they learned some lessons on the hardware side of things, I plan to reserve judgment on whether the price is justified until release.

2. The Steam deck will be using an ARM processor specialized for gaming and a Linux distro based on Arch as its core, which, given the rolling release bleeding edge support for Wine/Proton Steam relies on for Linux gamers wanting to run Windows games, strikes me as a good idea, especially since I use Arch on one of my laptops for the very same reason.

3. The Deck will use an SSD and the projected max memory means it's not likely going to support every single high-end game on the market, it's mostly aimed at the low to mid-end gamer crowd wanting to play Steam on a portable system, which seems realistic, given the form factor means cramming in hardware equivalent to a tricked out gaming computer with parts that cost a king's ransom appears wildly unrealistic.

4. I am a bit leery of what seems to be a planned obsolescence policy, as apparently the internal memory/SSD cannot be easily removed and upgraded, meaning it could be little more than a very expensive paperweight in a couple years if those die out. It will support external storage devices, similar to how the Switch supports MicroSD cards to extend its storable space, which may be a mitigating factor.

Overall, I'm going to approach this with a cautious optimism approach, and will likely give the release a month or two before seriously committing to a purchase, just in case the first release run goes horribly wrong, but having a very portable SteamOS does interest me nonetheless, especially since it will feature robust Proton support as well as native Linux support.

My take on Christian Weston Chandler allegedly raping his own mother

 This is not going to be an overly long post, but I just want to make a few comments and then I'll just watch to see how this whole nightmare unfolds.

1. First, as to the nature of the crimes alleged (as the proof seems pretty clear but as of this point no warrant has been issued for an arrest yet on any charge at the time of this writing), I am beyond horrified and appalled, as I would hope anyone with any morality would be, and if it's indeed as horrific as I've seen described in all particulars, I hope Chris is duly punished under the law if he is in fact guilty.

2. The above said, a certain group of scum has come out all over social media, most people like Chris who claim to be transgender or are sympathizers of them, who have had the idiotic brass to say we need to respect the pronouns of someone who may have committed a truly heinous crime and that misgendering is just as bad.

Here is my take on that:

Shut. Up.

Chris, by HIS own admission, only adopted the transgender identity to broaden his dating pool, much like many of the screeching deviants whining on social media. He, like them, adopted a mental illness that was never truly diagnosed (except by himself) by any legally competent medical professional, decided he'd solve his problems getting a girlfriend by BECOMING the girlfriend, and as the parasites on social media demand we cater to their illusions, adopted transgenderism as a shield against criticism, identity as a false minority built on a shared delusion held in common by a bunch of people who have a pornographic knowledge of sexuality and have decided to adopt it as reality and try to force everyone else to humor them, and generally try to excuse their every deviance and criminal act as something to be excused simply because they are "trans".

Well, I'm not playing along. Chris is simply a dumber and apparently much more depraved mirror of these people trying to live in a fantasy world where gender is a concept you can change like socks, and here's the ugly truth.

They have to defend him and pretend we should respect him. If they don't, their entire delusion falls apart because he's walking proof even the transgender can be depraved perverts capable of horrific acts, and if he's held to the same standards as anyone else, they will be on the same chopping block, and that's what really terrifies these sociopaths.

They adopted transgenderism as a shield, and Chris is living proof that shield isn't worth beans nor does it make being a deviant acceptable, normal, or allows reality to be distorted to excuse their actions. These people aren't concerned about the fact an elderly woman was likely sexually violated by her own son, all they care about is their own hurt feelings and how his deviance will reflect on them.

And they should be afraid. Like him, they too will never be actual women, and if he can have the transgender card be shredded and spindled as no excuse for his actions, the same can and should apply to them.

I'm a very happy man now that I can buy Super Robot Wars in the United States

 Had you told me as little as two years ago it would be remotely possible to buy Super Robot Wars in the United States without importing, I'd have laughed at you. Sure, SRW since Moon Dwellers got English translations for Asian countries where that is a predominant language, but I never thought they would do more use that as a legal workaround for the nightmares of direct licensing in Western countries.

