Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Red Pill

Angry Feminist made worse by politically correct sympathy

Avatar

Published

on

In a New York Times piece dated 13 March 2018, a clearly distraught woman wrote this letter to a page called “The Sweet Spot”:

Dear Sugars,

How do I deal with my anger toward men? I go to therapy, I’m on anti-depressants and I’m trying to practice self-care. But I’m still angry. I don’t think it’s unwarranted. I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice. We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but our president is an alleged sexual predator. Men are socialized to be condescending toward women, and even the few who check themselves often fail.

The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late. I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain. In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Justifiably Angry Feminist

What follows are excerpts from the responses the lady got. See if you can catch the trap. I will help by bolding a few of the problem phrases.

Steve Almond: Your letter made me think of James Baldwin’s famous formulation that to be African-American in this country “and to be relatively conscious, is to be in a rage almost all the time.” You have every right to be angry with men who have harmed you, in word or deed. No man can understand how it feels to grow up female in this culture, especially not an affluent white man like myself. We are largely ignorant of what it’s like to be economically, socially, professionally and sexually bullied. Having said that, your essential beef here really isn’t with men, individually or as a population. It’s with patriarchal thought and behavior, those monstrous forms of privilege by which men control women. The deeper question we need to reckon with is why boys and men are socialized to derive their self-worth from the denigration and domination of women. The symptoms of this mindset — discrimination, abusive behavior, rape — are infuriating. But beneath this rage lurks a deep sorrow that belongs to all of us…

… Abusive men are beginning to be held to account, which is to say: Women are being believed. But there’s still a vast segment of our population that refuses to confront the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. They’ve chosen, instead, to normalize and even lionize cruel and predatory behavior. In my view, this moral regression — like the resurgence of overt bigotry in our political discourse — marks the panicky response of a dominant culture feeling the tremors Cheryl alludes to… But this style of thought is also nourished by a consumer culture that profits from sowing doubt. Men are indoctrinated to associate power with predation, and women with seduction and submission. This paradigm, epitomized in the simulated pleasure of hetero-normative pornography, will only begin to diminish in force as we reject the dishonesty of a sexual discourse founded on misogynistic myths.

… Anger is a proper response to injustice. But so is empowerment, as Cheryl suggests. Place your faith in the feminist philosopher ‘bell hooks’ (pseudonym for Gloria Jean Watkins). “Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion,” she observes. “A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.” Any man worth your time will recognize this, and will come to see that the forces seeking to control women seek to control him, too. This does not mean that men will cease to disappoint you. The patriarchy wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be dismantled in a day either. Nor do any of us move through life free of our darker impulses. They invariably emerge in our most intimate relationships. But there are men in this world capable of owning their self-doubt rather than turning it against women. You deserve such a man. We all do.

And from the other respondent:

Cheryl Strayed: Your rage is justified, Angry Feminist. I won’t list all the reasons why because you already did that quite well. We both know the list of injustices goes on. It stretches around the globe and dates back through all time. Strangely, it helps me to remember that. Perhaps remembering that will be solace for you too. Here’s why: there’s no way to make an accounting of that infuriating list without seeing also that progress has been made. I know your most immediate fury is rooted in the specific problem you have in your own life — the question of how you can love (or even find) a man when so many have wronged or disappointed you. But sometimes our most particular sorrows are eased ever so slightly when we take a broader view. The fact that your anger can even be expressed in the terms that you’ve expressed it is evidence, to me, that change is afoot. The reasons you cite for your anger — the high incidence of sexual assault, the misogyny of our president and the nation that elected him, the sexism that even enlightened men (and women) enact — aren’t topics being discussed on the margins anymore. They’re being addressed far and wide, loud and clear. And many of our most powerful institutions and assumptions about men and woman are being rocked, if not yet toppled, by that discussion. Take heart in that.

… I can’t predict if you’ll ever find a man who treats you like an equal, but I can say you’re more likely to find one if you seek love from a place of personal power rather than desolation. We change our lives (and sometimes the world) by deciding to do things differently than we’ve done them before. Perhaps for you, Angry Feminist, that means reframing your justified anger. Right now, your rage is a simmering pot of despair that can do nothing but sink you. If instead you can direct it down channels that empower you, it will serve a powerfully important purpose in your life. This could be as small as speaking up rather than remaining silent when you observe sexism or as big as getting involved with an organization or cause whose mission is gender equity (and you might even meet some good guys there). It’s incredibly difficult not to feel burned by the patriarchy. We have indeed been burned. But, as we know — around the globe and through all time — the best things rise from the ashes.

