October 27, 2007

Where Was Jesus During Prime Time In The 60's?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Jesus being mentioned on any of my favourite television shows in the 1960's and even the early 70's. Sure, there were Christmas shows, but was Jesus Christ ever mentioned as the saviour or even as a person who died at the cross?
I vaguely remember that a Christmas carol or two, on one or two popular shows, may have been sung....but maybe it was in a Christmas movie, I just can't remember.
I don't even think that Jesus was mentioned in 50's sitcoms either.
Now I do know that Jews wrote, directed, and produced many of the most popular prime time shows, but lets face it, if Jesus would sell, Jesus would have been written in the scripts. And Jews didn't write, direct, and produce everything. But Jews still had to be careful, because it wasn't until 1964 that the Catholics finally stopped being real open about the Jews killing Jesus thingy.
I know Sunday mornings were full of preachers and gospel shows, but other than that, where was Jesus?
Lets start with the 50's (before I was born):
The Honeymooners (Ralph was a lodge member, they didn't want too many cults in the show)
Ozzie and Harriet (The ultimate 50's Fundy family, where was Jesus?)
The Show of Shows (Ok way too many Jews involved for Jesus to be mentioned)
Jack Benny and The Milton Berle Show (see Show of Shows)
I Love Lucy (Jesus had problems with a mixed marriage in the 50's)
Perry Mason (Raymond Burr didn't need Jesus, he could walk in this show)
Father Knows Best (I don't recall ever watching this show)
The Alfred Hitchcock Hour (Hitchcock thought he was Jesus)
Looney Tune Cartoons (Mel Blanc would probably have not mentioned Jesus)
Adventures of Superman (I guess they didn't want to mention the competition)
Leave It To Beaver (surely the Beave and Wally went to church, I just don't remember)

How about the 60's?
The Twilight Zone (All those supernatural happenings, but no Jesus)
Bewitched (Too much blasphemy implications, Jesus and witches don't mix well)
Gilligan's Island (Sherwood Schwartz never had any of the castaways pray to Mr.Christ)
Batman (Batman didn't need Jesus, and the crooks couldn't be associated with Jesus)
The Flintstones (I remember a Christmas show, but even the most fundamental Christians don't believe that Jesus and cavemen coexisted, and that cavemen came first)
Gunsmoke/Bonanza (Possible, I didn't watch Westerns much, but I don't recall JC being uttered)
Lassie (Dogs don't go to Christian heaven)
Mission Impossible (they could have done a show on the resurrection but didn't)
Get Smart (Too much death, and Don Adams was a Jew)
Gomer Pyle (Jesus hates homosexuals)
Dick Van Dyke Show (Buddy had a Bar Mitzvah, but that doesn't count)
I Dream of Jeannie (Too much supernatural stuff and was Jeannie a Christian or a Muslim? Too many questions)
Addams Family (Maybe Jesus was Thing, nah probably not, no nail holes on the hand)
The Munsters (Way too much controversy: God didn't piece together man, he wouldn't condone of Herman, or Grandpa with his blood drinking fetish)
The Monkees (Didn't Jesus love the hippy generation? No reciprocation?)
Dragnet (Jesus stayed away from crime shows, and still does)
Ironside (Jesus would have easily made Raymond Burr walk if he was ever mentioned in the show)
Hogan's Hero's (Everyone knows the Nazis were atheists...even if it isn't true at all)
Star Trek (The show totally didn't mention the Rapture, so how could they dare mention Jesus?)

Now, this post has got me curious. When was Jesus Christ first mentioned on a Prime Time show? The 70's? The Brady Bunch maybe? The Partridge Family? Don't tell me it was Welcome Back Kotter or The Gong Show? I'm sure he was mentioned on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, I think one of the characters was a die hard believer...I think.

UPDATE: It seems Dragnet did an episode in 1953 where Jesus was mentioned as loved by a boy. Here is a synopsis:

"The Big Little Jesus"

Original Air Date: December 22, 1953 Approx Time: 25 min.

Father Rojas contacts the LAPD to report the theft of a long-displayed statue In the likeness of the baby Jesus from a nativity scene that is about to go on display at his church-Insisting that parishioners would not understand If a different representation were to be used. Friday and his partner scurry around chasing down clues, but, in the end, they go to Father Rojas to tell the priest they failed to recover the statue. As they address Father Rojas, a small boy enters the church and comes up the aisle pulling a wagon. In it is the purloined statue. Father Rojas speaks to the youth in Spanish, then tells the officers that the boy had prayed for a red wagon. “He promised that if he got the red wagon,” the priest relates, “that the child Jesus would have the first ride In It.”

October 23, 2007

Sweden Is First To Move Into The 22nd Century: Banning Religious Doctrine In Schools

This is the way it should be all over the world. No more teaching of crapola in public or even faith based schools. That is right, Sweden is proposing that it will be illegal to teach children in Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, etc. schools that their religious stories are objectively true, even in religious classes.
Prayer is remain legal, prior to when teachers teach. I guess no country is perfect:)

This is being done for two reasons. One, it is an attempt to stop Fundamentalism, especially Muslim Fundamentalism from being taught in schools.

The other reason is the obvious one; to make sure kids are taught facts and not myths disguised as facts:

"A student shouldn't be able to pass a natural science test by answering that God created the world. We don't think that's OK," a spokesman said.

Most independent schools in Sweden are privately owned but publicly funded by grants.

This is interesting:

The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources.

One other point to make is that Sweden might have the highest percentage of atheists, than any other country, so this new law may be a very easy sell.

I wonder if they are going to change their homeschooling laws too. In Sweden around 100 children are homeschooled each year. There are various reasons why that number is low, but it would defeat the issue if those numbers start to rise because of the new laws.

I'm just glad the world is heading in the right direction....at least the West is.
John Tory got humiliated in the recent Ontario election for trying to increase faith based education, and now Sweden is banning fairy tales in school. Life is good.

There are still some who celebrate Christmas in Sweden, praise science:

October 21, 2007

Fisking White Supremacist John De Nugent (Da Nudnick)

Note: This was also published by me on Judeophobe Watch.
The No More Wars For Israel Conference was advertised on every Joooo paranoid site that I know. It was to take place October 12th-14th. Apparently, it did but they were forced to change venues because normal people don't tend to like to associate themselves with Joooo hating paranoid imbeciles. It seems Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter who did get open invitations, had better things to do. LMAO.

Lets see, you advertise an event for months, and you get 10 people brave enough to show how retarded they are to march. Sounds like a huge success to me:) A success is the propaganda the white supremacists are trying to peddle on the internet. Aren't they precious. They are so infantile, they are almost precious, in a demonic sort of sense.

I know Paranoid Putrid Grime (Patrick Grimm) showed up there, but I have yet to verify the picture below is him. But I picture him as looking this way. Whoever it is, the guy looks like a loner, void of life and humor, who chain smokes Camel cigarettes while blaming Joooos for his sorry pathetic lot in life.

Check out these imbeciles below. A couple of these guys must have thought they were going to a Colonel Sanders look-a-like contest.