Even after the SRW devs all but admitted foreign sales of SRW outside of Japan were making bank and SRW T was blatant confirmation they noticed the Western fanbase and added content specifically to please them (G Gundam, Cowboy Bebop, and Magic Knights Rayearth were especially blatant evidence it was made with the West as much as the East in mind, and Captain Harlock is something both sides of the pond have fond memories of), I figured that was the best we Westerners were gonna get and considering the Switch and PS4 only required foreign accounts for DLC, that struck me as pretty fair.

However, SRW 30 can be bought on Steam, worldwide, with no restrictions except in what seems to be Venezeula, likely due to some obscure licensing issue in that country, not sure to be honest, but otherwise, Steam worldwide has no country barriers requiring VPNs and alternate accounts. You still have to import for the Switch/PS4, but it's basically the same game on all three platforms in terms of base content and DLC, so fair enough.

That all said, my fanboy heart is all aflutter because, outside of fan translation and imports, I never thought I'd live to see the day a series I was convinced was bound by nightmarish levels of licensing red tape would be natively available in my own country.

That in mind, I'm going to have a VERY happy October.

I do not hate anyone in the LGBT as people, but here is what I believe about the ideology and beliefs of those in that community

 I'm writing this in light of the fact I've gotten some heat for the fact I've had some rather politically incorrect remarks to say about the LGBT, particularly the T, nonbinary people, and similar topics.

I'm writing this to clear the air for good just where I stand.

As to any human being who is part of this group, no, I do not hate you as a living, breathing member of the human race. You are entitled to dignity, compassion, and respect as human beings, and insofar as you are entitled to legal rights to do anything, I will not stop you and deplore anyone who illegally tries to trammel on those rights. I do of course have certain moral beliefs about homosexuality, transsexuality, pronouns other than male and female, and so on, but that is MY morality, you are entirely free to disagree with me and I respect your disagreement.

However, the following is an itemized list of things I do oppose or have ideological dissent over.

1. Being forced to censor or rewrite history to not hurt feelings.

For example, Caitlyn Jenner was born Bruce Jenner. Bruce Jenner, a man, won a medal in the Olympics. They may go by Caitlyn now, but they never stopped being a man to me, whatever anyone else thinks otherwise. The same goes for Ellen Page, now Elliot Page. They were born female and as far as I'm concerned, will die the woman they were born as, whatever gender they use for themselves or legal name changes to the contrary.

George Orwell warned that any who seeks to destroy all records of the past save the one they prefer was something to fear and abhor, and for reasons of conscience I could not agree more, and legally I refuse to doublethink myself into believing something false, no matter who demands I believe it to be true, and would rather die before doing so.

2. Being demanded to not hurt feelings on topics of moral principle.

As the above demonstrates, there are certain things I'm not going to change my mind on, even if you held a loaded gun to my head. If you were in my place and I asked you to recant a belief you were willing to die for, I'm sure those of you reading this would feel likewise. There is no legal or moral reason for me to betray my own conscience, and if I have to earn the love of the world or be able to sleep at night knowing I did not compromise my own integrity, I choose the latter.

3. Being told if I disagree with any LGBT topic, that makes me a bigot, no matter how I disagree.

This is pure idiocy. I'm a devout Christian, and even in the Christian community, there are tons of disagreements over doctrine. The age where religious disputes were settled with wars is long over, and everyone remotely sane on the topic knows if we have a dispute, and it's not reconcilable, we will have to agree to disagree.

By that token, thinking something about LGBT beliefs is wrong is not an attack on the people who believe it, it's a simple disagreement of views. I'm not going to shed blood over my disagreements, and I hope and pray those on the LGBT side of the fence are sensible enough to be just as civil.

If you want an itemized list of things about LGBT ideology I think are wrong and why, here is an itemized list:

A. I believe homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, transgenderism, and sex/gender designations other than male and female are morally wrong for reasons of religious belief and due to knowledge that humans have immutable biological characteristics that current day science cannot make a 1:1 transformation into anything else for homo sapiens. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it, but it applies to me only, I agree to peaceably disagree with those who can do likewise, but I won't recant that belief.

