nealcaffery

[nealcaffery]

Skittle people, gay people, LGBTQ people, and etc…

All these names still mean cult.

Let me explain. LGTBQ has become a prominent figure in the last 8 or so years, mostly coming into the public eye in 2020. But something hasn’t set right with me about them, like, how come in a New York pride parade (Pride Month being in June) there was a chant emerging from the tongues of thousands of these “Skittles'', “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children!” Then something just snapped inside of me and made me realize that LGTBQ is trying to indoctrinate kids. So that way when they grow up, they’ll gladly just pass laws that give LGTBQ more and more rights, despite them not needing it. And people claim LGTBQ is a minority that needs to be protected, when yes, they are minority, but they don’t need to be protected. Governments roll over and give them whatever they want, and force us, as the public, to accept them or the government politicians will face the “Punishment” of being canceled. Plus, several people in the LGTBQ community are groomers and pedophiles. Plus, in the official LGTBQ flag, they included the flag of MAP’s, (Minor Attracted Persons). So LGTBQ accepts pedophiles with open arms, so that way they can get away with it too. 

Another example of books, is they are writing books with explicit intercourse between same gendered people, and they are being read, and given to CHILDREN. This will scare the kids, as well as expose them to porn at a young age, and desensitize them to things like this. How can governments stand idly by while children are brainwashed into accepting them? But thank God for parents and their common sense. Parents have stood outside children’s libraries and blocked drag queens from entering the building to tell their children that gender is just a “Social construct” as so often said. I personally think that phrase is thrown around so much, and forced down our throats, that people have taken it upon themselves to be an LGTBQ “Sleeper agent” as I call it, whenever they hear the phrase “There are just 2 genders” they claim that gender is just a “Social construct” when there are just men and women. And no, that one where you’re born with aspects of both does NOT count as a gender, it’s a “Glitch” as I call it. Telling children that there are allegedly, 107 “Gender identities”. How can children find out who they truly are if grown adults are telling them they aren’t a boy, or a girl, and they should choose their own gender. Millions of kids will never discover who they are because of this, I just find it insane how people just don’t care. People should not stand idly by while YOUR children are told what to dress and “Identify” as by fully grown men who think they know better than science. This is not what hundreds of people died for in wars to defend their rights, it’s crazy. 

And something else insane, as of now they have made it their goal to be represented “Correctly” in the media. For example, Tony Rodriguez is one of the voice actors for the popular cartoon television show, “The Simpsons”. He voiced a gay Latino man, but as of recently, Tony could no longer voice him because Tony isn’t a part of that community. So apparently despite his amazing talent, he can no longer voice a character in a CARTOON television show because he isn’t actually gay. That’s just crazy. And now in live action films and shows, only LGBTQ actors can play LGBTQ characters. Yes, some are talented, but why does it matter so much to them? 

And LGTBQ has put their logo on everything, including children’s clothes. Like for example, in Target, they put LGTBQ logos and mottos on children’s clothing. Eg. Love is love. 

Millions boycotted the company, and caused it to lose billions of dollars. Same with Bud Light, they put a transgender person on their beer cans, and caused the company to lose $15.7 billion dollars because of the boycott. Why does a BEER COMPANY need to promote transgender ideals? Why does a several billion dollar corporation need to put a cult and their symbols and phrases on CHILDREN’s clothing? To indoctrinate, the more you see the ideals of the cult, then the more you’ll come to accept it. The brainwashing is a real thing, they put it on everything so you’re more likely to accept it. Like when politicians run for office, they put bunches of commercials so that way when you vote or think of politics, your mind goes to the most recent ad you saw of that politician. But that’s just a theory. 

Now, speaking from a religious point as a Christian. And boom, with that 1 simple phrase I’ve now made you completely disagree with my entire argument on why LGBTQ is a cult. And others will make the argument that religion is a cult, it is and it isn’t. There is freedom of religion in the West, just not in the Middle East or some other Eastern countries. But now, as I was saying. Speaking from a Christian view, I have seen countless videos of LGTBQ members mocking Jesus. They claim that Jesus was gay or trans. When being trans was absolutely unheard of back then.

And one final piece of LGBTQ corrupting God is some churches have married several gay couples, and what happened to said churches? They burned to the ground, and what wasn’t burnt? The crosses and Bibles that were in the building.

I would like to end this documentation with a Bible verse. Matthew 22:39 - “Love your neighbor as yourself”

So please, do not hate gay people individually, hate the cult, not the people. Hate the sin, not the sinner. 

FIN.

[nealcaffery]

Colonization, Earth's Saviour.

  Colonization, Manifest Destiny, European Destiny,  all of these fall under the same idea of colonization. Some may argue that colonialism was a bad thing, when they see Africa today they automatically blame the French, or the British, or the Germans for it. But really, it’s such a poor continent BECAUSE they left, during British rule over African domains the lands were profitable, African goods were sent back to England, turned into goods, and distributed all over the empire. Factually, Africa did have resources taken by European powers, but they still have resources there, just not as much. For example, in British Raj (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) only 1% of the entirety of the area’s resources were used by the British (British Raj was around for 200 years)

Colonies all over empires benefitted in many ways, such as better living standards, roads, schools, modern transportation, and the construction of infrastructures. Only in some areas, and eras, was colonization a bad thing (Example, when Belgium colonized the Congo in 1885, they executed 10 million native peoples) seeing some parts of India, or Africa today, in difference to during colonialism, you see that under European rule, nations thrived. 