Now for the real funny part. It seems that whatever was said on Sunday, really bothered Mark Glenn (who is half Lebanese and half whitey). It looks to me like the Vanguard Group of white supremacists may have forgot they were supposed to be in bed with the Muslims during this conference. I decided to copy the letter that PC Apostate put on his website from chief Vanguard Joooo paranoid imbecile, John de Nudnick (Nugent) and of course, add my comments:)

Dear Mark,

This email is in response to your email (below) blasting me, and another by Wendy Campbell blasting white nationists as "unsavory characters" -- after we made this conference happen.
It doesn't matter that you made it happen. You are unsavory characters. Live with it. I can't believe I agree with Mark Glenn on something:)

The "No More Wars for Israel" conference, with our white nationist help, survived being pitched out of our hotel. Both days on the program were held, and with my help it went out on Internet radio VNN and soon four key speeches from the conference will go out on YouTube. Some will say that the speeches I, Margaret Huffsticker and Stan Hess gave were very important events. One can judge this when the YouTube videos go up tomorrow.
Some may say that, but most will say you are a Joooo paranoid imbecile.

First, whatever your ironic remarks, my legal name is John de Nugent. I legally changed it from John Nugent in 2004. De Nugent was the original family name for centuries. (Google “Gilbert de Nugent.”)
Nah, your real name from now on is John de Nudnick.

Secondly, this conference was never yours with which to do exactly as you pleased. The conference was Joe Fields’ from the beginning a year ago, and only after he was defamed and slandered by some who apparently hoped to prevent it from taking place, did you “come on board ship” as a second person organizing the conference. It has always been a duumvirate, a rule of two men. But I think you forgot that. If you object to us white nationists, for fear of the Jews and what they would say, you should have withdrawn from the conference as you threatened to do in an email. Instead, you stayed and then complained throughout.
Nah, Marky didn't care about what Joooos would say. He never does. He cares what the majority of Americans say about people who are represented by message boards (on VNN) full of people calling blacks "nigger" every chance they get.

Thirdly, Willis Carto, who runs your newspaper columns,and Joe Fields are white nationists just as I am. And without us white nationists, there would have been no conference. Without our money, our mailing lists, our activists and our speakers the conference would have collapsed.
Without you de Nudnick, they might have only had two people marching instead of 10. Pat yourself on the back.

And without me, there would have been no Sunday session location at all, and no chairs or food either for the crowd at the nine-hour-long (and wonderful) Sunday session, after Jew pressure drove us into that industrial park and its ballroom, with no restaurants nearby. I organized the massive “17-pizza expedition,” hustling around personally, taking pizza orders and collecting funds -- and please assure Hesham Tillawi there was no Pepperoni Pizza Plot to bring back pork-containing pepperoni!
This is fricken hilarious stuff. You can't make this stuff up.

Fourthly, without us white nationists, you would have gotten no publicity at all. The major media ignored the conference -- as I knew they would, based on 30 years of my own anti-Zionist experience, which you do not have.
Hahahaha. I'm cracking up now.

Now I note that your friend Wendy Campbell, who spoke at the conference and attended along with her very Jewish-named, Jewish-acting and Jewish-looking friend Mark Green, has now put out her own "for fear of the Jews" reference to us white nationists at the conference as "unsavory characters."
Yeah, I'm sure Mark Green is a Joooo. There is a Joooo under your bed too:)

In fact, she did so several times, and when drunk at the hospitality suite she also reiterated to one and all how much she despises us white nationists.
Why should you be shocked that people hate you? Buy a clue. Sounds like you are just pissed because she was drunk and you couldn't get her tongue down your throat.

My question is this: Are white nationists unsavory for you, too? I note that you received a check for $3,000 from Willis Carto for the conference. I assume his money was not unsavory.
Maybe Marky is using you. Maybe Marky is a Joooo too. HAHAHAHAHA

I further note that you, with Lebanese ancestry, support the Lebanese and other Arabic peoples. Do we have your permission to likewise support our European and European-American peoples? Or is only OUR nationism as whites "unsavory," but yours is okay?
You don't support Marky Glenn being a mud. C'mon, be honest. His parents got together because of the Joooos according to you. The Joooos made it possible for whitey to marry non whites. Marky is on to you. You don't like him as much as he doesn't like you.

Fifthly, I proposed to you on October 8th in response to your complaints (see my email below!) that we white nationists -- who were the bulk of the attendees and supporters -- hold a separate conference on Sunday -- and that the "No More Wars for Israel" conference distinctly end on Saturday night.
Yeah, but that wasn't the original deal. You welshed. Maybe you are a Joooo too.

You rejected my common-sense proposal. Why? In response to your attack, my proposal is to be found below.
Again, Marky knew that certain blacks and Arabs who support his cause were very aware of who you are and what you represent.

Even though you did not even answer my email, I still tailored my speech, and Stan Hess his, to your need for ethnic inclusivity. Once again, we whites have bent over backward to accommodate others.
It must be hard for you to piggyback the Muslims who hate Jews. Bending over backwards sounds very painful.

----------------our opening remarks on YouTube videos

Here is the footage (still raw and unedited) of the first third of my and Margaret Huffstickler's speeches. (The full versions should be up tomorrow of all four final speeches -- mine, Margaret's, Stan Hess' and Joe Fields' -- on YouTube.)

John de Nugent's speech video – raw footage of first third:
NOT “white supremacist” in tone but inclusive, just as I pledged to you, Mark.
de Nudnick, I have nothing against gays, but you have to be gay. It is so apparent.
I love the juvenile analogy: People are born insane, here is an insane brain, this is proof that all Joooos are born insane. What a riot. Oh, and have you ever been arrested at a truck stop washroom in your life, you must have.

Margaret Huffstickler's speech video – raw footage of first third;
NOT “white supremacist” in tone but inclusive, as I promised you, Mark Glenn.

She is just as vile looking on the outside as she is on the inside. Did she really say the German people of World War 2 are just like the Palestinians....classic. Haha. Oh, and of course, Jews were never even in Europe so how could they have died in the Holocaust. And she expects anyone other than a Joooo paranoid imbecile to take her serious.

The conference succeeded despite Jewish machinations -- to a huge extent because of the hard work of white nationists.

Joe Fields, who originated the conference, and who did an enormous amount of work for it, would not let you remove white nationists from the speakers list. Margaret Huffstickler, I and Stan Hess were among the first ones to commit to Joe's conference, long before you were in the picture, and that was back when he was still being actively defamed and character-assassinated. We stand by our friends, Mark.
It isn't character assassination, it is the truth. Mark was just being nice.

I, Margaret Huffstickler and Stan Hess kept our word that I gave to you, and gave speeches at the conference -- which you had already walked out of -- that were multiracial in their appeal and were extremely well-received. I praised Muslim and Arabic peoples in the very beginning of my remarks, and saluted attendees of African-American heritage. I bent over backward to accommodate your demands.
There you go with the bending over backwards stuff. Why is that bending? Either you sincerely mean it or you don't. By bending over backwards, you really mean "being deceitful."

But here is the greater context:

First, Israel -- the miscreant targeted by this conference -- is all Jews in the world. The “State of Israel” is just one part of Israel, one political entity and segment, because Israel is the Jewish people everywhere. The most sacred Jewish prayer on the High Holy Days is “Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy god is one God.” All Jews are thus Israel, all Jews are self-proclaimed Israelites, and my speech addressed that entire Israel.
I don't think Marky disagrees with you there. Are atheist Jews who don't believe in God part of all of Israel too? It is a bit confusing to me.

