Roosh Hour #66 – Gay Terror Month

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
It was not my intention to sound like I was advocating violent action. My intention was to be pragmatic as to what works and what doesn't.
I guess I should be more careful from now on, regardless.
The solution is regeneration, not revolution.
2Chronicles 7:14.

"The rot runs deep, not only in the body politic but in the churches. Too many churchmen are too busy warring against each other, or waiting for the Rapture (due in eighteen months, I was told today), and being generally irrelevant to know what is happening all around them.

For some years, I have been in many court trials as a witness for churches, Christian schools, home schools, families, and so on, who faced an attack for their faith and practice. I have seen a state attorney hold aloft a Bible and declare it a child-abuse manual. Several pastors were on trial for requiring the chastising of children in their schools or day-care facilities, although no parents had complained. This was in a southern Bible-belt state. No church members were in the courtroom to lend their moral support. (Neither pastors nor the lawyer have ever informed me of the outcome of the trial, a routine occurrence. So much for the calibre of our churches!)

Incidents like this are commonplace. The enemy is shooting at Christians, and the church is indifferent.

But now total war is under way, as Shelby Sharpe so telling reports it. The purpose is the obliteration of Christianity. If America’s churches do not resist this attack, God will give them over to destruction and replace them with another people and other churches.

In 1 Peter 4:17 we read, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”

What will happen to churches who are blind to what is taking place? And what can we say of a political order, which, faced with crisis upon crisis, plans to convert the country to Methanol-powered automobiles, using a particularly dangerous and poisonous fuel? There is a growing blindness all around us which is a prelude to God’s judgment. There is a concern with irrelevant issues which is always the mark of irrelevant man.

We are at war, but the weapons of our war are not material but Biblical and spiritual ones, and our calling is to believe and obey the Lord, to bring people to Christ, to extend His dominion, and to establish the crown rights of our king in every area of life and thought."

Edit: Published 1989.

 

messaggera

Kingfisher
Woman
We are at war, but the weapons of our war are not material but Biblical and spiritual ones, and our calling is to believe and obey the Lord, to bring people to Christ, to extend His dominion, and to establish the crown rights of our king in every area of life and though
This message is being preached aggressively over Christian radio stations right now.

Prayers are so vital.
 

Rivershield

Pigeon
The solution is regeneration, not revolution.
2Chronicles 7:14.

"The rot runs deep, not only in the body politic but in the churches. Too many churchmen are too busy warring against each other, or waiting for the Rapture (due in eighteen months, I was told today), and being generally irrelevant to know what is happening all around them.

For some years, I have been in many court trials as a witness for churches, Christian schools, home schools, families, and so on, who faced an attack for their faith and practice. I have seen a state attorney hold aloft a Bible and declare it a child-abuse manual. Several pastors were on trial for requiring the chastising of children in their schools or day-care facilities, although no parents had complained. This was in a southern Bible-belt state. No church members were in the courtroom to lend their moral support. (Neither pastors nor the lawyer have ever informed me of the outcome of the trial, a routine occurrence. So much for the calibre of our churches!)

Incidents like this are commonplace. The enemy is shooting at Christians, and the church is indifferent.

But now total war is under way, as Shelby Sharpe so telling reports it. The purpose is the obliteration of Christianity. If America’s churches do not resist this attack, God will give them over to destruction and replace them with another people and other churches.

In 1 Peter 4:17 we read, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”

What will happen to churches who are blind to what is taking place? And what can we say of a political order, which, faced with crisis upon crisis, plans to convert the country to Methanol-powered automobiles, using a particularly dangerous and poisonous fuel? There is a growing blindness all around us which is a prelude to God’s judgment. There is a concern with irrelevant issues which is always the mark of irrelevant man.

We are at war, but the weapons of our war are not material but Biblical and spiritual ones, and our calling is to believe and obey the Lord, to bring people to Christ, to extend His dominion, and to establish the crown rights of our king in every area of life and thought."

Edit: Published 1989.