B. I believe hormones, puberty blockers, surgery, and all other current things used by those wanting to be transgender are nothing more than medical butchery at worst trying to make an apple into an orange. At best, they can let one do an elaborate live-action role-play of a male being a woman or vice versa, but they do not change the party they are applied to into whatever sex/gender identity they intend.

Further, I hold no hate for anyone who undergoes these things, I merely do not believe they do more than above stated. I also find it repugnant that taxpayer money pays for surgeries and treatments of this sort in some areas of my country because I do not believe at all the rhetoric they are "life-saving", rather I believe long-term they are life-destroying, and my disagreement is rooted in concern, not hate.

Puberty blockers are not something I believe children should be encouraged to take except for legitimate medical reasons relevant to dealing with actual issues like the medical condition of precocious puberty, simply wanting to delay development because you cannot decide if you want to be a boy or girl is madness. Despite the rhetoric this is supposed to be "safe", time does not cease if you do this, and I believe anyone trying to force minors to take these things for reasons related to transgenderism is harming children.

I further contend, based on numerous images online of butchered genitals (especially those who had their new pseudo vaginas/penises go disastrously wrong), the high rate of suicides and untreated mental disorders (or those made worse by hormones and surgery), and the overall prevalence of a lack of uniform standard of surgical knowledge for such "sex-change surgeries" that such an industry is an unregulated mess that is harming more people than it is helping and a combination of societal pressure and the greed of people in the medical industry willing to take advantage of their patients is simply allowing the modern horrors of the early days of medicine where doctors treated their patients like lab rats and that the transgender have been deceived into thinking their decisions to alter their bodies will be far less painful, quite reversible, or a panacea for all their ills.

If anything, due to a combination of moral, religious, ethical, and biological reasons, I believe the transgender "industry" is overall doing more harm than good.

C. I despise the pushing of not only tolerance of the LGBT ideology, but being told anything less than lickspittle compliance will result in real-world consequences.

So long as any member of the LGBT does not, in any way, infringe on my rights, I defend to the death for them to do whatever they please with their own bodies and their own lives, insofar as they do not threaten my life or livelihood if I merely disagree with what they believe on personal grounds while doing nothing illegal against them.

What I despise is how disagreeing with the LGBT ideology, no matter how respectful or reasoned, results in them trying to get people fired, gets them attacked on the street, has their name dragged through the mud, and has otherwise resulted in what amounts social suicide.

I disagree with abortion on moral grounds, but I would never countenance harming those who get abortions or those that perform them, either physically or by other means. I may not like what they do, but I deplore the idea of harming those I disagree with because many of the means of doing so are illegal, and the rest are, at the very least, immoral and unethical.

So my hatred, if I have any, is at the ideology that those who disagree with the LGBT rhetoric deserve to be deprived of their jobs, their legal rights, and in some horrific cases, their lives.

EVERYONE, even people I disagree with, are entitled to life, liberty, and happiness, or at least they should be, and someone disagreeing with them should not result in harm coming to any of those three guarantees, not only in the United States but ideally through the world.

D. I despise how the public media, especially social media, has encouraged the worst aspects of the LGBT.

I do not doubt the LGBT, as a collective, have some bright, honorable, and reasonable people in their ranks. I do not paint all of them beyond reason, ethics, morals, or sanity, despite any personal disagreements with their ideology.

I'm a Christian, and I will freely admit the Christian community has both its honorable members and absolute scum bringing disgrace to the name, which means to act like Christ.

Any member of the LGBT who respects the law, respects the right of others to peaceably disagree, is an asset to their communities and not a detriment (for reasons within their control, they cannot be faulted for what is outside of it), and who otherwise seeks to live a peaceful, untroubled life has my absolute respect because, by their example, they show their community can live alongside those who feel as I do and if we cannot get along, we can at least cause each other no trouble.