Secondly, we white nationists have all marched for the Palestinians, written articles for the oppressed Arabs and I myself have even been a member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and sent them money. As a white man, I have supported your people.
But is there any reciprocity? Any Arab support for us whites? We whites are truly the Palestinians of North America and Europe. We are crushed in our own homelands, forbidden to speak, ethnically cleansed from the streets of our cities, suburbs, towns and villages everywhere, dying out through a Jew-promoted depression of our birth rate, through abortion, homosexuality, white guilt and the general fear whites have that their kids will have no future as whites -- or can be happy, or be raised to be well-behaved in a Jewish cultural cesspool. Your Arabic peoples are at least not dying out; only we whites are.
Dude, didn't the white man ethnically clean the Native Indians and take their land.
And isn't Marky Glenn helping kill off your white people. He is a mud, and has lots of mud kiddies now, and many will marry whites. Hahaha. Oh yeah, I forgot that the Joooos made it possible for Marky Glenn's parents to marry. (I'm cracking up again)

All this is the work of the same Jew who oppresses and commits genocide on your people. Yet for fear of the Jews you condemn me, your staunch ally who helped save this conference to which your name was attached.
Marky doesn't fear Joooos. Try another excuse.

The Dalai Lama just was honored at the White House and said: "If things do not change, we Tibetans will become an insignificant minority in our own country." That is what we whites face in every single white country -- that the Jews are slowly killing us off psychologically -- and soon, as in South Africa and as the Bolsheviks did in Russia to the tune of 40 million, they will begin killing us off physically as individuals and then en masse, by the millions. We are facing genocide. We are the Palestinians of our own homelands. Do you, Mark, care about US -- as we care about YOU?
Sounds like you need a KleenX to wipe tears from your eyes. Oh, and you care about the Palestinians only because they have the same enemy as you. You don't give a rats ass about them. Who are you kidding. Oh, and I hope you read this, and I kill you off a little more "psychologically," you pathetic imbecile.

Or do we whites exist only as paying fodder and attendee fodder for your apparent dream of an Arab-agenda conference – which the Jewsmedia, predictably, did not cover in any case?
Nobody covered it. Not even Al Jazeera.

As a very fine young white nationist, Evan Thomas, who attended the AFP/TBR conference last year, said to me: “I would like to see some reciprocity from the Arabic side for our support of the Arabs.”
Many of the Muslims that you love want to have a mosque on every street corner in the USA, doncha know?

Now, as you know, the most famous white nationist in the world is currently David Duke, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran both invited him to Teheran for the Holocaust revisionist conference, and then publicly shook hands with him, and met also privately with him for several hours.

Duke's remarks have been carried by the Iranian news media, and also by Syrian radio and TV. Are you a wiser figure than President Ahmadinejad of Iran or President Assad of Syria?
Yeah, you two with the people who gobbled up the 17 pizzas are as big as Iran and Syria put together....hee hee hee.

For fear of the Jews, you tell me that we white nationists may not speak -- just support "my" conference to the hilt. And there you are forgetting again: without Joe and Willis and others such as I and Stan Hess, there would have been no conference, and without me there would have been no second day at all.
You da man. It doesn't mean you aren't a puke, just because you think you were responsible for the conference to keep going.

Don’t you see that you are unconsciously echoing the Jews themselves? You say that white nationists shall have no voice -- just pay up, shut up, and support other races in their liberation struggle. As usual.
Yep. Roses are red, violets are bluish, this whole fricken world, has already turned Jooooish.

That mentality ended at this conference. And the best speeches, by general consent, were by us white nationists and the black nationists, especially by “Sister Mickie” (Joadiah Hunter). Of course, you walked out and missed them all.
Did you fantasize bout doin da sista?, or maybe da sista's bro.

The whole Sunday session -- half the conference -- was saved, frankly, by me getting that ballroom with the help of another white nationist from VNN, Mark Knop. (By the way, VNN is not a group but “Vanguard News Network.” They had every legitimate right to cover the conference -- as a news and discussion organization.)
Again, it doesn't matter, you are still a puke, and even Mark (the puke) Glenn knows it.

I spent about $40 on cell phone calls to various hotels and meeting places to save the conference, and $100 myself on chairs and then on their removal afterward. I and Margaret have lost about $1,500, sacrificed for the good of this conference -- because Joe Fields and Mike Piper both asked, just days before the conference, that we do come out and speak.
You lost money? Where? Did you hit the race tracks, or you don't like race tracks because they have the word "race" in it?

The Jews were going to try to shut down and to blast the conference no matter who the speakers were, because:
--one, you wrote a book No Beauty in the Beast, ripping the Jews to shreds (and a great book it is!);
Humankind tried to shut down the conference. Not just the Joooos (still I see no evidence it was the Joooos) Curtis Shmaynard of Chris Wombat commented in their Joooo paranoid way that cops were Zionists in disguise. Yeah, I really read that on the PC Apostate web site. Unbelievable!

--two, you write for Willis Carto publications such as American Free Press AND The Barnes Review, and attended Willis' AFP/Barnes Review conference last year (where you also bravely spoke up against Neturei Karta hypocrisy about the Talmud);
Marky hates all Joooos just like you, he just wants a Mosque on every street corner on this planet, and you and I don't.

--and three, Joe Fields was involved from the get-go.

This conference had "white nationist" and "anti-Jewish" written all over it from the beginning.
It was supposed to be anti-Jooooish. What word of No More Wars For Israel don't you understand?

Don't blame us for what the Jews do TO us. And I am surprised that you, a Christian, Mark, would call me (below) an ”SOB.” We white people built this country, and without us whites in America and Russia rising again your Arab cause will never succeed. The Arabs outnumber the Israelis over 40 to 1 and still Israel exists. You will also see how the coming Chinese superpower allies itself more and more openly with the Jews.
Ah, this makes me so sad:) I'm not sure Mark is a Christian though. I think he might be a Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Lots of internet circus freaks do this. They use anglo names and pretend to be whitey.

The only powerful group that can and will stop the Jews is the people of European heritage, with their one billion population, their immense wealth, their creative genius and their matchless courage, all proved over the course of thousands of years of great achievements, and shown most of all by Germany.
Most white people like Joooos, but most importantly, they laugh at paranoid freaks like you.

Mark, we whites do not exist any more as objects for others to use, whether to be used by allies or by enemies; that is over.
Oh c'mon now. It is OK for you to use the Muslims, but they can't use you?

We have our own proud identity and we will prevail. Again, you should have accepted my polite, respectful and well thought-out proposal to end the "merely anti-Zionist" conference on Saturday evening -- and make a separate conference on Sunday with a different name, different signs at the podium, a different moderator and different speakers. You did not even respond to my email. And now you complain.
You wanted to change midway through. That is not ethical. Don't you white supremacists have any ethics?

Next time you can have your own conference, which will be the umpteenth conference without any impact of the peaceniks and the Arab-Americans, and which the Jewsmedia will ignore, downplay or defame. You saw yourself a few months ago how pitifully small the Arab-American protest on the Mall in Washington was. Your Arab-Americans need us whites to join you. But not as Generic Americans, as “white, non-Hispanics”; we are European-Americans, we are proud, and with the help of my leadership we are now organizing.
Oh, and this one was any better than a Mall protest? Hahahahaha

I marched just a few weeks ago here in Washington in another anti-war rally, and the media did not even mention it. We marched by our thousands through empty streets, past empty government buildings, with only Mexican construction workers looking on in blasé incomprehension. Not a word in the Washington com-Post. 
Keep marching dude maybe someone will eventually notice. HAHAHAHAHA

And that is all the publicity – zip, nada, nothing – your vision of a "No More Wars for Israel” conference would have gotten without us white nationists. Your dream of CNN coming to cover you was unrealistic from the start. It is clear that, after only a few years in the anti-Zionist cause, you lack experience of how things really operate in the Jew-wars. The Jews always defame -- or they ignore, unless they decide to sabotage, railroad and assassinate. And now I am plunging – politically, directly -- into that hell for all of us, with you taking potshots from the side, for fear of the Jews.
Dude, I thought this whole thing was organized by white supremacists, now you are blaming Mark's inexperience on the fact the media missed it. Couldn't your 30 YEARS OF ANTI-ZIONIST KNOWLEDGE come in handy at all?????? You are now admitting that you were freeloading Mark's event. Do you realize how stupid this makes you for your other comments? All this does is prove that you can't accept responsibility when things fail. You invent scapegoats, usually the Joooos but in this case Mark Glenn.