An older example of this, was the Roman Empire (Which didn’t colonize in a sense, but was invading other nations within it’s continental reach) the Romans brought roads, written language, infrastructure (like European colonization several thousand years later) and when the Roman Empire collapsed, all that went away, leaving it’s former territories fighting amongst each other, and also dirt poor. Under the right government, a nation or even continent can benefit hugely from being colonized by a foreign power. 

Of course, there are some times throughout history, colonization wasn’t always the best thing. The Belgians (like mentioned earlier) executed 10 million people when they colonized the Congo in 1885. Or the fact the British Empire had (in a sense, not directly) caused 100 million deaths across the empire. Plus, in some areas like French or Dutch ruled territories in Asia, natives were often taken onto boats and sold to the Portuguese or British for profit. (The Portuguese had around 5.8 million slaves, which was the most out of all European empires, the second most was the British Empire at around 3.3 million) So no, I don’t focus on just the good parts of colonization, despite that being the majority good. 

Now onto the effects of colonies gaining independence. British Raj for example, the crown jewel of the British Empire, when the British left India, they let them keep all they had built, instead of removing it. The British left India with the 4th largest railroad system in the world, the largest steel industry in the developing world, and the 3rd largest textile industry in the world. They also had put into place policies that would give food for work (The policy was so effective that it was kept until the 1960’s), famines never happened again under British rule until the second world war, and even that famine was not the fault of the British (Winston Churchill), it was the fault of Indian merchants who refused to give help to the people of the Raj. The British also dug up many ancient Indian relics, and gave them BACK to the people. (Only a small percent of all the overall findings are in the British Museum) The Raj also had 100 million people when the British arrived, and when they left, had 400 million people. Living standards went up by 16% under the Raj. They also abolished the law where widows could not remarry after the death of their husband. They also introduced a government that was open to Indians, and not just English politicians. By the time the British left, the government was half Indian. So India is one of the many countries that benefited from British rule, during, and after their independence. 

Example: The United States gaining independence allowed it to form its own nation, and expand itself West (The Westward Expansion) which was a large economical and geographical boost to the upcoming power.

Most nations/territories gained independence during the 1900’s (After WW1 and WW2, the last British colony of Hong Kong was given to the Chinese in 1997) after they gained independence, many decided to join a commonwealth with the United Kingdom since their economies did much better under the rule of the British. (The British Commonwealth exists today, with 56 nations, all former colonies. It is a military, political, and economic alliance between them all) Sadly though, many nations, after gaining independence, lost the massive economy, and trade partner they once had. Entire nation's economies had plummeted from losing such a big part of their life. Thankfully, many nations today have now rebuilt their economy, however, will never be able to reach the same economic strength they once had. Many of the former colonies' flags still bear the Union Jack (Except Canada, they changed it in 1965), so that also shows that many nations are still loyal to the crown.

In addition, the British Empire was THE FIRST empire/global power to cut themselves off from slavery, they used the Royal Navy to stop ships with slaves going to and from Africa. Plus, during WW2, US African American troops were sent to the UK, and were shocked to see how equal it was for both whites and blacks. They then came back to the US and started the Civil Rights Movement. So the British Empire also helped start the Civil Rights Movement. 

So, in conclusion, colonization, specifically by the British, brought political, economic, militaristic, and infrastructural benefits to its colonies. Yes, it had cons, but the cons are much, much fewer in amount than the pros. 

[nealcaffery]

Palestine, a "Country"

Palestine, everywhere I go, every site I look on, I see that word. Why are people so obsessed over a fake country that houses terrorists? I see no point in it. Palestine was founded in 1988, while Israel was founded in 1948 after being released from the British Empire. Palestine, being located in such an interesting place, has always been in the CenterPoint of small conflicts. But as of now, Hamas, the terrorist organization, has gone to war with Israel. Hamas attacks Israel positions, patrols, bases etc., from Palestine civilians' houses, and then using them as shields. Once Israel attacks the home and the house is blown up, Israel then finds out there were civilians in there and makes public formal apologies. While Palestine makes themselves the victims despite knowing what Hamas is using their civilians for. But why do people support Palestine? A “country” that is housing Hamas gladly, and not WORKING with the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to clear out Hamas. Palestine has NEVER even tried to clear out Hamas, not even when they’ve started several wars with Israel.

How does Palestine just allow Hamas to run within its borders? And people still support them despite this? How? 

And their supporters are reckless and refuse to shut up. They think they’re right because Palestine is being bombed and Israel isn’t. Well, news flash, Palestine bombed an Israeli football field of CHILDREN. Killing 12 children. And the Palestine supporters are just gonna yap about how “Oh Israel had it coming! They’ve killed thousands! We can kill 12!”  So just because you do it on purpose it’s okay, and when it’s an accident from Israel we’re the bad guys? Makes sense to them I suppose. 

There isn’t a lot to say on the topic since I’ve both said it all, and I’ve just grilled their entire argument, so thank you for reading.