Even Jebus thinks you are bug-frak crazy.

Christianity is the religion that keeps on giving.  By “giving” I mean keeps on festering. Christianity exudes an oozing rancid pus that encrapulates and taints those exposed to its toxic effects. Dogmatic religious beliefs, like those espoused by Christian Patriarchy, are the putrefying ichor that rots modern secular society.

Pleasantries aside, this is probably one of the worst things you will read all day.  I’m going to re-post a article from No Longer Quivering about Matt, a young patriarch in training, and his thoughts on the role of women in a traditional christian family.  Trigger warnings for domestic violence, misogyny and homophobia are mandated for such piece.

The Red Pen O’ Snarky-Justice is raising an uproar that cannot be quelled, and thus, my commentary shall appear in red italics lightly treading on the wide trail of fail Matt leaves behind him.

“It’s possible that Matt is a troll and his comments should be ignored or deleted – but his arguments are not at all unlike the “biblical” beliefs which I heard taught/preached regularly during my Quiverfull days. I am assuming Matt is a young man based on his immaturity and know-it-all attitude – of course, given that patriarchs rarely grow up, it’s possible that he is an old man – maybe he’s the pastor of an IFB church.

So, without further ado – here’s Matt:
“I take it from your post that you are dead set on fornicating, although the Bible tells you not to do that.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [and the bible, like all religious delusional nonsense, is full of shite]”

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.[Ownership of one human being by another is a fracking aberration. Claiming that it is endorsed in holy scripture doubles down on the bullshite and vile misogyny omnipresent in the bible.]”

“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.[translation: Smile while you take your abuse as the bible says its okay, hell, you should be thanking me for letting you fully enjoy your noble roles as incubator, house slave and fuck-toilet]”

You are mistaking voluntary submission with involuntary servitude. As a Christian lady you are commanded to be subject to your husband, it is asked of you to submit. It doesn’t say “men, oppress your woman to all costs!”[I command you to voluntarily submit - this like most christian apologia has a sickening circularity along with a dash of guilt - witness the next sentence]. As a Christian woman who claims to believe in the Word of God, which is inspired/breathed by God, your Creator, is it alright for you to dismiss what that Word says? [Because god is such a fair (ordering genocide) and noble (endorsing slavery) creature, we should trust this derranged lunatics words to the letter - you want to be a properly deluded christian right?]

Matt, if if smells like BS...

A woman surrenders to a man so easily when he takes charge [Being afraid of being beaten to death will do that]. That is the danger of having a matriarch with a man in subjection. The woman indeed is the weaker vessel, tossed to and fro, giving in to whims, and judges things according to her motherly instinct [**swoosh!!**  Wow, did you hear that it was sound of women being dismissed as fully autonomous human beings possessing all the rights and freedoms men have, embrace being a second class 'semi-person' ; it can be fun because possessing as lady brain automatically makes you retarded] For instance, she would say sodomite couplings are lovely, because love is blind [Funny how woman = love = stupid]. A man who is not of God would say “I don’t care, to each their own”, but not mention love in the equation. 

A man of God would not even let a sodomite in under his roof or in the vincinity of his children!![Except in church, because being buggered as an alter boy is a holy experience, praise the lard for that!] Let me tell you something, love is not blind![Wait, didn't you just say it was like a sentence ago?] Even infatuation is not blind. But infatuation and love are two different things. Love is a choice. Hate is a choice [Word Salad is a Choice!]. I will hate the wicked and their deeds [some dude was saying something about turning the other cheek - ya know tolerance and stuff, but I digress, religious are fundamentally intolerant and Matt is doing just a spiffy-awesome job at being a douche-nozzle for jebus at the moment] Yes, hate.

Furthermore, sodomites hate God, and infiltrate churches to spit in God’s face [projection much?]. You might say, “sodomites love each other, so what’s wrong with that”? I love my siblings, does that mean I have sexual relations with them?![ah, the gentle conflation of incest with same sex relations *sigh*] I love men, as brothers. I love women, as sisters. But by God, there is only one person I take sexual pleasure in[mentioning the palm sisters in a godly rant, Matt really is all over the place on this one...]! Love is not sex. Learn it, woman.

So, if you’re a Christian woman, your God that you supposedly love, tells you to submit and be in subject to your husband in every thing[huh, god was a misogynist asshat too, colour me shocked]. Am I a jealous man? Every man of God should be jealous! Just as God is jealous, and wants us only to worship him[my goodness you are a special snowflake aren't you cupcake, you get to be a jealous abuser because god says so, convenient].