The real problem was that you -- who are half-white through your father but favor only your Arabic side -- and Joe Fields, who is all-white and is a white nationist, have two very different agendas. I solved that problem of the two agendas with my proposal for two different conferences, and I saved the Sunday session by getting the ballroom, food and chairs. And, through YouTube, and my camera people, NMWFI conference speeches will go out on the Internet to thousands and perhaps some day, to millions.
Maybe even billions.

Without my help, and help from other white nationists such as my friend Pete Papaheraklis, who talked with his fellow Greeks to get the church for Saturday's session, the Jews would be chortling today online about how they “shut us down.” Well, they didn't, Mark. We beat them.
Hesham Tellawi wanted to cancel the whole conference. Joe Fields said no. He took a firm stand. We showed backbone. We white nationists were right; the conference went on; and the Jews failed.
Most Joooos don't even know there was a conference, and they don't care that there was. "The Jews failed" ???????? At what? No evidence the Joooos tried to shut it down. I didn't get any notification of the event from Organized Jewry Headquarters either. Nobody gave a crap except for maybe a few.

Rather than rip into allies, such as me and Joe, you should rip into the Jews who made us all miserable, and always will until we prevail through united struggle. I called them in my speech fearlessly what they are, the Eternal Jew. And the Jew’s main goal is self-censorship, that we censor ourselves out of fear.
I'm glad you are miserable. The reason you feel censored is because you have no audience. It is because humanity has outgrown your insanity and childish mentality.
BTW, lots of people on this planet don't feel miserable. Maybe you just need a good anti-depressant.

Mark, you are, unconsciously, taking the Jewish position, which is that white nationists should have no right to speak -- "for fear of the Jews."
It is common humanity that realizes your cause is putrid and vile. It is common of most humans, not only Joooos.

But as I said in my speech -- and it, Margaret's speech, Stan Hess's and Joe Fields’ are all going up tomorrow on YouTube -- without the white giant arising from his slumber, your Arabic world is also doomed. We white nationists are the key to saving both our and your people. And we white nationists will arouse our sleeping white brothers -- one billion white people -- against our common foe, the monster of Zionism. Once you simmer down, you will probably reflect on the continuing need for a white-Arabic/Muslim strategic alliance of reason. But the alliance cannot be one-way.

We were friends, and I intensely admired your courage and your excellent writings, and we have exchanged many friendly emails. I hope we can again be friends, or at least stay allies. But if you attack white nationists, you are biting the hand that feeds you -- and forgetting what I said in my speech: The white nationist movement is the only hope for the world’s liberation from the enemy of all peoples and races, Talmudic Zionism.

Love and kisses

John de Nugent

P.S. I am going to post my version of events on Stormfront, VNN, Liberty Forum and on my own website as soon as it goes up. I hope that I will not need to fire back any further. After all, Mark Glenn, you did hundreds of hours of great work for this conference, and I thank you for all your work and all your many important sacrifices of time, money, anguish and sleep. Join the crowd..... You have now gotten your "Purple Heart" as I did 30 years ago when I was nearly murdered in the Marines, nearly thrown over a warship at night, for my stance.
I'd love to hear the real story behind your near death experience.

I was planning, Mark, to only say that “some Arab-Americans walked out in protest against VNN radio carrying the conference live.” I was not planning to write in anger against you for attacking me and calling me an “SOB” in the email below.
SOB is just Marky being polite.

As for Hesham Tillawi, whom I have always appreciated, he needs to be careful what speculation he spreads. When I collected money for the rent on the ballroom, I had to put $42 of my own money in the kitty to get the $500 together to pay for the ballroom where you and he sat and enjoyed the speeches -- on the chairs and at the venue I made possible. It was also my own appeal by phone Saturday to my own supporter in Canada that got us the first $500 toward the total $1,000 ballroom bill. Remember, had I and my fellow white nationists not pitched in, the ADL and Morris Dees would be crowing today: "The conference by the Jew-hating Lebanese-American Mark Glenn was shut down when every hotel refused to take them in." That is the gloating remark I helped prevent, which also made you look good. They will always defame you, Mark, but they can never say your conference failed to come off.
$42 bucks of your own money. I thought it was a Jooooish trait to county your pennies like that. Are you sure you aren't a Joooo Mr. da Nudnick?, I'll ask again.

In any case, by walking out on the conference Sunday night, you showed successfully to one and all that you do not support the cause of white survival and that you distance yourself from our Cause -- to reduce heat on you from the Jews. You had your successful two-day conference AND you had your walkout to boot to show you do not support us, though we support you. Let's keep on, however, as allies, despite this inevitable friction between your view and ours -- and your refusal to permit two separate conferences to go ahead, which would have met all your own demands.
Man oh man, the whining by you is pathetic. You sound like a jilted lover.

I just now saw that you have issued a statement, dated October 19, acceding to my pre-conference proposal from October 8, recognizing the existence of two separate conferences. As far as I am concerned, your statement saying there were two separate conferences should therefore end our hostilities -- for the sake of the common anti-Zionist cause. And I congratulate you for this wise move. We are two different armies, marching separately, but let us both strike incessantly the hate-filled foe of all mankind, whom the New Testament calls “the synagogue of Satan.”

Lets get something straight, it is apparent to every intelligent on this planet who the real haters are no matter how much you want to spin it.

Marky Glenn's updated statement:

Statement from the Crescent And Cross Solidarity Movement Concerning Last Weekend's 'No More Wars For Israel' Conference


The No More Wars For Israel conference wrapped up its two-day event in Irvine, California with amazing success. Many activists with diverse orientation from around the US, Canada, and Australia attended the conference originally scheduled to take place at the Marriott Hotel in Irvine but then forced to move to another venue as a result of the hotel canceling the event for what organizers felt was political pressure by the ADL and other pro-Zionist/anti-free speech groups.
Sounds like a real success Marky. Go beat yourself on the chest some more like your ally da Nudnick.

More pictures of Joooo paranoid imbeciles taken at the conference.

October 18, 2007

If The New Testament Is Literal, How Do Christians Spin The Following?

I realize that many Christians believe in an allegorical bible, but quite a few, and you know who you are, believe the bible is the literal word of God.

It is this basis that 45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution is a crock, because the bible says that God created the earth and universe in 6 days, and that man was created in the image of God (I still get a chuckle out of their God having an ass and having to go poop at least once a day).

So here are a couple of examples I just don't get:

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

From a quick search on the internet I found this for the definition of "closet": Closet
as used in the New Testament, signifies properly a storehouse (Luke 12: 24), and hence a place of privacy and retirement (Matt. 6:6; Luke 12:3).