What concerns me, however, are the members of the LGBT who can be found especially all over social media who bring them into disrepute, whose beliefs and actions include:

Da. Advocacy of sharing frank sexual materials to minors and going on to graphic levels about frank sexual matters better shared in the privacy of one's own home. I'm no prude, sex is part of the human condition, but LGBT pride should not include pride in waving their genitals in public parades in violation of laws of public decency. It should not encourage men who claim to be women to demand access to the bathrooms and private areas of women and vice versa which is both violations of their health and privacy. It should not encourage open advocacy of depraved sex fetishes that constitute health and safety hazards like those involving urine, feces, sex with the intent of getting venereal diseases and spreading them to others, with or without their consent. And finally, it should not involve forcing other people to like or accept these things as anything other than abnormal.

I contend all the above bring the LGBT into disrepute and if they wish to show they can practice their beliefs without disturbing society, breaking the law, or violating the rights of others, these things should not be legally tolerated except in circumstances where they do not expose minors to such materials and they are kept strictly between lawfully consenting adults.

Db. If the LGBT community can be offended and outraged over their rights and legal expression being curtailed by politics, they should not try to visit the same on others in return.

For example, trying to force a Christian baker to bake something that is anathema to the Christian belief and trying to ruin their livelihood via the courts and via the passage of law biased towards their infringement on the conscience of others. If it is wrong for those of certain political beliefs to declare LGBT beliefs illegal and try to ban their expression, then the LGBT should not try to enforce the same persecution in reverse.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Chattel slavery was a wrong visited on the black race that was thankfully ended as a measure of racial prejudice as an institution, and if it was wrong for blacks to be forced into involuntary servitude for the color of their skin, then it is wrong for the LGBT-aligned to want to reduce those who disagree with them to second-class citizens forced to bend the knee to LGBT beliefs and ideology against their will and conscience.

Dc. Social media has become a tyrannical loudspeaker for the more unreasonable adherents to the above-stated negatives and has amplified their worst aspects.

Places like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook, and many other social fora have become absolute, one-sided cesspits of the most intolerable of the excesses mentioned above, where all the degenerate that disturbs public order and breaks the law is celebrated and put on a pedestal. While I hold no hate of the LGBT adherents as people, I confess I find some of the most repulsive and depraved negatives (apparent and admitted) of what I can discern of their ideology to be like fetid mold on the bathroom tile of tweets and subreddits and Facebook walls. I will of course take no illegal action against the above, but I deplore how these places have become vectors for ruining the lives of their opponents via what amounts to public stonings via social media where they, often in defiance of rules against it (which is tolerated by fellow travelers in moderation positions on these communities), they organize doxing and harassment with the intent to destroy those who disagree, no matter to what degree.

I have seen more degenerate sexual imagery on Twitter (which allows people as young as 13 to see things meant for adults) by many of the more dishonorable members of this community than I care to talk about. Despite the fact a lot of this is easily accessible to minors, what I expect to find on porn sites is instead blared all over Twitter. In fairness, the heterosexual is not without blame, and those who are who join in also have registered my disgust. 

What I would desire, insofar as is legal, is the curtailment of minors to these materials as is possible to enforce by law, harsher punishment for using social media to incite or encourage persecution or abuse of those who exercise their lawful rights to the press, speech, religion, and expression, and sterner regulations so social media companies cannot allow such actions to take place without accountability if it results in real-world harm to others.

E. Finally, and I want to close this by bringing this full circle.

For my part, I wanted to have no part in the drama, the politics, and the debate on LGBT topics, until those matters became forced into my life and those I care about. I have nieces I do not want to be exposed to this community until they are of the age to lawfully consent to its more mature material. I have friends and family like myself who do not want to be forced to kiss the ring of this ideology to hold a job or otherwise pursue a productive life as a member of a civil society where the court of public opinion can ruin someone in defiance of the court of law. I do not want to be forced to love any aspect of the LGBT creed or belief any more than I'm sure they would want to be forced to go along with my own beliefs.