It saddens me deeply that american christians are in such a dire situation. By comparison, we brazilian are doing pretty well to be fair. So far we managed to elect faithful people who stoped all the major bills that would effectively legalize persecution against christianity, and the faith is actually growing nationwide. Brazil did not suffer the demoralization white countries suffered, and it shows. If we count both practicing protestants and catholics, there's actually now way any major initiative against christianity (like legalization of abortion and laws against free speech) will take place, at least for the time being.
As for your solution, isn't that obvious? Regardless whether we are being directly attacked by the world or not, even if you were born in the most faithfull and homogenously christian country in the world, the war against sin never ends. Because WE are sinful. Inherently.

We are born in a state of spiritual war, and we die in it. Those who fight well, the chosen, die victorious. But there's no such a thing as an age devoid of spiritual war. If it's not against the world, it's against ourselves and our sinful impulses.

But there's an age in which satanic pedophiles rule, and there's an age in which they don't. Make your choice.
 
So you're saying guns are effective in opposing the federal government? Is there any evidence to support this? Anywhere, in the current century?


Guns serve a purpose in a rural society. In an urban setting, they are mostly used by minorities to commit violent crime. Guns don't typically correlate to safety though. What makes you safe is a society where you don't NEED to lock your door (my father still has not acclimated to locking doors, even though he probably should), not the fact that you can splatter someone with a shotgun when they inevitably home invade you.

Somalia has plenty of guns. Ain't that safe. It's the society that complies peacefully without the need of coersion, guns, police, fines, etc. that is the successful society. Like Norway, or Singapore, or Japan. People that do what they are supposed to out of a sense of community, not a fear of being shot should they screw up.

Statistically, a gun will never be used with non-criminal intent. It just sits there, with the potential to do something. However, the rules and mores of the society are at work 24/7 in a homogeneous, high time preference, high IQ, civilized nation. The.latter is a far stronger force.
 
So you're saying guns are effective in opposing the federal government? Is there any evidence to support this? Anywhere, in the current century?

Oh boy.... Try the talban, the whole occupation of iraq/afghanista, Mexican drug cartels, IRA, Vietnam..it goes on and on . If the governemnt wasnt afraid of guns and the potentional to overthrow them, then they wouldnt be coming after them. To them its worth the risk to confiscate. Gun confoscation can only be acheived if the majority of the US, military and Police forces are non white
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
That said, the purpose of having a gun is not just personal safety, but to be able to overtrow your government if needed. Maybe you live in Sweden, a country that used to fit your description.
Again, no evidence for this statement.
The right wing wants to make you think guns are doing something to keep the "gummint in check" the same way the left wing wants you to think its education/indoctrination system is making people smarter or its global warming laws are making your air or water cleaner. It's an illogical trope, such as killing people abroad in foreign countries, overthrowing their governments, and bombing their roads, bridges, schools and hospitals will somehow make you "safe." There is no evidence for any of these assertations, and often there is evidence to the contrary.

There is zero evidence of weaponry being effective in overcoming a powerful state. Maybe a hundred years ago or so, but not today. A gun today is the equivalent of a sword a hundred years ago. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary: That possessing even normal weapons such as guns and light arms will get you killed, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Even guys like that Belgian Rambo dude, who may be inspiring on a personal note, are not going to bring about any change. If anything, he will only further militarize the Belgian state.

Read John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will see the power of the state is rarely in its overt violence. But when it needs overt violence it won't hesitate to use it and no amount of guns are any deterrent to that.
 

Rivershield

Pigeon
Again, no evidence for this statement.
The right wing wants to make you think guns are doing something to keep the "gummint in check" the same way the left wing wants you to think its education/indoctrination system is making people smarter or its global warming laws are making your air or water cleaner. It's an illogical trope, such as killing people abroad in foreign countries, overthrowing their governments, and bombing their roads, bridges, schools and hospitals will somehow make you "safe." There is no evidence for any of these assertations, and often there is evidence to the contrary.

There is zero evidence of weaponry being effective in overcoming a powerful state. Maybe a hundred years ago or so, but not today. A gun today is the equivalent of a sword a hundred years ago. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary: That possessing even normal weapons such as guns and light arms will get you killed, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Even guys like that Belgian Rambo dude, who may be inspiring on a personal note, are not going to bring about any change. If anything, he will only further militarize the Belgian state.