Why do real Christians pray on TV, or on street corners, or even churches in front of others? Why do many Christians want prayer in schools and government buildings?

How about this?:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Don't they have women preachers now? I remember seeing one on King of The Hill (Reverend Karen Stroup was voiced by Mary Tyler Moore on one episode). But I'm pretty sure that women are allowed to talk in churches.

Hey wait a second, if the bible actually uses the word churches, why did Matt and Luke use the word "closets" instead. If God really inspired those words, he didn't want anyone praying in churches.


Here is another very good contradiction. Watch this video on the Fate Of Judas:

The fake blood is a great touch, but I really like the message made by The Blind Watchmaker in the video.

For a lot more contradictions in the Bibles check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible

God just couldn't make it easy for everyone to understand him, could he?

If I keep this up, I could reclassify myself as a biblical scholar:)

October 14, 2007

Study: Atheists Rate Lower Than Believers When It Comes To Love, Patience, & Friendship

I read an article published in the National Post. Instead of just giving an overall reaction to it, I feel the need to review it by paragraph:

Athiests put less value on love than believers: study

By Charles Lewis
National Post
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Don't you love it, in this day and age of spell check programs, that "atheist" can still be misspelled in a national newspaper? It isn't hard to spell "theist," why is it so difficult to spell "atheist"

A new Canadian survey has found that believers are more likely than atheists to place a higher value on love, patience and friendship, in findings the researcher says could be a warning that Canadians need a religious basis to retain civility in society.
The survey of 1,600 Canadian adults, led by University of Lethbridge professor Reginald Bibby, gave a list of 12 values - from honesty to family life to politeness to generosity - and asked the participants if they found each "very important." In each case, theists ranked the values as more important than atheists.
OK, go on.

The reason for this, suggests Prof. Bibby, a prominent sociologist, is that those who are involved with religious groups are being exposed to a whole range of values that are not being propagated well by any other major source. "To the extent that people are not involved in religious groups ... they're not being exposed to those interpersonal values and they're simply not holding them as strongly," Prof. Bibby said in an interview.

I don't think many theists go to church that often. So I think there has to be a little more to the answers given than this.

The study says: "To the extent that Canadians are saying good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price."

Again, when I believed in God, I wasn't any differently socially than I am now. I've always tended to be a little introverted, but not believing in God didn't change me.
Now, those regular church goers who answered the study may socialize a tad more than non church goers just because they have their church friends. If the social price is interacting with less people because you are missing the interactions with church goers....who cares?

He said people who are believers are encouraged ­- whether by a desire to please God, or because of a fear of God - to adopt these values. "If you don't have that as a major source in the culture then what will be the source? I think that's where we've been really superficial ... we've really been underestimating the contribution religious groups can make." Prof. Bibby describes himself as a believer in God who holds many of the values that the theists in his survey value. But he has no particular religious identity beyond saying he is a Protestant and describes his own family as being secularized. He acknowledged that many non-believers still place a high value on morality and ethics. But he said some of that is a legacy from previous generations who held deeper religious views.

Bibby is full of it. Here it is again, without religion how can we have morality and ethics??? I've answered this one before on numerous occasions. We evolved a susceptibility to appear moral and ethical, and then even if we think about doing something nasty, the law and fear of prison works just as affectively as the fear of God and hell. Bibby, why are atheists less represented in prisons?

In many families, he said, Grandma is the "symbolic saintly person in the clan."
"So valuing Grandma also means valuing many of the thing important to her. In successive generations you have a lingering effect of morality. But further down the road generations get further removed from the sources of those values. That's where it gets tricky."

I had a grandmother who was "a saint" but she hardly ever went to synagogue. Older people tend to be more conservative or at least thought of as more conservative and moral. And to my knowledge that hasn't changed because of the higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than from 30-100 years ago.

In the survey findings, there was only a five percentage-point difference between how theists and atheists valued honesty. But of all the categories, honesty is the value that is least connected to broad emotions such as love and compassion. In other words, someone can be honest and brutal.

If someone scores low on love and compassion they are brutal? I'm starting to sense that atheists are more apt to tell the truth on surveys than theists are.

But in the realm of forgiveness, which is a core value of many major religions, particularly Christianity, the difference - 32 percentage points - is stark.

Christians preach forgiveness, but how many actually practice it? How many Christians don't give certain friends or family presents at Christmas because the friend or family member did something the present giver didn't like?

"That's a pretty explicit value within a large number of religious communities," said Prof. Bibby.
"Look at the culture as a whole and ask yourself: to what extent do we value forgiveness against themes like zero-tolerance? We don't talk very much about what we're going to do for people who fall through the cracks. So I think forgiveness is pretty foreign to a lot of people if they're not involved in religious groups."

I think it is pretty retarded to forgive OBL or a serial killer, but that is just me.

The study says that believers will not always translate their views into action but "at least they are inclined to hold the values" and that atheists "do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting [a] positive interpersonal life."

What exactly is positive interpersonal life? Oh, and at least Bibby is admitting that theists don't practice what they preach. Maybe their values are just a bunch of bs.

Religious philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis believed that the inner call to be good comes from a higher power that speaks to conscience. But atheists such as Richard Dawkins, author of the recent best-seller The God Delusion, rejects that idea as nonsense and looks to evolution as the author of morality. Prof. Dawkins believes morality comes through the altruism gene or the "selfish gene" and it is to everyone's benefit and survival that we behave civilly with one another. Among family members, it is a way to protect our own gene pool. "Animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes," Prof. Dawkins wrote.

Hey, isn't this what I said. And C.S. Lewis was wrong. How would he explain the altruism seen in animals? Is that from God too? Well then atheists have the same God given altruism too, and you don't need religion to have "values."

Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, a Toronto-based atheist group, thinks the problem with Prof. Bibby's survey is with the definition of values. He said the categories in the survey fit in the mould of the Ten Commandments, so a religious person's enthusiastic response to them is not surprising.
"To me, scientific thinking is a value. Critical thinking is a value. Open inquiry is my biggest value," said Mr. Trottier. "If he made those values - the way atheists would - he would have gotten different responses."

Trottier is pretty smart.

He said that people should be judged by their actions, not by how they respond to survey questions. A person can claim to be any number of things but the proof is in the pudding. He said his own group, for example, has a sobriety support group, and that many nations that are highly secular do a better job of taking care of their poor than religious ones.
Don't forget at atheists being underrepresented in jails too.

"Religion tends to be very polarizing, so religious people always feel very passionately about those values. They always feel 'very strongly.' Religion always does this black-and-white thing. An atheist is a lot more temperate, a bit more hesitant. An atheist might be more nuanced in his or her thinking."
Good points. In other words, an atheist is most likely to base his or her answers on personal experience: an atheist is most likely to give real honest answers. An atheist will answer a morality survey question based on what he or she really thinks, not what he or she thinks God wants us to say.

Update: Excellent piece by Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner on the same topic.