And that's that. If you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Nonbinary, or whatever else that is included in that that is not inherently a crime to practice, then I believe you as people deserve my compassion and respect as human beings. As for your beliefs, I do not agree with them, but I will defend your lawful expression of them, all I ask is you return the favor. As for any beliefs I do hold, I will not recant or apologize for them insofar as their mere expression does not constitute a legal crime by its mere existence, and all I ask is the same of your beliefs.

To be even briefer: To all who adhere to LGBT belief, I'm not a bigot, I simply choose to disagree, and you are free to do likewise. I just hope we can do so peacefully and lawfully on both sides.

The LGBT mafia is stupidly driving all the people who are actually tolerant away, here's why

 Of late, the LGBT crew (and I forget all the other letters they usually tack on to it), and even then mostly the T especially, have gotten incredibly vocal about wiping out all opposition to their agenda, even in the United States, where there are ironclad legal barriers in place to give everyone the legal and moral right to peaceably disagree with them. As an American citizen, I'm stunned how some of these lunatics, as recent as my last few blog posts, in fact, have had the derangement to call me, of all people a bigot.

Yes, you heard that right, a bigot.

I consider that both hilarious and mind bendingly stupid, when, and I will quote something I posted in a Discord discussion I said about myself, this:

The most messed up thing is I've long been one of the most tolerant people on the planet, even of things I morally despise so long as it's not criminal. Have a sex fetish? Cool, just be lawfully consenting adults and keep it discreet. Gay marriage? Fine, do what you gotta do, it does not infringe on my rights to let it happen by it's mere existence. Wanna "sex-change"? Well, I think it's medically unethical mutilation of the body with hormones and surgery to do a bad LARP of something humans were never designed to do (change gender down to the genetic level), but it's your body, and if you can lawfully consent, you can take the risk. Apparently, that isn't enough to be tolerant anymore, I have to shut up about any personal misgivings I have on the topic, and I'd rather die than give up a right I'm guaranteed by the laws of both God and Man.

Despite being willing to accept all the above so long as my own rights were respected too, now, I'm being asked to go a bridge too far and silence myself when my right to express myself in a lawful manner on things I disagree with for reasons of conscience, moral principle, and religious belief is protected by the laws of the United States. If that means I wish to say I don't believe in any pronouns other than male or female in regards to gender or I think being transgender is a contradiction (since humans have no natural gender-changing functions and hormones and surgery do not provide this ability either), then no, I will not be silent about it, so long as I have a legal right to say it. And if that legal right was taken away, I still would not be silent until I was killed for refusal to recant.

This said, let me address everyone whose feelings are hurt: I won't try to stop anyone from the legal exercise of things I despise or cannot condone for moral or other reasons, and I will take no illegal actions to stop it, but I reserve, and as a US citizen are guaranteed, the legal right to not go along with something, so long as my dissent is civil and peaceful.

If you want to call me a bigot for that, then congratulations, you are the real bigots if civil dissent is bigotry. What you want is mindless obedience and smiles painted on my soul, not the bare minimum legal tolerance I'm obligated to provide you, and you will get exactly what I'm obligated to provide and nothing more. I stubbornly and defiantly refuse to betray my own conscience, no matter whom that might upset, and if you do not like that, then I could care less because I legally do not have to care. And even if I did, I would still refuse to give up my own morals to please others for things I believed went against my conscience. For those who are reading this who think the above-expressed views are offensive, you'd have the same stubborn contempt I would if I demanded you be silent about your objections to what you like, just like I would, and you'd cry your right to free expression was being violated in my place.

That said, do whatever you please, but I reserve the right to hold my own opinions, positive or negative, at my discretion, and even if I did not live in a country where such was a guaranteed legal right, I'd still rather die than lie to myself to please anyone.

Before I close this out, this was inspired by all the raging butthurt I've gotten from some rather galaxy-brained people sending me nasty comments on my blog. It's moderated, and nothing goes up unless I approve, and if you just want to not give my views a fair hearing and be civil in your dissent, then I reserve the right to make sure your comments never go public. If you want to be civil and comment with the same level of legal tolerance I'd be obligated to show in a face-to-face meeting in real life, then I will happily make your comments public and respond appropriately.