And why am I jealous? Because the woman is the weaker vessel[citation needed, and 'god says so' is his magic book does not count], and evil men who have acknowledged this takes advantage, to defile you [because explicitly calling women inferior and infantilizing them isn't defiling them at all].

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.[whoa shields up! Unfounded pontificating incoming!] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [I'm going to assume that Douche-twaddle is referring to men that are not patriarchal misogynists who don't actually want to enslave women].”

I’m telling you, there’s a lot of weak vessels, silly women, out there, who ungodly men lie in wait for. Am I controlling for keeping my woman away from these evil men? Then so be it. Yes, I am in control, but I love my woman enough to grant her freedom of thought and expression[as long as it completely agrees with my frakked up shite filled point of view; there fixed for ya]. She is as intelligent as I am, but still the weaker vessel, due to her willingness to surrender and submit to a man who takes charge [so she's evil if she does not submit and then she is also evil because she does submit, this like the rest of your circular bullcookery is half-baked, nutty-rotten religious hatred of women].

Matt says pretty fracked-up-shite here and needs a photo to break the wall of text and add luminosity to Matt's solemn pronouncements.

Ask yourself, how many men adopt the interests and beliefs of their wives [just the ones that care about their partners thoughts and feelings and want to share as opposed to dominate their lives]? None. How many women adopts the interests and beliefs of their husbands? They are in abundance[because you beat the ones that don't submit, you dastardly fuck]. It is clear that a woman submits to a man who rules her, even to the point of abuse, I’m sad to say[the christian Dark Ages are calling, they miss you]. Therefore a Christian man is told to love his woman as himself. What man would abuse himself[most patriarchs don't; they save the beatings and abuse for their wife and children, duh?]? He may abuse drugs or alcohol but not himself.”

 
Wow.  Deep-breath….*whew*.  You’ll need a shower after immersing yourself in the rectum-orious musings of ass-spittle like Matt.  Religion is an ugly piece of work and of course as mentioned around here from time to time, rotten to the core.  The sheer amount of hate for women turns ones guts sour.

Christian patriarchy, like all fundamentalist wack-a-loon religious fappery, is fundamentally anti-woman, anti-child and anti-modern (anti-civilization, while we are at it) paternalistic bullshite.  This branch of the christian death-cult ranks up there with the crazy Muslim sects that demand the burka and female genital mutilation from their woman-folk (cultural artifacts/religiously backed…your choice, it is still patently wrong).

How we let the religiously sponsored abuse of Women continue to exist in the so called civilized West is beyond me.

Let’s get this viral, stat.

Transcript here.

H/T to JJ where I saw the video.

“Pornography is the graphic representation, not just of violence against women, but of male supremacy. It degrades all women. It erodes the humanity of all women. Porn use fetishizes violence and supports male supremacy. Porn is the expression of patriarchy. Porn use is the practice of patriarchy.”

-Twisty, from I Blame the Patriarchy.

Discuss in the comments section.

The New Corporate Logo for Alberta Power Companies - "Plunder"

And make no mistake it is a generous gift.

“In Alberta, the big standout price increase was for electricity, which cost 63.6 per cent more in January than it did a year ago,” he said.

Go figure.  When the people who generate the power also control the supply do you think that they will manipulate the system of their benefit?  Of course they will.

“In the wake of revelations that TransAlta Corp. manipulated the power market to increase profits, a report to the Alberta monitor warns there’s a risk that participants may be working together to the same end.

The study prepared by consultancy Charles River Associates for the Alberta Market Surveillance Administrator, the enforcement arm of a system set up when Alberta deregulated its power market in 1995, looks into whether the level of data released makes it possible for participants to work in concert — but not whether they actually have.

It concludes that the Alberta market “may be susceptible to co-ordinated behaviour” because it has high supplier concentration, barriers to entry, repeated and frequent interaction by players and relatively constant levels of demand.

So the situation is ripe for plunder of Alberta’s citizens and plunder is exactly what TransAlta did.

“In a negotiated settlement with the MSA, TransAlta agreed to pay $370,000 and admit it purposely blocked the import of cheaper hydroelectric power from British Columbia over 31 hours in November 2010, creating an artificial shortage of electricity and higher prices.

The settlement, which takes away excess profits of $245,000 and includes a $125,000 fine, will be the subject of an Alberta Utilities Commission public hearing in January.”