October 11, 2007

Message To Future Canadian Politicians: Don't Try To Blur The Line That Separates Church & State

For the first time in my life I felt the need to vote. Oh, I've always voted, but this time it actually had meaning for me.
Just before 7:00 PM last night, me and the Mrs. walked into the gymnasium of a PUBLIC SCHOOL (now that is symbolic), and saw a security person and 4 people sitting behind desks. We were the only voters in the joint.
I went first, and voted for our Liberal candidate, and I also voted to keep the current system on the referendum issue.
I put my votes in the ballot box and then whispered to my wife who to vote for. She agreed with me 100% on the faith funding issue but she doesn't pay much attention to Party names. We didn't discuss the referendum issue, but I told her to check the first box on that ballot (she usually goes along with anything I say as long as it has nothing to do with sex).
When walking out of the school, even though I had a pretty good idea that the Liberals would get a majority win, and I knew my vote wouldn't matter as far as getting the Liberals to win and the PC's to lose, I actually felt proud and even a little euphoric.
I told my wife as we seated ourselves in the car that we just sent a message to future politicians to not even think about blurring the line that separates church and state.

Yes, I realize we still fund Catholics schools, but at least now it will be much easier to fade out that funding in the next 20 years perhaps. If Tory won, it would be impossible.

Every time I heard Tory say that it is a matter of fairness, my bullshit detector went ballistic. There were three options: the status quo, fund all faith based schools, or fund no faith based schools.
The majority of Ontarians felt the latter was the most fair, but Tory didn't give that as an option.
When voting for a realistic candidate (one with a chance to win), I had two choices: the status quo (the Liberals) or fund all faith based schools (the PCs). Oh, I know that Tory backed down a week ago and said he would have a free vote after a test period, but I just didn't trust him and didn't feel the need to trust him because he didn't back down on what he wanted to do which is fund all faith based schools. I didn't even want this to even be an option in the future.

I did email the PC candidate in my riding a couple of weeks ago to tell him he lost both mine and my wife's vote because of Tory. He emailed me back defending the platform...blah blah blah, bring the 53,000 kids into the public system...I replied telling him that wasn't my major concern. My main concern is separation of church and state, and I also realize that we were not talking just 53,000 kids because what would stop a large amount of kids in the near future from going to faith based schools. Yes, it would create a lot more segregation and take a lot more kids out of the secular system eventually(I don't know why this wasn't made to be a big issue by rival candidates. It makes me wonder just how smart? politicians really are not to be able to see this. Lawyer James Morton figured it out though). I didn't get another email back.

Next, we need a referendum to phase out Catholic school funding in Ontario. We are now closer to that reality.

October 8, 2007

My 500th Post: Dawkins anti-semitic remark, Pat Condell, and Bye Jake

I can't believe this is my 500th post. This blog has been alive for just around 2 years and 9 months. Quick calculation: I make a blog post once every 2.24 days. Most posts take me around half an hour to compose, though some take 5 to 10 minutes (especially when they are about a certain Youtube video). I've had a few take over an hour to do. Those are the ones that require extra research. I try to cover as many angles and fill as many holes as I can before I post. I learn a lot when I'm doing research. Lots of trivial stuff. I probably could hold my own "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" by now.

I figure I might as well do some odds and ends since I'm posting today.

First, I wanted to comment on Richard Dawkins recent quote in The Guardian:
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

I have lots of thoughts on this issue, and I have posted most on RichardDawkins.net.
It would be denying reality if one ignored that Dawkins has become the equivalent of a Jerry Falwell for atheists, though not too many atheists including me believe that we need a spokesperson who speaks for all of us, because we all differ so much when it comes to our opinions on crime, state, politics, etc.
But when Dawkins talks, he gets attention. Unfortunately, he is not perfect, as seen by the above quote. He has swallowed the Arab and anti-semitic propaganda about the Jewish lobby. I think it is a cultural thing in Britain, and Dan Johnson agrees with me in this article, "Suppressed Scholarship."
Dawkins apologists on the Dawkins Forum point out that he meant the comment as a compliment. That a small amount Jews are organized enough to monopolize US foreign policy. The thing is that is not a fact, and comments like this have led to dead Jews in the past. That is why it is a bit disturbing that he even thinks it.

From Wikipedia:

Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. [1][2][3] It is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists.[4]

The expression is commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions.[5] Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks right-wing extremists, writes that it combines the classic elements of anti-Semitic stereotyping and scapegoating, and is part of the discourse of conspiracism.[2]

Sometimes the term "Jewish lobby" is being used to refer to Israel lobby,[6][7][8] but according to Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), such usage "is both vague and inadequate."[9]


For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world. Vijay Prasad described The myth of the "Jewish lobby" in India's magazine Frontline:

The idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. The "Jew," without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is a good illustration of this idea. The Nazis stigmatized the "Jew" as the reason for poverty and exploitation, and obscured the role played by capitalism in the reproduction of grief. The six million Jews in the U.S. do not determine U.S. foreign policy; nor are they united. Jews in America, like other communities, are rent with division, not united behind one agenda.[3]

I am not saying Dawkins is anti-semitic (he is not known for any other anti-semitic slurs), but what he said was anti-semitic, though I blame it on him being a victim of the British culture.
About the Jewish lobby: There are plenty of lobbies in the US that have as much if not more influence on foreign policy than Aipac does. The oil lobby for instance. US foreign policy takes Saudi Arabia and China into consideration way ahead of Israel in my opinion.
What Dawkins said about the Jewish lobby is similar to what Christians say about the Atheist lobby. Think about it. Courts are ruling for gay marriages, against pro-lifers, taking the 10 commandments out of government buildings and prayer and creation out of school. But all these things are happening not because of the Atheist lobby (Dawkins said we need a lobby in the article), but because it makes sense to separate church and state in order to have freedom and freedom of religion too. Common sense makes the laws, not atheists. In fact, common sense makes atheists.
The US supports Israel and does things that appear to help Israel so much because Israel pretty much the same ethical values and goals as the US. Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. The US also supports Israel to keep Israel in check. They try to make sure Israel doesn't respond as the US would respond if the US were in Israel's shoes. This keeps the Saudi lobby content.

Respectful Insolence is a must read if you are still interested in this topic.

I'll also note that one commenter (Tim) was banned because a moderator didn't like the inference that Dawkins might be anti-semitic. Even though it was clear to me that all Tim was saying that what Dawkins said was obviously anti-semitic. What is with moderators? See previous post.
Tim left a comment on my previous post saying that Dawkins did email him back when he inquired about the ban. Dawkins stated that he was misquoted, but there was nothing to back it up according to Tim.

OK, now for some levity. Pat Condell's latest video on the Christian love he has been receiving for his previous videos. Great points about the "historical Jesus" too:

And finally, on a sad note. My "other" dog Jake had to be put down on Saturday.