[Emphases mine]

So, what is wrong here?

The main thing is the mindset of the “Angry Feminist.” I did not highlight anything in her letter because I wanted to come back to this directly. But let’s make a list of problems, restating her sentiments in her letter:

First, she says only how she thinks she is right:

How do I deal with my anger toward men?

  • I go to therapy
  • I’m on anti-depressants 
  • I’m trying to practice self-care 

But I’m still angry.

  • I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

Then, she talks about how everyone else and everything else around her is wrong:

  • I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice.
  • We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but…
  • our president is an alleged sexual predator.
  • Men are socialized to be condescending toward women
  • even the few who check themselves often fail.

The third aspect is how “no one understands” her pain.

  • The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late.
  • I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain.
  • In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

And then, we have the dilemma:

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Angry Feminist has boxed herself in, and the man and woman, though well-meaning in their response, will not help her at all. At best, they will only help her deny her rage and hide it a little, all the while never truly changing.

Why is this so?

Feminism as we see in Angry’s example is a psychological problem of self-victimization that is extremely attractive and very difficult to undo except with direct confrontation. And because of the usual American social construct we have, we are simultaneously taught to be polite, to regard women as the (physically) weaker sex and therefore in need of protection. This is a traditional view and it still persists among men. We derive a large part of our sense of nobility from it.

But feminism takes this nobility and turns it against us, because the feminist is angry at men simply because they exist, and the men want to try to help the feminist stop being angry. We may try to do so by being more noble, and more kind, but this almost never works with a feminist woman. The feminist alternately loves the kindness of the man and despises it, and this is an unstable emotional framework, and it can induce fear in men.  That fear in men to aggravate the feminist is such that he will not confront her for being completely bonkers, to directly confront such a deranged person, any real direct message usually doesn’t happen. The usual result is that the man flees in some way, and the woman feels once again justified in her anger because “the man let her down” in her view.

The truth is she drove him away because he had to either flee her wrath or die from it, or go crazy and do something horrible. And the real tragedy of feminism is that getting the woman to recognize her own part in causing this is next to impossible.

Our intrepid New York Times people both gave into this pressure, and started giving Angry useless and emotionally placating statements, none of which have the power to heal the woman from her condition.

St Paul, from the New Testament, had a terrific understanding of the human condition. Many feminists are quick to arouse their anger because one set of instructions he gave regarding marriage said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV translation offered)

As one reads this, even non-feminists could easily imagine feminist heads exploding everywhere. What is even more significant is that we probably expect most American women’s heads to explode. This is because this sort of feminism has become quite strongly entrenched in society, so much so that we don’t easily see it.

But St Paul did not stop here. So the feminists ought to read a little farther to find out what the men have to do. And, admittedly, men also need to read this:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:25-29, NIV)

So, what does this mean, “Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”

Well, Christian believers know that Christ died for his people. His giving himself was to give himself all the way to death. So, the image St Paul paints is, “Husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, in the image of Christ dying for his Church…”

But it is easy for men influenced by feminism to misunderstand this as a call to a type of servility to the will of women. This is wrong. Christ did not do whatever the Church wanted. He founded it and formed it in leadership, and died as its leader. It is a bit more like being a general in battle than a slave to a master.  St Paul continues:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife seethat she respects her husband.

We emphasized this last sentence because it is the summary. The command is for the ultimate in respect, each for the other.

Angry Feminist never got this instruction. Both her respondents cowtowed to her rage and didn’t bring it to this teaching. And that is pretty common, as even many Christian believers in our day have no idea what this section really means.

But now that you have read it, you may begin to develop the idea. This leads to the revelation of the great lie at the end of the lady’s letter. Her signature:

Justifiably Angry Feminist

She is not justified at all. In fact, she is completely in the wrong.

So, what might we say to Angry Feminist?

One thing must be understood. The first time she reads or hears this, she will explode with anger and refuse to read the rest. So, it would take everyone around her being on the same page until her ego cracks enough for her to begin to be teachable. Here is our attempt:

Dear Angry Feminist,

You may completely disagree with what you are about to read. But we have seen your problem, and we have seen its solution, and it works. So, we suggest you read and re-read our response over and over until something opens in you.

