Happy New Year's Eve, everyone!
See you in 2023! Have a nice time with friends and family!
Every time when I think that things are bad in my own country (and they are), I only have to look across the channel to realise how lucky I am still:
A pro-life volunteer has been arrested and charged after silently praying outside an abortion facility in Birmingham, U.K.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the director of March for Life UK, was arrested on Dec. 6 and charged on Dec. 15 with four counts of breaking a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO).
A PSPO is intended to stop antisocial behavior. Police were responding to a complaint from a member of the public who believed that Vaughan-Spruce was praying silently.
As part of her bail conditions, restrictions have been placed on her participating in public prayer.
Sharia law at this point would probably be an improvement, they would force you to pay Jizya but I have never heard that they investigate thought crimes.
Vaughan-Spruce was carrying no placards or signs. After her arrest, she was shown pictures of herself quietly standing in the vicinity of the abortion clinic in Kings Norton, Birmingham.
It reminds me a story I heard once of a lady who said she felt attacked by another (Christian) lady for her choices even though the latter didn't so much as say a word. "By the way she looked at me", claimed the lady, "I knew she disagreed!"
She had been spotted near the clinic three times, and when asked about these occasions, she explained that she might have been praying, but she may also have been thinking about other things. Her thoughts, she explained, were all peaceful and not worthy of being criminalized.
Her actual defence was to deny she had been praying (!) and to state that her thoughts were peaceful. Because in England you can now be prosecuted for wrong thoughts, apparently!
There is this discussion about death penalty going on in right-wing circles. Theoretically, I'm all for it. Practically, I'm glad it's been abolished in Europe. Because guess who would get it?
Britain, not even once!
P.S. From another article on the same site:
The Council of Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole in southern England
has drawn red lines around an abortion provider and designated the area a
“safe zone.” Anyone caught crossing themselves, reciting Scripture, or
sprinkling holy water behind these red lines can be fined £100 (about
$113) or risk a court conviction.
Demons really hate it, I guess...
I'd like to put a disclaimer first. These are just my personal thoughts on the issue, so feel free to disagree. I also don't address anyone personally, we all live in this present day and age and compromise to some degree.
Now, when someone writes an article about female modesty, he usually will point out how the half-dressed women provoke lust in men which inevitably leads to the discussion of how much flesh shown is too much and whether we should teach our sons better self-control instead of teaching our daughters to dress decently.
But as far as I can remember, nobody ever mentioned another aspect of it. What if the Scriptures commands modesty not for the sake of men, or rather, not for their sake only?
Let me explain. There is the famous passage in the NT about women covering their heads in church:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Here is what John Gill writes about it in his Bible comments:
F5 understands them of evil angels, and that a woman should cover her head in time of worship, lest they should lust after her; though much rather the reason should be, lest they should irritate and provoke lust in others: but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance...
What if the first interpretation is the correct one? Remember Gen 6 and the story of Nephilim?
So here is my theory. What if female immodesty attracts evil angels and spirits? What if when it becomes generally acceptable in a society that the majority of women run around in what looks like underwear of the times past this society experiences a higher level of demonic activity and rapidly deteriorates? Isn't it what we are witnessing in the West right now? Just compare our modern culture (lack of it) with the early 20th century when most women were covered from head to toes?
If this is the case, then dressing modestly is also very important for the well-being of the woman herself, so that she doesn't attract evil in her own life. She should try and cover herself not so much for men, but first, to preserve her own well-being and second, that of the country as a whole?
Please don't throw stones at me, it's just a theory. However, as they say, sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry!
Or, as someone on Twitter called it, Soygon:
Twitter on Thursday evening began purging reporters from major media outlets, just one day after new owner Elon Musk changed the platform's "anti-doxxing" policy in response to a "crazy stalker" who climbed on the hood of a car carrying his two-year-old son.
Those kicked off the platform include:
Let's find out!
People online like talking about how everyone is suffering from shortage of s8x, especially in the Western world, so I got curious and did some research on the topic.
First, what is regular s8x? It's usually defined as at least, once a week (not 3 times a day as some guy put it, which is also pretty much impossible for any man older than 30 with kids and a regular job).
There exists a research on the percentage of people having s8x weekly in different countries, here is the link.