Jake is the dog on the couch in the above picture.
We took him in almost exactly a year ago. He had very bad back legs. And my brother, who took him in two years previously (because his former owner moved to an Old Folks home), move from a farm to a place with lots of stairs. Jake could barely make 3 steps tops because of his infirmaries. So he was sort of pawned off on us. We have a very good sized main floor with a couple of three step accesses to a very large backyard. He never did see the upstairs of our house.
I never really bonded with Jake, but he loved my wife. He would walk around the house looking for her all the time. Why not? She fed him and took care of him like a king, cooking him and Daisy chicken almost every morning.
He was probably 11ish based on the information I have. On Saturday, he fell right after drinking water in the kitchen. My wife called me, I saw his eyes moving up and down and he wouldn't get up. He couldn't get up. His back legs finally gave out.
My sister in law came over with her friend (who is very knowledgeable about dogs). The friend was pretty sure it wasn't a stroke or a heart attack. We called vets. But in a small town just after noon, it was impossible to get immediate help.
We waited a couple of hours. Jake refused food for the first time ever. He was always like a disposable garbage can when it came to scraps. Instead he threw up a couple of times.
He wasn't improving at all. And he tried to get up but couldn't.
We made the decision to euthanize him. We found an SPCA that was still open though 20 minutes away and lifter him into my brother's truck (he weighed about 90 pounds), in the front seat.
My wife and I were to attend a wedding at 3:00. I told my wife to go without me, I'd make it for the reception. My wife tearfully said goodbye, to Jake and I went with my sister in law and her friend on his final road trip.
They wouldn't let anyone in with him at the SPCA after they took on a stretcher to the death room, which was fine with me (though I wouldn't have minded the option). I don't like watching an animal die. From the front desk at the SPCA I heard Jake bark a few last times. Then I didn't hear anything.
The vet told us that he most likely suffered a blood clot in the hind and that it caused his main functions to shut down. We did the right thing. And remember, this is a long weekend. If we waited, we would have probably had to wait until Tuesday morning.
We took Jakes body back to my house. My wife was back from the wedding and we had a couple of hours to kill before the reception. We spent it digging Jake's grave and then burying him wrapped in one of his favorite blankets.
Bye Jake.

October 5, 2007


I recently got banned from the Blogging Tories Forum. It is supposed to be a political forum first and foremost. I started posting there because of the John Tory platform to fund faith based schools. I was upsetting quite a few Christian Conservatives with my militant atheism and my perceived arrogance. I found out that there were quite a few evolution deniers and even YECs on that board. It is hard not to get confrontational when atheism is called a religion by the ignorant, and when idiots spew that it takes faith to be an atheist.

So one of the kiddies on the board started a subject called Atheism Kills (later renamed Does Atheism Kill because one of the moderators on the board didn't want to give lurkers the "impression" that the PC Party hates atheists).

I would have expected to get a lifetime ban if I started a topic called "Christianity Kills." And of course, this illustrates the double standards on the forum.

The start of the thread had all the old crapola about Stalin killing all kinds of people, and some Youtube videos blaming atheism on mass murders from the start of Christianity to today.

Then Lafayette chimed in with this:

It is to laugh. One of the first thing militant Atheists like to point to is how religion has killed so many people. Then, in the same breath it seems, they deny that the same yardstick can be applied to them. Well it can, and you measure up quite well in the infamy department.

Pol Pot is one of you. Stalin is one of you. Deal with it. Atheism, as a belief system, has been used to justify its share of death, and no amount of equivocation, prevarication, or denial will change that.

I'm not sure if I left a "reputation message" after this comment or after this one:

I think this is a prime example of what happens when you attack a man's religion. BEAJ has basically gone ape shit all up in here. It is slightly amusing, in a 2 year old tantrum sort of way.

This whole thread just goes to show the point that Atheism is just another religion. BEAJ has defended his faith with as much vitriol and what not as the most ardent Muslim, Christian, or anyone else. I am curious to see just how far he will go.

Either post deserved my comment (see below):
Craig (a moderator and one of the founders of Blogging Tories) PMed me (private message on the BT Forum)
Subject: Personal insults Quote message
No place for them here...

"Dumber than a rock. And I don't mean to insult rocks."

BT Forum allows you to give members reputation points and comments. The above is what I said about Lafayette.
I replied:
Re: Personal insults
I hope you are being equal and informing Lafayette too. He said I'm acting like a two year old, etc.
I'll bet you didn't send him/her a reprimand. Am I wrong?

Craig diplomatically replied:
None of your business. End it or be gone.

I replied:
Wow. I get it, and I think I totally understand you now. Not very impressed either. In fact I'm totally disappointed in your reply. I will comply with your hypocrisy, but I will write about this on my blog later this week. OK Craig? No more insults from me. I'll just take the insults without defending myself.

I made one or two posts after that, and then I found out I was banned. Then I found out my IP was banned, but I can still view most of the posts using anonymous.org.

One post was directed at Craig on a different thread:

Craig wrote:
I've never understood how someone could call themselves an atheist. Nobody knows why we are here so at the very least you should call yourself an agnostic. You don't have proof as to why we are here so how can you absolutely discount one possible option?

I replied:
An atheist can be simply someone who doesn't believe in God. Again, as pointed out on another thread, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I see no evidence God exists, and the same evidence exists for my invisible man under my bed, so why consider either?

Now, apparently I am banned temporarily (after this post, maybe permanently). I've emailed three of the mods (including Craig). One moderator said that he is keeping out of it. The other said he would look into it and has now says that Craig wants an apology because I apparently personally insulted him.............WHEN AND WHERE?

If Craig is thinking that I should apologize for my email I sent him after I got banned, although it is consistent with how Craig seems to work, it should have no bearing on why I was banned in the first place.

I sent him this (he didn't reply):

You banned me?

I told you I would comply.
Seriously, are you a grown man? You are acting quite childish. You
gave me a warning and I said I would comply. You represent the
Blogging Tory community. I didn't realize that the PC party was into

I can still view the pages btw even though you banned my IP, so I can
make my case to other bloggers, using your words and my words.

The big thing here is that it is obvious that Craig treats the God fearing members of the board differently than atheists. He is so biased that he can't even recognize it when an atheist is insulted by an ignorant Fundy, or maybe it is a cultural thing that atheists are allowed to be called names once they admit to being an atheist.
Either way it reeks of hypocrisy, and it sure isn't the first time I've experienced a moderator like Craig.

I did receive this from a very sane member of Bloggging Tories:

It appears that Craig wants you to apologize for the personal insult:

I'd like to have you back as you've got a balancing perspective, and
that can have the effect of generating more activity on the forums by

Unfortunately, anonymous.org doesn't allow me to open the link above, so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for.

Many PC supporter are Libertarians (I am close to Libertarian myself), because of all three major parties in Canada, the PC's platform has the least amount of government interference (that is another reason why John Tory's faith funding platform bothered me. It was totally NDPish) . But I also like the platform against terror, and realize that many people can't be trusted to completely govern themselves. I'm a strong social liberal with the exception of being strong against terror like crimes).

So alienating secularists like me (all I want is complete separation of church and state when it is all said and done), is a very bad move by a Forum like Blogging Tories. They aren't going to win too many elections if they just suck up to religionists.

Can you believe a 46 year old has to go through this nonsense in the year 2007?

October 3, 2007

Evolution Meme: Not The Evolution That Scares The Bejeebus Out Of Creationists

I was tagged by Stardust Musings to do the Evolution Meme. A good description of what I'm supposed to do can be found at Tangled Up In Blue:

The idea is that I list five old posts that I think are reflective of the evolution of this blog (which happens to be named Evolution, so this could get confusing). In addition, I am to “tag” (”meme?”) five other blogs and they must do the same thing else suffer the usual dire consequences.

1. This is my 498th post. My first post was my shortest post. As you could see, I had no direction or goals:

January 16, 2005
Now I have a blog

And my life hasn't changed one iota. I know I should give it some time, but I'm impatient when it comes to life changing experiences.
This might be my last post on this board. I'm getting bored already.

My blog was similar to the first life form on earth, a one celled creature, who if it could talk would have said: "What the hell am I doing here and what am I supposed to do now?"

I remember I was inspired to do the blog because I really liked what Elder of Ziyon was doing with his specialty blog.