Your anger is because you have locked yourself in hell. However the key to get out is firmly in your own hands, and to change the hell, you will have to walk out. The locks are your resentments towards the men who tried to take advantage of you. Forgive them. Everyone on earth has the right to be wrong, and we unfortunately are. Forgive them because you do things wrong and expect to be forgiven as well, don’t you? Then you open the doors and simply walk out of hell.

Therapy is not therapy if the therapist merely affirms your anger. Your anger is the problem far more than the people around you are. Change your anger and the people around you will amazingly become better. Anti-depressants? These don’t help at all. They just aid and abet you in your sickness, and they give you the excuse to blame the world, which you cannot change, instead of looking at yourself and what you can change.

Some women think that they have the right to display their bodies any way they wish. We don’t know what your attitude is about this, but we can say that you probably would be highly disturbed if men went walking around virtually naked, wouldn’t you? They would be disrespectful to themselves and invite attention from depraved people who want only one thing. So, if you think you have the right to show your body as you wish, you are wrong. We all affect one another. And we attract people that are like how we act. Act respectful of yourself, and men who respond to you will be more likely to be respectful of you.

That being said, men are hard-wired to pursue women. So if a respectful man gives you flowers or holds the door open for you, or walks on the street-side of the sidewalk to protect you, that is his expression of dignity as a man who respects and values you as a woman. Feminism doesn’t allow for such actions, but that is the lie of feminism.

Finally, you are lying to yourself and those around you when you say that you want men to treat you as an equal. What you really want is for the men to somehow make restitution for the harms you have either really received or have perceived. They will never be able to make up for these offenses, because most of them are magnified in your own mind and heart to the point where you cannot even see men correctly.

The world is full of good God-fearing men. In the United States, they abound. But if you look at the world through feminist glasses, you will never see them. They also see you and your anger that you beat the world around you with, and they probably feel sad because they cannot make an approach to you.

Forgive others, and change yourself, and the world will become different. Continue to blame others and exalt yourself, and things will only get worse. 

This is the truth we have found. It is difficult, it is unpleasant at first, and it is no doubt a shock to you. But if you have actually succeeded in reading this response this far, it says you are capable of change. We wish you every blessing God can give as you work on yourself.

With love,

Red Pill Times

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Frankenstein Designer Kids: What You Don’t Know About Gender-Transitioning Will Blow Your Mind

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Puberty-blocking drugs, mastectomies, vaginal surgery and fake penises – all with zero chance of reversal – these are just some of the radical experimental methods being used on children. The madness must stop.

Imagine that you are the parent of a five-year-old boy who innocently informs you one day that he is a girl. Of course, the natural reaction would be to laugh, not phone up the nearest gender transitioning clinic. You have no idea how your little boy came to believe such a thing; possibly it was through something he heard at the daycare center, or maybe a program he saw on television. In any case, he insists that he ‘identifies’ as a female.

Eventually, possibly at the encouragement of your local school, you pay a visit to a physician. You hope this medical professional will be able to provide you and your child with some sound counseling to clear up his confusion. Prepare yourself to be disappointed. Your doctor will be forced, according to state and medical dictate, to follow the professional guidelines known as ‘affirmative care.’ It sounds nice and harmless, doesn’t it? In fact, the program could be best described as nothing short of diabolical.

The Medical Harms of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work. In other words, if the child tells the doctor that he believes he is a girl, the doctor must comply with that ‘reality’ no matter what biology tells him or her to be the case. But this is just the beginning of the madness.

As the child’s parent, you will be encouraged to start referring to your son as your ‘daughter,’ and even permit him to choose a feminine name, as well as matching clothes. Teachers will be instructed to let your son use the girl’s bathroom while at school. The question of the social stigma attached to such a lifestyle change, complete with bullying, is rarely brought into the equation. Therapists will seldom discuss with the parents the social implications of such a mental and physical change; indeed, many will insist the changes are ‘reversible’ should the child one day have a change of heart. If only things were that easy.