This is why we need regulation and strong government oversight because this is just one reported incident that happened to be egregious enough to be caught.  Companies do not work for the pubic or the public good, they work to accrue the largest benefit of their shareholders and as noted above if swindling the people of alberta is good for the bottom line, so be it.  Yet the lovely PC government goads us with whip and and the bludgeon to buy into this corrupt system.

“Alberta’s regulated rate option — the rate consumers pay if they haven’t signed contracts with electricity retailers — was designed by the provincial government to encourage retail consumers to purchase contracts, which would theoretically attract more competition.

In July 2010, the governing Conservatives ended long-term hedging of electricity prices and collapsed the protective umbrella that had previously shielded residential, farm and small commercial consumers from wild price spikes.“

This simple is collusion with the power companies by the PC party.  This is not in the best interests of people of Alberta.  Far from it.  But let me assure you gentle readers, the brain-dead zombie sheeple of Alberta will continue to vote PC in the next election.  Why?  Your guess is as good as mine.

By far the most awesome depiction of christian moral values/struggle - featuring oversimplification, binary thinking and mythical figures .

For a group that so often harps on (and on and on) about having access to an – pardon me, “the” – objective moral standard, christians have some pretty outrageous double standards when it comes to ethical behaviour. What the christian god does, and is called all good/loving for, would be considered monstrous if done by anyone else.
Some believers may claim that god is a special case, that because of his infinite nature, the same rules don’t apply. Those rules are only for us mere mortals. It’s as if those who use this claim don’t really understand what ‘objective’ means.
If the morality of an action applies differently depending on context – whether Entity A does it or Entity B does it (god vs human), whether it was done in Time X or in Time Y (old testament era vs new testament era), etc. – then it is NOT an objective moral rule.  It is a relative rule.

That’s right.

Anytime theists say something like “that was OLD testament, things are different now because of Jebus,” they are admitting that their “god given ethics” are really the worst kind of moral relativism with a little Hocus-Pocus sprinkled on top.
Alternatively, some christians say instead that nothing their god does could possibly be considered monstrous, and

Christian Morality: a hearty thumbs up to Slavery but no to HomoSex, how divine.

the best thing any person could do is emulate the fantastic yummy goodness that is their deity, as much as is possible by us finite beings. My immediate reaction is to rant about the million and one things attributed to the christian god that are about as far from ‘good’ as one can get (examples 1 2 3). This will usually result in the believer switching to the first position addressed in this post (claiming relativism), or dodging the issue by pointing out some happy part of their text (which is dealt with here).
Despite these theistic tactics being flawed, they still distract from the actual topic at hand, allowing the believer to forget their arguments have been obliterated. Then the dance starts all over again.
So instead, today I would like to highlight a more fundamental part of christian dogma, one not so easily shrugged off. Here is yet another fantastic video from DarkMatter2525 showing what it would be like if firefighters “saved” people the same way Jebus does.

Inconsistent standards disqualify christianity from any claim to objectivity, while burning/torturing/killing “not saving” non believers  disqualifies it from any claim to morality. This “god” is nothing but an evil and fickle tyrant.

The work in its finished form has five movements:

1. Allegro maestoso

   Musically, the first movement – written in C minor – though passing through a number of different moods, often resembles a funeral march, and is violent and angry.

   The form of this movement is somewhat similar to a Classical Sonata form. The exposition is repeated in a varied form (from rehearsal letter 4 through 15, as often does Beethoven in his Late Quartets). The development presents several ideas that will be used later in the symphony, including a theme based on the Dies Irae plainchant.

   Mahler uses a somewhat modified tonal framework for the movement. The secondary theme, first presented in E major (enharmony of Fb major, neapolitan of Mib), begins its second statement in C major, a key in which it is not expected until the recapitulation. The statement in the recapitulation, coincidentally, is in the original E major (Fb major). The eventual goal of the symphony, E-flat major, is briefly hinted at after rehearsal 17, with a theme in the trumpets that returns in the finale.

   Following this movement, Mahler calls in the score for a gap of five minutes before the second movement. This pause is rarely observed today. Often conductors will meet Mahler half way, pausing for a few minutes while the audience takes a breather and settles down and the orchestra retunes in preparation for the rest of the piece. Julius Buths received this instruction from Mahler personally, prior to a 1903 performance in Düsseldorf;^[10] however, he chose instead to place the long pause between the fourth and fifth movements, for which Mahler congratulated him on his insight, sensitivity, and daring to go against his stated wishes.^[11]

2. Andante moderato

   The second movement is a delicate Ländler in A-flat major with two contrasting sections of slightly darker music. This slow movement itself is contrasting to the two adjacent movements. Structurally, it is one of the simplest movements in Mahler’s whole output. It is the remembrance of the joyful times in the life of the deceased.

3. In ruhig fließender Bewegung(With quietly flowing movement)

   The third movement is a scherzo in C minor. It opens with two strong, short timpani strokes. It is followed by two softer strokes, and then followed by even softer strokes that provide the tempo to this movement, which includes references to Jewish folk music. Mahler called the climax of the movement, which occurs near the end, sometimes a “cry of despair”, and sometimes a “death-shriek”. The movement is based on Mahler’s setting of “Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt” from “Des Knaben Wunderhorn”, which Mahler composed almost concurrently. (This movement was the basis for the third movement of Luciano Berio‘s “Sinfonia“, where it is used as the framework for adding, collage-like, a great many quotations and references to other scores.)

4. Urlicht (Primeval Light). Sehr feierlich, aber schlicht

   The fourth movement, Urlicht, is a Wunderhorn song, sung by an alto, which serves as an introduction to the Finale in a manner similar to the bass recitative in Beethoven’s Ninth. The song, set in the remote key of D-flat major, illustrates the longing for relief from worldly woes, leading without a break to the response in the Finale.

5. Im Tempo des Scherzos (In the tempoof the scherzo)

   The finale is the longest, typically lasting over half an hour. It is divided into two large parts, the second of which begins with the entry of the chorus and whose form is governed by the text of this movement. The first part is instrumental, and very episodic, containing a wide variety of moods, tempi and keys, with much of the material based on what has been heard in the previous movements, although it also loosely follows sonata principles. New themes introduced are used repeatedly and altered.

   The movement opens with a long introduction, beginning with the “cry of despair” that was the climax of the third movement, followed by the quiet presentation of a theme which re-appears as structural music in the choral section, and by a call in the offstage horns. The first theme group reiterates the “Dies Irae” theme from the first movement, and then introduces the “resurrection” theme to which the chorus will sing their first words, and finally a fanfare. The second theme is a long orchestral recitative, which provides the music for the alto solo in the choral section. The exposition concludes with a re-statement of the first theme group. This long opening section serves to introduce a number of themes, which will become important in the choral part of the finale.

   The development section is what Mahler calls the “march of the dead”. It begins with two long drum rolls, which include the use of the gongs, In addition to developing the Dies Irae and resurrection themes and motives from the opening cry of despair, this section also states, episodically, a number of other themes, based on earlier material. The recapitulation overlaps with the march, and only brief statements of the first theme group are re-stated. The orchestral recitative is fully recapitulated, and is accompanied this time by offstage interruptions from a band of brass and percussion. This builds to a climax, which leads into a re-statement of the opening introductory section. The horn call is expanded into Mahler’s “Great Summons”, a transition into the choral section.

   Tonally, this first large part, the instrumental half of the movement, is organized in F minor. After the introduction, which recalls two keys from earlier movements, the first theme group is presented wholly in F minor, and the second theme group in the subdominant, B-flat minor. The re-statement of the first theme group occurs in the dominant, C major. The development explores a number of keys, including the mediant, A-flat major, and the parallel major, F major. Unlike the first movement, the second theme is recapitulated as expected in the tonic key. The re-statement of the introduction is thematically and tonally a transition to the second large part, moving from C-sharp minor to the parallel D-flat major — the dominant of F-sharp minor — in which the Great Summons is stated.. The Epiphany comes in, played by the flute, in a high register, and featuring trumpets, that play offstage. The choral section begins in G-flat major.

   The chorus comes in quietly a little past the halfway point of the movement. The choral section is organized primarily by the text, using musical material from earlier in the movement. (The B-flat below the bass clef occurs four times in the choral bass part: three at the chorus’ hushed entrance and again on the words “Hör’ auf zu beben”. It is the lowest vocal note in standard classical repertoire. Mahler instructs basses incapable of singing the note remain silent rather than sing the note an octave higher.) Each of the first two verses is followed by an instrumental interlude; the alto and soprano solos, “O Glaube”, based on the recitative melody, precede the fourth verse, sung by the chorus; and the fifth verse is a duet for the two soloists. The opening two verses are presented in G-flat major, the solos and the fourth verse in B-flat minor (the key in which the recitative was originally stated), and the duet in A-flat major. The goal of the symphony, E-flat major, the relative major of the opening C minor, is achieved when the chorus picks up the words from the duet, “Mit Flügeln”, although after eight measures the music gravitates to G major (but never cadences on it).