2. I was getting something like 10 hits a day for quite a few months. I posted whenever I felt the urge, maybe 4 times a month for the first 8 months. Most of my posts were very in depth and pretty much a combination of trivial things along with the odd religious/atheist themed posts as well as a few Israeli conflict posts while I tried to maintain my phenomenal sense of humour. I think a post that pretty much stood out and foreshadowed my current style was one that didn't even receive one comment: EVERY RELIGION CAN'T BE RIGHT
Although I was way more respectful of religion than I appear to be now.

3. September of 05 I started doing NFL predictions. It committed me to do at least one post a week. I started getting more blog hits and this caused me to feel more obligated to post more. By November I was posting more than I do now. I started openly mocking religious belief more with ironic and very valid posts. I also created a Bacon and God comic strip as well. I like this particular post though as it reflected my blog back then: PRAYERS PAY THE SAME INSURANCE PREMIUMS

4. I was starting to attract regular visitors who commented on many of my posts, and I started becoming cognizant of playing to them (writing for them, in a good way). I noticed that I was being placed on many blogrolls, and I of course, reciprocated. But my big breakout post that put me on the map was when I simply linked a Penn and Teller video (it seems like ages a day as Youtube was either in its infancy or not even around). I had just learned how to embed videos, and I've embedded quite a few since. The post: PENN AND TELLER: THE BIBLE IS CRAPOLA wound up getting me a load of comments. I still get the odd one today even though it was posted April of last year. The post was linked by many, but Pharyngula's link wound up getting me an absolute ton. I remember getting around 8000 hits for 3 days.

5. I knew I had more readers, most of whom it seems were interested in (and still are) in atheism and layman's science (evolution and morality related) and religion satire and bashing. I did write a lot about Israel still, dropped the NFL picks, discussed the threat of Islam, usually in back to back to back posts. I found my readers weren't that interested in anti-semitism angle (which is why I think it is valid that Israel exists), so I decided to do a new blog called Judeophobe Watch where I could highlight discussions I've had online with anti-semites (Jew haters for the dictionary impaired).
Today, I like to post 2 to 3 times a week. I focus on layman's science, atheism, religious nonsense (including real history and absence of evidence), and I've started getting more into issues of separation of church and state.

Back in the spring I did a video that answers pretty much why I blog and I put it in this post: God Mysteriously Appears In My Latest Youtube Video

OK, now I must tag 5 bloggers. I'll warn you in advance. This post was harder than it looks.

Developing Your Web Presence
Simply Jews

Random Thoughts
Gripes Of Wrath

October 1, 2007

The Atheist Jew Goes To Church

Here is the deal: I am friends with a Fundy couple. They know where I stand. They aren't really sure about where my wife stands though. Either was I. I'll get to that later.
The husband is a real handyman. He did a lot of unpaid work for me on my last car. He is retired, so he didn't seem to mind doing it. He did make a request. He and his wife wanted to bring my wife to church a few times as sort of a payback. My wife agreed, though I'm positive she was just being nice (occasionally she is nice).
She's put off going for a few months, and even I was starting to feel guilty about it. So when they phoned saying that their church (a small Calvary Baptist Church) had a guest who had just came back from spreading the Gospel in the Phillippines, and they really wanted her to go, I told my wife I would accompany her. So last night at 6:30 (I SACRIFICED watching the end of the 4:00 NFL football games), I was present for a good hour and a half of Gospel gobblygook.
There were less than 20 people attending the evening service (or whatever they call it). Apparently, they did a morning service too. Not sure how many showed up to that one. I found the people there to be nice, though I didn't get a chance to talk to them much.
The church minister (or whatever he is called) started things off. He told us that someones brother died in the morning, and that a couple of the church members were to sick to show up. He then did a few hymns, and everyone sang along...well except for me. Even my wife sang. Hey, I was a hypocrite too, both my wife and I donated a tooney each (a Canadian two dollar coin) to the donation plate.
Then the young guest preacher/minister from the US got his shot. He didn't win any points by humbly admitting that he had a grade 7 education (what a shocker!).
He was accompanied by 3 of his kids. They had talent. They could play multiple musical instruments. I especially enjoyed listening to the 10 year old girls piano playing. But mostly, all I could think of is how much brainwashing these kids have had in their short lifetimes.
OK. I have had a very strong feeling that Preacher dude knew he had an atheist Jew in the Pews. Why? He started talking about the Old Testament and Jews and how the NT "proved" that Jesus was the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for (something to do with Jesus being born in a manger and wearing whatever he supposedly was wearing). Was I little paranoid? Nope.
He then said that he was going to talk about "simple things" tonight because the church was really small in members, but THE LORD told him to change the sermon for tonight. It reminded me of the old saying "when you speak to God it is called praying, but when God speaks to you, it is called insanity."
When he started going into details about Cain and Abel, the only thing that crossed my mind is that the people who are buying into this are buying into a gory fairy tale, what is wrong with these people?
He started talking about the colour red, and how it is "proof" that the NT is better than The Farmer's Almanac when it comes to explaining everything around us.
You see, red represents Jesus' blood, and the "fact" that Jesus sacrificed himself for mankind. And he bled a lot. After Jesus, there was no need to sacrifice defenseless animals anymore.
Quick question: If God is perfect, why did he need humans to sacrifice animals to him? Sounds like he has a bit of an inferiority complex and needs assurance. Why would a perfect God need anything? And if he created man in his image, then why aren't we perfect. Like, what happened to my hair, and why can't I dunk a basketball?
Back to the colour red. Did you know that barns are red because God made red paint cheap to use for poor farmers so that they could remind us that Jesus and all the blood that he sacrificed started out in a manger? Or that Stop signs are red because God influenced man to make them red so that when we stop, we have time to reflect on Jesus and all the blood that he lost before he died? And fire hydrants are red, and they are shaped like a cross. See, the bible proves everything.
I was starting to think that this guy must have at least a grade 9 education to figure out all these things.
So he ended off by telling US that we now had no excuse not to believe. He must have repeated that three or four times near the end. And finally, he said, "I KNOW THAT THERE IS A SOUL IN HERE THAT HASN'T BEEN SAVED " I don't think God told him that, I think my friend clued him in. And he was wrong, there were two of us in the crowd.
Afterwards, we were invited to have some food, but we declined. My wife was exhausted from a bout of insomnia and preparing food for a friend's bridal shower earlier in the day. It was for the best, as I might not be able to keep my militant atheism in check much longer.

Back to my wife. She was an atheist long before I was one. But I just found that out. 17 years ago when I got married, I was pretty much agnostic. And prior to that outside of letting out my secret that I was an ethnic Jew, I didn't talk about beliefs, and I didn't care what my "dates" believed in either. If they liked me, I liked them.
I didn't even talk about my beliefs with my fiancee (now wife). Though she assumed (correctly) that we were to be married in a Jewish ceremony. Tradition was important to me at the time, with family and all. But I didn't ask her to convert, and that posed a bit of a problem because we had to find someone qualified to marry us traditionally. We found someone. Not sure if he called himself a rabbi or not, but his claim to fame was that he once married parrots (I kid you not).

I always assumed my wife was agnostic or perhaps a bit of a theist. I knew she grew up as an ethnic Christian. Just recently I asked her if I was an influence on her becoming an atheist (lately she has mentioned that she doesn't believe God exists). She surprised me by telling my she never believed in God. Never Ever.
Even as a little girl she remembers telling her girlfriends that she thought the bible stories were just that: stories. Though she did tell them that the points of many of the stories were important.

Maybe I should talk to her more, maybe I'll find out other things I didn't know about her:)