Let’s pause for a moment and ask what should be the most obvious question, especially among medical professionals: ‘Is it not terribly naive to support the fleeting belief of a child, who still believes in Santa Claus, that he/she is the opposite sex? Isn’t there a very high possibility that the child is just confused and the thought will pass? Moreover, why did we never hear about such episodes just 10 years ago, yet today we are led to believe it is some sort of epidemic?’ Instead of working with the child and his newfound identity from such an obvious approach, in the majority of cases the child will be placed on the fast-track to gender transitioning. This is where the horror story begins.

One parent, ‘Elaine,’ a member of the advocacy group Kelsey Coalition whose daughter underwent “life-altering medical interventions,” came to understand that the transition is immensely harmful to the future health and well-being of her child.

“Once the teenage years begin, affirmative care means giving young people cross-sex hormones,” Elaine said during a panel discussion organized by the Heritage Foundation. “Girls as young as twelve are prescribed testosterone for lifetime usage, while boys are given estrogen. These are serious hormonal treatments that impact brain development, cardiovascular health and may increase the risk of cancer.”

This leads us to the operating table, where adolescents, lacking the mental maturity necessary to make such a huge life-altering choice, are exposed to the knife of irreversible surgical manipulation. Double mastectomies on girls, for example, as well as the fashioning of false penises derived from flesh borrowed from other parts of the body, are just some of the unprecedented procedures now available.

Elaine mentioned the high-profile story of one Jazz Jennings, who was diagnosed with ‘gender dysphoria’ and raised as a girl since the age of five. He was treated with hormones at the age of eleven, and at the age of 17, Jazz underwent surgery to remove his penis and create a simulated vagina out of his stomach lining.

“After surgery, Jazz’s wounds began separating and a blood blister began to form. An emergency surgery was performed. According to Jazz’s doctor, ‘As I was getting her on the bed, I heard something go ‘pop.’ When I looked, the whole thing has split open.’”

Elaine called the case of Jazz a “medical experiment on a child” that “has been playing out on television for the past 12 years.” It should be noted that a similar drama-packed scenario captivated the nation with the high-profile, made-for-television sexual transition of Caitlyn Jenner, born Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic gold medalist, who was quite possibly the greatest American athlete of all time.

The obvious question is ‘how many impressionable children, many experiencing their own bodily changes in the form of puberty, were persuaded to decide in favor of gender transitioning (something that a child could have only heard about from some external media or source, unless the parents engage in such odd discussion topics at the dinner table) after watching these celebrity persona?’ By now, few people would doubt the powerful influence that TV celebrities have over people, and especially adolescents. In fact, that is the entire notion behind the idea of a ‘positive role model.’ I am not sure Caitlin Jenner would qualify for such a part.

According to Michael Laidlaw, M.D., these children, who are experiencing what the medical community has dubbed ‘gender dysphoria,’ will move beyond their condition either naturally or with the assistance of a therapist. Meanwhile, according to Laidlaw, citing studies, many of the girls and boys who display symptoms have neuro-psychiatric conditions and autism. “Social media and YouTube, things like that, binge-watching YouTube videos of transitioners seem to be playing a role…as well as contagion” in popularizing the idea among the masses.

The movement is predicated upon the modern liberal idea of ‘gender identity,’ which has been defined as a “person’s core internal sense of their own gender,” regardless as to what the biological facts of their sex prove.

Dr. Laidlaw presented perhaps the best case against parents and their children rushing to the conclusion that their children need puberty blockers, for example, or extreme doses of hormones, when he discussed what happens when a person is diagnosed with cancer.

“If a child or somebody you knew had cancer, would you want pathology results, would you want imaging to prove [the condition] before you give harmful chemotherapeutics,” he asked. Yet we are allowing children and adolescents to undergo irreversible chemical and surgical procedures without being able to see any evidence that shows the presence of ‘the opposite sex’ in the patient.

In other words, the medical community is monkey-wrenching with not only Mother Nature, but with the lives of children, with radical and irreversible experiments that have not been proven to promote the happiness and wellbeing of those on the receiving (or subtracting) end.

“We are giving very harmful therapies on the basis of no objective diagnosis,” Dr. Laidlaw said.

Laidlaw was forced to repeat what has been widely known for millennia.

“There are only two sexes,” he said. “Sex is identified at birth, nobody assigns it. Doctors don’t arbitrarily assign this person to be a boy and this person to be a girl. We all know how to identify it.