According to it, Greeks are the most s8xually active, with 87% doing the deed weekly, while Americans are, indeed, at the bottom of the list with measly 53%, right there with Nigeria (but don't go to Japan as it's only 34%!)
Yet, strangely, the very 1st article I linked states that
another study, printed in The University of Chicago Press about 10 years ago, stated that married couples are having sex about seven times a month, which is a little less than twice a week.
So I wonder if the difference could be attributed to married couples vs singles in the USA? Which means that contrary to what some men say, married folks are still enjoying it quite regularly!
They didn't even look per week, but per 4 weeks and India is below 50%, as you can see, with the good folks of Afghanistan being well, the most active in this area.
All the countries in this diagram are quite conservative, with little premarital s8x and what could be described as a traditional marriage yet they aren't exactly obsessed with it, as you can see. The report even says that Indians have s*x quite frequently which is a funny way to describe something which happens less than once a month for the majority of people.
Which begs the question, is there really any form of crisis in the West or is it another 1st world problem? After all, we don't hear Gambians complain...
Which one (apart from Flat Earth) is the most ridiculous conspiracy in your point of view? For me it's that Michelle Obama (or any other masculine looking woman for that matter) is a man.
I simply don't believe it! What about you?
Indonesia's parliament is expected to pass a new criminal code this month that will penalise sex outside marriage with a punishment of up to one year in jail, officials have confirmed...
...business sector representatives say the draft code sends the wrong message about Southeast Asia's largest economy...
Clauses related to morality, she added, would "do more harm than good", especially for businesses engaged in the tourism and hospitality sectors.
The changes to the code would be a "huge a setback to Indonesian democracy", said Andreas Harsono of Human Rights Watch.Among other things prohibited are abortion except in case of rape and black magic.
Still thinking they are good guys?
...the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27),” the prosecutors asserted — sloppily, as it turns out, as Deuteronomy 28:27 actually makes no reference to cannibalism.
“There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public,” the CPS insisted.
“The suggestion by the Crown that there are parts of the Bible ‘which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public’, is one that if accepted would have significant constitutional implications,”...
UMC and higher folks love to engage in what became known as virtue-signalling. In my language, they are simply called "virtue people" and they look down at those unenlightened peasants who dare disagree with the current year narrative whatever it may be. But are they really that virtuous?
Here is one example:
(strangely, the article doesn't open in every browser)
First, Margaret Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and Fidel Castro were all notoriously sexually promiscuous. Margaret Trudeau was a partier who unquestionably had sex with men while married to Pierre. Nobody knows if Pierre objected. They met when he was 48 and she was 18. They got married when he was 53 and she was 23. Their marriage surprised Canada because Pierre had been a lifelong playboy with no wife or children. He would be turning 60 when she was barely out of her 20’s. She publicly states today she suffered from bipolar disorder and self-control issues. She smuggled drugs in the Prime Minister’s official government luggage. She sneaked away from official functions to get high. She partied scantily clad at Studio 54. She became embroiled in a scandal for having sex with Ted Kennedy (gross). According to Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, Pierre broke up with her while she was having an affair with Ronnie Wood. The list goes on.
Pierre Trudeau slept around too.
Now I don't know who was whose son in reality but do these people strike you as having any kind of morality? Pierre Trudeau was The Canadian Prime Minister, btw...
It's just one example. I remember watching a British TV program featuring some of these wonderful British aristocrats. The castle owner himself Marquis this and that who was in his 70s lived together with his mistress who was in her early 40s while his lawful wife resided abroad. After she produced a couple of boys they separated and since that time he lived with his "wifelets" as he called them, which were very numerous when he was younger but being an older man he finally settled with one of them.
His heir married an African heiress for her money. Her mom was a British gal who travelled to an African country and jumped in bed with a wealthy married Black guy who had children from his legal wife but had the decency to acknowledge his illegitimate daughter and provide her with an ample dowry.
The Lord this and that his first child was a daughter and then suddenly his wife couldn't have children any more so they turned to a surrogate and got a fully white boy who became the heir of the title and estate. Modern IVF industry can really perform miracles such as turning black into white, I guess:)
These people have the nerve to talk about virtue...