Read John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will see the power of the state is rarely in its overt violence. But when it needs overt violence it won't hesitate to use it and no amount of guns are any deterrent to that.
I. DON'T. CARE. I was born and raised in violence, in a favela. You don't know anything about the world. You are sheltered.
The only thing I know is that crimminals are armed to the brim in my country, and I'm not. Crimminals in many cases even have better weapons than the police because politicians FEAR that arming the police appropriately will have the police eventually turn against them. The police is purposely held back so they can only worry about how they are going to survive the next shootout in the slums.
Corruption is so common that a politician's merit is judged in terms of how much he steals from us. If he steals but still do a portion of his job, we say "at least he did something". That's how we cope.
Maybe even with an entirely armed population it might not be possible to fight the stablishment. Maybe we would be crushed. BUT SO BE IT. Without weapons it's not even a possibility, it's certain we will remain defeated. I want to have the CHANCE to defend myself and my family, be it from robbers or politicians.
Before you say anything, try having an utterly disfunctional government. You gringos are yet to find out how that really looks like.
 

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
I. DON'T. CARE. I was born and raised in violence, in a favela. You don't know anything about the world. You are sheltered.
The only thing I know is that crimminals are armed to the brim in my country, and I'm not. Crimminals in many cases even have better weapons than the police because politicians FEAR that arming the police appropriately will have the police eventually turn against them. The police is purposely held back so they can only worry about how they are going to survive the next shootout in the slums.
Corruption is so common that a politician's merit is judged in terms of how much he steals from us. If he steals but still do a portion of his job, we say "at least he did something". That's how we cope.
Maybe even with an entirely armed population it might not be possible to fight the stablishment. Maybe we would be crushed. BUT SO BE IT. Without weapons it's not even a possibility, it's certain we will remain defeated. I want to have the CHANCE to defend myself and my family, be it from robbers or politicians.
Before you say anything, try having an utterly disfunctional government. You gringos are yet to find out how that really looks like.
I have visited your country, so I have an idea of what you mean.
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
Again, no evidence for this statement.
The right wing wants to make you think guns are doing something to keep the "gummint in check" the same way the left wing wants you to think its education/indoctrination system is making people smarter or its global warming laws are making your air or water cleaner. It's an illogical trope, such as killing people abroad in foreign countries, overthrowing their governments, and bombing their roads, bridges, schools and hospitals will somehow make you "safe." There is no evidence for any of these assertations, and often there is evidence to the contrary.

There is zero evidence of weaponry being effective in overcoming a powerful state. Maybe a hundred years ago or so, but not today. A gun today is the equivalent of a sword a hundred years ago. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary: That possessing even normal weapons such as guns and light arms will get you killed, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Even guys like that Belgian Rambo dude, who may be inspiring on a personal note, are not going to bring about any change. If anything, he will only further militarize the Belgian state.

Read John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will see the power of the state is rarely in its overt violence. But when it needs overt violence it won't hesitate to use it and no amount of guns are any deterrent to that.
Let’s see what a zek from the Soviet gulag camps had to say about that:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I. DON'T. CARE. I was born and raised in violence, in a favela. You don't know anything about the world. You are sheltered.
The only thing I know is that crimminals are armed to the brim in my country, and I'm not. Crimminals in many cases even have better weapons than the police because politicians FEAR that arming the police appropriately will have the police eventually turn against them. The police is purposely held back so they can only worry about how they are going to survive the next shootout in the slums.
Corruption is so common that a politician's merit is judged in terms of how much he steals from us. If he steals but still do a portion of his job, we say "at least he did something". That's how we cope.
Maybe even with an entirely armed population it might not be possible to fight the stablishment. Maybe we would be crushed. BUT SO BE IT. Without weapons it's not even a possibility, it's certain we will remain defeated. I want to have the CHANCE to defend myself and my family, be it from robbers or politicians.
Before you say anything, try having an utterly disfunctional government. You gringos are yet to find out how that really looks like.
Hey cool down, you would think I INVENTED the favela!
I typically avoid directly addressing posters, but I've seen a lot of emotion posting lately so I'm doing this publicly.

All that is great, and I generally agree with some non-emotional parts of it, but it has nothing to do with the question asked. Getting angry at whitey or yelling insults anonymously online does not obfuscate the fact that no evidence was presented at all concerning the effectiveness of violent force in overthrowing governments. That is the idea we are trying to discuss here in a productive, adult manner.