“I would say ‘ask your grandmother who doesn’t read the scientific journals, and they will tell you exactly how to identify boys from girls.’”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Candace Owens calls out lying Democrat narrative machine [Video]

Candace Owens was the latest near-casualty in the Democrat liberal globalists’ attempt to increase anger and division in the US.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

In a Congressional hearing led by House Democrats, Candace Owens represented the Republican party’s viewpoints in a conference that was supposed to be about “hate crimes” and their perpetration through Internet social media outlets. She was treated with a despicable level of disgust.

It would actually be very difficult for anyone but the most prejudiced liberal Democrat to not see the blatant use of out of context remarks and spin to try to destroy a person for political gain.

A well known conservative commentator, Candace Owens got a clip played of her own statement about nationalism by Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA), which she supports. She made a statement about how the perception of “nationalist” leaders is commonly held to be people like Adolf Hitler, but that this in fact is not true. Here is the exact text of what she said:

I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word “nationalism”. I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. … Whenever we say “nationalism”, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.[59]

Where the Democrats went with this was astounding in its reach into both fiction and insanity. The allegation did not address in any regard what Ms. Owens actually said, but rather, the “concern” over her saying the name “Adolf Hitler” and also that “if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great… fine.”

For the next four minutes Candace sat quietly as the Democrats used this foil to prattle on their narrative about the “hatefulness of conservatives” and underlined indirectly Owens’ alleged prejudice. But finally, Ms Owens got a chance to speak. And speak, she did:

Here is the video. It is instructive to watch the whole thing, but if you want only Candace’s response, go to [05:29] to see and hear what she has to say.

The body of what Ms Owens said in response to this farce is here below (we added emphasis and edited a mistaken phrase that Ms Owens corrected as she spoke – she was very angry as she fiercely defended herself and called the Democrats to account):

“I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extract, an extracted clip…”

Here, Rep. Jerry Nadler interrupted, trying to correct Ms Owens for calling Rep. Lieu stupid, which she actually did not, as one can see in the text.

“As I said, he is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip. And he purposefully extracted; he cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether … or not I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad…

And what I responded to, is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people. That is exactly what I was referring to in the clip and he purposely wanted to give you a cut-up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump, to create a different narrative. That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it, which is worrisome, and and to tell you a lot about where people are today in terms of people trying to drum up narratives.

By the way, I would like to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the Embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure that I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”

Ms. Owens was not finished. Fox News reported further:

Turning to her 75-year old grandfather seated behind her, Owens remarked, “My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’ held real meaning.”

Though Owens stood up for truth, a deeper problem still exists

The hearing in which this took place was one in which executives from Facebook and Google answer lawmakers’ questions about the companies’ spread of “hate crimes” and the mythical issue of “white nationalism” in the United States.

This “white nationalism” is a total farce and only exists in the minds of woke liberals and Democrats. Further, there is nothing illegal about what has popularly come to be called “hate speech”, though of course as Christians we are taught not to speak hatefully about anyone, even our enemies.

Of course, since Christianity is rejected in the US, with more and more people saying they do not believe in the traditionally held concept of God, and an increasing number of outright atheists, who deliberately believe there is no such thing as God. Concurrent with this breakdown is the inability for people to handle themselves, and a corresponding increase in unrestrained rage over social media and even face to face.

The mainstream media will not report this, but we will. One of the biggest factors in this madness is the use of social media as a “blasting point” from which anyone can say anything, no matter how vile, to anyone else or to everyone else. Even religious discussion groups, such as Facebook’s various groups on Orthodox Christianity (the oldest and purest Christian confession on earth) swiftly devolve into accusations, name calling and enough invective to turn any inquirer into Christianity completely off.

As a matter of fact, the live streaming of this Congressional hearing had to have its comments disabled, and Representative Nadler showed a copy of the transcribed comments to the people in the meeting and read it, perhaps blissfully unaware of how his own dishonesty added to it.

This is a problem. While it is refreshing to many people that Candace Owens stuck up for herself and did so with strength and self-restraint at the same time, the circus antics do reveal exactly what she talked about and further how serious it is.

It is unclear how far this goes. Google and YouTube and Facebook are probably not themselves to blame for the breakdown, but their services are certainly highly employable by people who are energized with self-righteous rage in any direction, and all of that is helping separate us all from one another.