   E-flat suddenly re-enters with the text “Sterben werd’ ich um zu leben,” and a proper cadence finally occurs on the downbeat of the final verse, with the entrance of the heretofore silent organ (marked “volles Werk”) and with the choir instructed to sing “mit höchster Kraft” (with highest power). The instrumental coda is in this ultimate key as well, and is accompanied by the tolling of deep bells. Mahler went so far as to purchase actual church bells for performances, finding all other means of achieving this sound unsatisfactory. Mahler wrote of this movement: “The increasing tension, working up to the final climax, is so tremendous that I don’t know myself, now that it is over, how I ever came to write it.” ^[12]

Lets take a look at how well EL-Douche’s latest work stand up to criticism from a writer in the U.K. -

“Apart from being based on a premise that is largely irrelevant to the concerns of tar sands critics (that the tar sands are by far the most energy intensive source of fuel around, that they are endangering the lives and livelihoods of first nations peoples, that the toxic waste is poisoning the water and local wildlife, that they are an incredibly inefficient use of Canada’s natural gas supply), Levant’s book is incredibly poorly researched. His references are from newspaper articles, blogs, press releases – hardly an academic journal in sight.” (emphasis mine)

You fail EL-douche…  as usual.  But, then lets see what someone who deals with reality has to say on the oilsands issue…

“Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant’s book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil.

The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the “ethical oil” argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.

To start, the logic is faulty. Just because a country or society is considered “ethical” does not mean everything it produces or exports is ethical. If we are going to delve into the ethics of the issue, we must look at the ethics of energy overall. That means considering the impacts of various energy systems on people and the environment.

Here, the science is troubling. It shows that the Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and are the country’s fastest growing source of emissions. To date, they have disturbed 600 square kilometres of boreal forest with little or no chance of true reclamation, use enormous amounts of water, and pollute the surrounding air and water.

This past summer, an independent, peer-reviewed scientific study showed that toxic byproducts from the tar sands extraction industry are poisoning the Athabasca River, putting downstream First Nations communities and the fish they eat at risk. Health studies show these First Nations communities already have elevated rare cancers associated with exposure to such toxins.

If this is the most “ethical” source of oil we can find, we need to ask other questions about the moral purity of our intensively processed bitumen. For example, if we sell the oil to countries with poor human-rights records, like China, does that affect the product’s “ethical” nature? And how “ethical” are the companies operating in the tar sands; for example, Exxon Mobil, well-known sponsor of climate-change disinformation campaigns; BP, responsible for last year’s massive oily disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; or PetroChina? There’s also the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on our children and grandchildren, which to me is an intergenerational crime.

In this light, wouldn’t energy from technologies or sources that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and that have a minimal environmental and health impacts be far more ethical than fossil fuels? And, from an economic perspective, wouldn’t these more ethical technologies or fuel sources be doubly attractive to foreign buyers if they came from an “ethical” country like Canada?

As award-winning Alberta author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued, with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. But major changes are needed. Environmental regulation and monitoring must be strengthened. Pollution and related health problems must be addressed. More of the revenue must go to Canadians rather than fossil fuel companies. And a national carbon tax would help us move from oil to less-polluting energy sources.

The problem is, no matter what Ezra Levant and his friends in government say, oil has never been about “ethics”. It has always been about money. Those who argue the case for “ethical oil” should work to ensure that our energy needs are met in a truly ethical way, now and into the future. In the end, the only truly ethical solution is to phase out oil. The black eye that tar sands oil is sporting can’t be remedied with meaningless phrases such as “ethical oil”.

To be seen as truly ethical when it comes to energy policy, Canada must slow down tar sands development, clean up the environmental problems, implement a national carbon tax, improve the regulatory and monitoring regime, and make sure that Canadians are reaping their fair share of the revenues. We must also start taking clean energy seriously. Rather than subsidizing the tar sands and all the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks, we should be investing in energy technologies that will benefit our health, economy, and climate.

It might also help if Canada’s environment minister spent more time protecting the environment rather than appeasing the oil industry and its apologists.“

Thanks Dr.Suzuki for providing a reasonable version of what is actually happening in the Tarsands and what must be done.