I'm glad to know that you and I agree on the dangers of violent communities, but again, that's not the topic at hand.
Perhaps this was truly (and I mean this with sincerity) a miscommunication or mistranslation.
But I was asking for historical examples of violence being successfully used in the overthrow of a government.

If someone can present recent examples of this (@The Penitent Man presented, not a historical example of success, but a well reasoned argument, from a well respected author that supports this position), then we can discuss it.

And it's not about "BOOM YOU ARE WRONG! SEE REVOLUTION CAN ACTUALLY WORK!" No, it's about thoughtfully considering, through rational analysis and historical example, the question at hand, and having an intelligent and mature discussion about it. If it can work, great, if not (as I am hypothesizing) then that is disconcerting, but I feel it more likely true than not.

On the other hand, if you were simply rage posting the idea that you abhor violence and that some places are so violent and dysfunctional that an armed population needs weapons to secure their safety, which was the only sort of point I could discern from the rambling post above, then perhaps you would feel a bit embarrassed to know that I basically agree with you, while it is of course totally unrelated to the question at hand.

If asking for historical examples of successful violence in the overthrow of a government is not a question you can answer, then perhaps it is best to remain silent and see if others can contribute to a meaningful on-topic discussion.

If asking for historical evidence makes you angry at the anonymous internet poster asking for said evidence, perhaps you should ask yourself what are you REALLY angry about? I'm angry at our government too, but at some point we need to have productive discussions about it, not just Breitbart-tier outbursts.

Again I am going to be generous and assume you were not trying to enrage through personal attacks against an anonymous person on the internet you will never meet, or that you were not purposefully making a strawman argument, which is where one invents, and then tears down, a position that the opposing party never made, and just assume this was a case of misunderstanding.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas. If you wish to contribute to a meaningful and productive discussion of ideas, then great. But let's try to stay on topic and remain civil.

Finally, as for the "you are dumb and white and don't know anything about the world" that type of attitude is frowned on here, and it's really unproductive anywhere, particularly to an anonymous person you'll never meet. You're likely to be ignored first, and eventually banned if you keep it up.

If truly "YOU DON'T CARE" what I have to say, then the proper thing to do is scroll past the message. You don't need to comment on everything you read. There is tool called "reaction score" that does gauge the collective value of past comments people have contributed here, and without directly comparing, I did observe yours when considering the validity of your outrageous outbursts. I don't have any opinion on your, or any other poster's intelligence, and it's incredibly wasteful and disrespectful of others' time to discuss it, but if you wish to discuss it privately, you can message me and we can play a game of chess, or a round of Jeopardy or heck, take an IQ test and if you can score within 30 points of me I will publicly tell everyone how big brained you are, if intelligence is so important to you. But that is still not relevant to the question at hand. Someone dumber than me can easily know things I do not, and intelligence is no guarantee of efficacy.

TLDR: Stay on topic, keep your emotions in check, don't be rude, don't enter verbal jousts you are not equipped to win

@The Penitent Man Solzhenitsyn is spot on and while we cannot know how successful such an uprising would be, I agree with him. However, I don't believe such tactics would still be successful today. The most powerful weapon the federal government has now is not its arms, but its corporations.
 
Last edited:

Rivershield

Pigeon
Hey cool down, you would think I INVENTED the favela!
I typically avoid directly addressing posters, but I've seen a lot of emotion posting lately so I'm doing this publicly.

All that is great, and I generally agree with some non-emotional parts of it, but it has nothing to do with the question asked. Getting angry at whitey or yelling insults anonymously online does not obfuscate the fact that no evidence was presented at all concerning the effectiveness of violent force in overthrowing governments. That is the idea we are trying to discuss here in a productive, adult manner.

I'm glad to know that you and I agree on the dangers of violent communities, but again, that's not the topic at hand.
Perhaps this was truly (and I mean this with sincerity) a miscommunication or mistranslation.
But I was asking for historical examples of violence being successfully used in the overthrow of a government.

If someone can present recent examples of this (@The Penitent Man presented, not a historical example of success, but a well reasoned argument, from a well respected author that supports this position), then we can discuss it.=
I did not address your points becuase they are desingenuous. There were plenty of revolutions that overtrew governments, including here in my country. The proclamation of the republic was a coup against the monarchy, and it came from a class of commoners that had weapons thanks to their ties with foreign republicans under their false god of democracy. The bolsheviks are another example. And the French revolution.
Perhaps you can try defending your argument as to why an armed population would be unable to act against a tyranical government.