It should be noted that Russia did not have to do one single thing to cause this. This is totally Made In USA.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Number Of Americans With “No Religion” Has Soared 266% Over The Last 3 Decades

There is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog:


Over the last 30 years, there has been a mass exodus out of organized religion in the United States.  Each year the needle has only moved a little bit, but over the long-term what we have witnessed has been nothing short of a seismic shift.  Never before in American history have we seen such dramatic movement away from the Christian faith, and this has enormous implications for the future of our nation.  According to a survey that was just released, the percentage of Americans that claim to have “no religion” has increased by 266 percent since 1991…

The number of Americans who identify as having no religion has risen 266 percent since 1991, to now tie statistically with the number of Catholics and Evangelicals, according to a new survey.

People with no religion – known as ‘nones’ among statisticians – account for 23.1 percent of the U.S. population, while Catholics make up 23 percent and Evangelicals account for 22.5 percent, according to the General Social Survey.

In other words, the “nones” are now officially the largest religious group in the United States.

At one time it would have been extremely difficult to imagine that one day the “nones” would someday surpass evangelical Christians, but it has actually happened.

And the biggest movement that we have seen has been among our young people.  According to a different survey, two-thirds of Christian young adults say that they stopped going to church at some point between the ages of 18 and 22

Large numbers of young adults who frequently attended Protestant worship services in high school are dropping out of church.

Two-thirds of young people say they stopped regularly going to church for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22, a new LifeWay Research surveyshows.

These are the exact same patterns that we saw happen in Europe, and now most of those countries are considered to be “post-Christian societies”.

The young adults of today are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they have a much higher percentage of “nones” than the population as a whole.  According to a study that was conducted a while back by PRRI, 39 percent of our young adults are “religiously unaffiliated” at this point…

Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.

To go from 10 percent during Ronald Reagan’s second term to 39 percent today is an absolutely colossal shift.

Right now, only about 27 percent of U.S. Millennials attend church on a regular basis.  Most of them simply have no interest in being heavily involved in organized religion.

And even the young people that are involved in church do not seem very keen on sharing their faith with others.  According to one of the most shocking surveys that I have seen in a long time, 47 percent of Millennials that consider themselves to be “practicing Christians” believe that it is “wrong” to share the gospel with others

A new study from the California-based firm Barna Group, which compiles data on Christian trends in American culture, has revealed a staggering number of American millennials think evangelism is wrong.

The report, commissioned by the discipleship group Alpha USA, showed a whopping 47 percent of millennials — born between 1984 and 1998 — “agree at least somewhat that it is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith.”

These numbers are hard to believe, but they are from some of the most respected pollsters in the entire country.

Politically, these trends indicate that America is likely to continue to move to the left.  Those that have no religious affiliation are much, much more likely to be Democrats, and so this exodus away from organized religion is tremendous news for the Democratic Party.

In a previous article, I documented the fact that somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the United States are dying each year.

That means that more than 100 will die this week.

And thousands more are teetering on the brink.  In fact, most churches in America have less than 100 people attending each Sunday

A majority of churches have fewer than 100 people attending services each Sunday and have declined or nearly flatlined in membership growth, according to a new study from Exponential by LifeWay Research.

The study, which was conducted to help churches better understand growth in the pews, showed that most Protestant churches are not doing well attracting new Christian converts, reporting an average of less than one each month.

But even among all the bad news, there are some promising signs for the Christian faith.  The home church movement if flourishing all over the country, and many of those home fellowships are focused on getting back to the roots of the Christian faith.  All throughout history there have been relentless attempts to destroy the Christian faith, and yet it is still the largest faith in the entire world.

However, there is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

This is what one pastor had to say about the slow death of his church

‘My church is on the decline,’ he said. ‘We had 50 (congregants) in 2005 and now we have 15. We’re probably going to have to close (in a few years).’

‘Mainline Christianity is dying,’ he added. ‘It’s at least going away. It makes me feel more comfortable that it’s not my fault or my church’s fault. It’s part of a bigger trend that’s happening.’

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once said the following about our form of government…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

As America has turned away from the Christian faith, we have become steadily less moral and steadily less religious.

If we continue down this path, many believe that the future of our nation is going to be quite bleak indeed.


About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared NowThe Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dreamand The Most Important News.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending