TFW a tiny minority has totally conquered society, while also convincing society of how marginalized they are.

8 thoughts on “TFW a tiny minority has totally conquered society, while also convincing society of how marginalized they are.”

  1. A Reply to LGBT Ideologues, no longer in contact with reality…
    “If I put into your hands the power to dictate what shall be my choices and my conscience, then you will – as you are trying to do – abuse that power in order to coerce me into accepting your domination.” – Dr. Alan Keyes, 27 September 2000 (quote from his debate vs Dr. Alan Dershowitz over “Religion’s Role in American Society: Does organized religion have the answers to the problems of the 21st century?” – Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, USA)

    1. I was confounded at first, didn’t quite get the Schrodinger trans reference as Schrodinger was a quantum physicist. For others out there like me who aren’t in the loop, apparently there has been this whole theory of gender based upon an experiment he did using a cat that may be alive or dead in a box, depending on circumstances. I guess it means you can be male but female or vice versa, not sure. Things just get stranger and stranger. I don’t know how much more I can stand🤯

      1. It was a thought experiment Schrodinger came up with called “Schrodinger’s cat.” With the thought experiment set-up to show quantum superposition, a cat in a box would be both alive and dead until you opened the box and really look at it.'s_cat
        “Schrodinger’s [X]” has now become a way of people saying how something can be two completely different things at the same time, and until you really look at it and examine it, you can’t tell which one it is, in this case, they’re both ruling the world through the corporate world, and political world, and at the same time, they’re a marginalized minority, until you “open the box” you don’t know which one it is.
        -Friend Neighborhood Traditional Catholic Physicist

      2. Much like Schrodinger’s AR-15: Both a dangerous military grade weapon and simultaneously useless against the military.

    2. I suppose you believe that I should accept what the Bible tells me is wrong–sexual activities that the Bible believes are wrong. You believe the state has the right coercively to dictate conscience on these points, and under a civil rights rubric force us to accept what is contrary to our religious conscience. You would trample on my rights in the general society, even as you would seek to trample on them here!
      With respect to the business of homosexuals. Do you know what’s interesting about this? He stands there and pretends that what is at issue in our society now is what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms–and you know that’s a lie. When you tell the Boy Scouts that they have to have homosexual scoutmasters, you’re not talking about what goes on in the privacy of somebody’s bedroom. You are talking about what will be imposed as a matter of law upon the consciences of those whose religious beliefs cannot abide the practice.
      And that is not a matter of private morality. That is a matter of public right, guaranteed by the First Amendment–which states clearly, you’re not supposed to interfere. Not with, by the way, beliefs. All these folks like to pretend that the First Amendment is about what you believe, and what your opinion is, and all this sort of stuff. No, it’s not. It says the “free exercise of religion.” Last time I looked, “exercise” meant action and activity. Sitting around thinking about running around the track is not exercise. It’s exercise if you go out and do it.
      Therefore, what he is trying to tell us is that his rubric, which now seeks to use the rubric of civil rights to dictate the moral conscience of every individual in America, to remove from the purview of moral judgment activities that have been essential to the meaning of ethics and moral judgment from time immemorial, and now trampling on what have been the sacred rights of our heritage from long before the Constitution was written–you will say that you are going to dictate how I shall, before my God, respond to those requirements of His will. That is precisely what I mean. He accuses me of speaking like Khomeini. I think you see him here acting like him.
      Final point. There is a serious distinction between homosexuality and things that can be rightly subject to a civil rights understanding. Why? Well, as a black person, I’ve thought a lot about it. See, ’cause I’m a black guy. When I got up this morning, I was a black guy. When I go to bed, I’ll be a black guy. You could try to talk me out of this, it’s not going to work. It’s beyond my control. Now, some people would like us to believe that human sexual behavior is similarly beyond the control of the individual. What I’d like you to think on is whether or not any human morality in which we hold human beings responsible and accountable for the choices they make subject to the passions of biology, et cetera, that we are all subject to, can survive the notion that human sexual orientation puts us in a condition where our actions are beyond the purview of our control. This is destructive of the very principle of human moral capacity, and it cannot be accepted. That is why it has to be left in the realm of moral judgment.
      Now, that doesn’t mean that, coercively using the force of law, we’ll storm about the country, getting everybody to behave. That’s not the point. The point today is that you can’t coercively use the force of law to force everybody to accept as moral that which their faith and conscience says is immoral. You can’t use a specious civil rights argument to remove from the purview of legitimate moral judgment human actions that must be subject to moral judgment, if they are to remain in the realm of human accountability and responsibility.
      And that’s why I reject this whole movement. We must reject it, because on the day we accept it in principle, do you think that the homosexuals are going to be the only ones who are going to stand up to clamor for release from accountability? Are they the only folks who are subject to passions that arise from their make-up or claimed make-up? Anger, jealousy, violence, all kinds of things are traceable in part to that “law in our members” which reflects instinct and other possibilities that are not entirely under our control. If we accept the notion that that frees us from all moral accountability, do you know what we’ve done? We haven’t liberated anybody, my friends. Do you know what we’ve done? We have destroyed the very idea of human freedom if we do that. Human freedom requires that we respect in all human beings the capacity to choose between right and wrong. If they are, in fact, in their actions simply determined by their genetic or other circumstances, then the very idea of freedom is a farce. And that would mean our whole way of life is laughable.
      – edited quote from the Dr. Alan Keyes vs Dr. Alan Dershowitz Debate over “Religion’s Role in American Society: Does organized religion have the answers to the problems of the 21st century?” – Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, USA)

  2. White privilege explained in 2 min 15 seconds.
    In college, they teach it in such a way that presumes it’s the minorities’ turn to take privilege away from white “Christian” males and try it on themselves for a few reparation decades, perhaps forever.
    But then … what if we just take that advice and keep it for ourselves? Not ready to give that up, quite yet. This little clip explains … (it’s clean).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.