I will not talk about the US but the brazilian army currently is one of the weakest in the world. It's not like they would have drones and modern weapons to storm the population with. But even if they had I doubt they would do that because since the inception of the Republic almost every election a military coup is threatened because the military itself, mostly the lower ranks, hate the system. We had a military coup in the 60s and at the time they did not take away our guns. To most brazilians that was one of the best post-monarchy periods.
Law enforcement as well, as I mentioned, are specifically held back and distracted, as that's how the government controls them. The government could have already dismantled the favelas and drug traffic if they really wanted. They don't because those are useful to them. It keeps law enforment busy, and it gives them space for more corruption and subversion.
Unlike the US, which suffered demoralization, the soviet union had actual direct influence in South America, and that influence exists to this day in the form of ideological movements, political subversion and organized crime.

I guess you assume it's impossible because the population would not stand a chance against the army and law enforcement. But that's assuming those institutions wouldn't be on the side of the population.
As such, I think I have to give you a bit more of context as to why I think an armed population would be possible to change everything in my country:
In first place, the one thing it takes for a revolution to happen here is law enforment actually getting the man power and gear necessary to do their job. Once the militias are dealt with, their next target would be our entire judiciary. Of course they would split and there would be infighting. But the funny thing is that this already happens.
Did you watch the movie Elite Troop? That movie is actually very realistic and inspired by real events. In Elite Troop 2 they show the police militias. Basically a police mafia that destroys the drug traffickers, but take their place instead, terrorizing the population. What is not shown in the movie is that not all militias are like that. Some are formed by police officers who act almost as vigilantes. In Brazil when a crimminal is arrested, if he is important, chances are he will not stay arrested or will still continue doing his job from prison. Those police militias organize to assassinate those guys. That's the only way to enact any justice. They also do that to crimminal minors because minors can't be arrested in Brazil. Not to mention the Bope and similar elite police squads from other states do that a lot too. The reason they kill so much is exactly to avoid letting the crimminals use the system to their advantage.
Our most competent soldiers and police officers are all known to act in almost vigilante ways, and the system does not do anything against them because that's a very delicate balance. The moment the policians decide to do something against them, they would become targets as those guys would have nothing to lose. On the other hand, I honestly don't know why they don't do anything against the politicians regardless, but I guess it's because it's easier to deal with known crimminal gangs than with elected officials.
Point is, key portions of law enforcement and military are not on the side of the system.

As for population, even unarmed there were events in which gropus stormed some public places and beaten politicians. Some police chiefs were actually investigated because they apparently turned a blind eye. The police turns a blind eye to civilian vigilantes too depending on the case. Someone raped your wife? Go and kill the rapist, they will pretend nothing happened.In Brazil, lynching still happens. In most places police will not stop the population from lynching a pedophile or a rapist. I personaly have gotten away with beating people I hate when I was away from the church (mostly homossexuals). Of course this is mostly the case in rural regions, not big cities.
This is the thrid world. If there's any good side to law not being upheld, I would say it is this. Point is, the brazilian is EXPECTED to take things in his own hands depending on the situation, nobody actually expects the police to handle everything.
Specially people like me. I would rather do it myself.
This is why I say you don't seem to grasp the situation. If we are armed, we would join law enforcement (or rather, militias) and the army and we would finally say goodbie to the brazilian republic, at least as it is now.

Of course none of this ever happened in real life, it was all in Minecraft.

But tell me how am I wrong.
 
Last edited:

ItsK

Chicken
Woman
We are close to the end of cowardice, caused by the effeminate excuse of pietism, deceived by its 'virtue'.
It's not cowardice. There's nothing you can do or say to make these people stop. This is how they want to live, like animals rolling around in their own filth, and they're convinced that this lifestyle is virtuous and good. They won't listen to you no matter what you say. Even if Jesus Christ came and talked to them in person, they wouldn't listen. Not even violence will help - the homos just became more sympathetic to the masses after the Pulse nightclub shooting. The only thing we can do as outliers of this homosexual culture is to stay away from it and wait for God to sort them out
 
Top