Conservapedia: The Source of Brilliant Ideas
 

Wait, gays have mind control powers?

Join us!
 

Yes, we merely choose not to use them. Join our ranks and even you can have mind control!

I...I want mind control powers.....but I don't want to make my girlfriend sad....what do I do!?

Become bisexual, of course, that's the only way to go now.

Become a woman.

Turn gay, then use mind control on yourself to go back to being straight and see if you keep your powers.

Use your mind control to make her have a sex change operation.

EDIT: No, wait. Mind control her into turning gay so that she has mind control and to get turned on by gays, then make her mind control you into turning gay and raping you.

I kinda wanna see how confusing I can make this.

Is it just me or does someone here want to [citation_needed] the fuck out of that essay.

Looking through that Homosexuality category is probably the most fun I've had all year!

On an unrelated note, I am now turning myself gay just because of this wiki.

On the topic of dominance behavior in bulls, namely mounting: Emphasis mine, silliness theirs. Thanks for the tip, Lost in Time.

Sorry, what's the concise version?
If you convert someone who's gay they turn into a crossdressing manipulative sociopath?

With mental powers!

Truly covert gays are ruling the world right now!

Just so you guys know; gay powers can't affect the colour yellow. Also, gays need to recharge their powers periodically. They typically do this using a portable charger which frequently takes the form of any number of any number of phallic objects. Gays may also recharge their homosexuality at the Central Gay Battery. This can be found in the secret gay doom fortress at the centre of the Earth where homosexuals hold their dark conferences and discuss how to further expand their influence. The Central Gay Battery is the source of all homosexuality in the universe. It was forged at the dawn of time by Satan himself.

"Hay, less people believe in evolution, studies show. We am smarter getting!"
 

Would be fantastic.
 

I wish I was straight so I could do this.

So that means I don't have to worry about traps anymore?! Nice! Time to hit the street corners with impunity!

I mean, technically, in "homosexual bait and switch", as well, it's totally okay to continue being gay with the homosexual even after they've revealed they are really a man because you didn't intend to have sex with a guy! It's like being gay but without the public hatred!

Also, the pic chosen for "Homosexuality" is hilarious:

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/...ion_screen.gif

As we can see, homosexuals are effeminate men, wear nice suits, and are cursed with bad directions from Google Maps.

"Reality has a liberal bias" -Cracked.com on Conservapedia
 

I've long been wondering about the ideology of conservatism. Ever since people at www.stormfront.org informed me that they were noble conservationists, struggling to keep things from changing. (Right before they banned me the first time.)

Isn't being conservative kind of directly opposite of the prime directive of life itself? Trying to justify the fear of change that every sensible individual fights? A fundamental lack of courage?

I've always seen it as being an evil selfish little fuck and creating a political ideology to "justify" it.

^
This, also a lack of understanding as to the actual NATURE of self reliance and the express purpose of societies, communities, and governments.
Stormfront, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehe
Man the reading I do on stormfront for the sake of shits and giggles is hilarious

Ho fuck, reading conservapedia while fucked off your face is good times.

haha Wikipedia seems to be too liberal for them.
 

I love how homosexuality is a political agenda.

"Friends! How can we best undermine the American way of life and further the cause of godless communism?"
"I know! Let's all have sex with men!"
"Yeah!"

Surely some of those "articles" on conservapedia are sarcastic jokes made by people who find these idea equally hilarious/stupid as we do.

Yes, but the problem with doing that is that you cannot possibly make an article that's crazy enough for readers to go "they have got to be kidding. Nobody could be that stupid". It's like youtube comments.

It's probably best to assume they're kidding until proven otherwise.
*rosy pink shades*

If an "article" about "covert gays" were meant as a real article, I'd have to kill someone.

Fixed that for you. Also, get in line.

Guys Conservapedia is not an open wiki. Every edit is looked over and tested for conservative purity before being allowed to be posted. Everything written there is either really believed or was a joke that someone slipped in that their "council of post filtering" actually looked at and went, "Yeah, that sounds legit," and posted.

SSSSsssssh...You're ruining the plan!

Communism is just so goddamn sexy.

Man, I guess if I really want to be leftist, I should start sharing myself with everybody.

http://thomasjeffersoncenter.com/wp-...ok%20Cover.jpg

There are books about it y'know...
Also, Fun trivia... search "Communist" on Google and in the first images page you get several Artworks and 2 pictures of Obama.

Upon reading that site more I have decided Poe's Law folded into itself atleast four times

It is. In the same way that being a communist is simply being a jealous bastard who, instead of working hard to earn his way to prosperity, wants to steal it from those who have worked hard to become successful so he can continue to enjoy his lazy, unproductive lifestyle.

I.E. That's not it at all.

This very simplistic, as I don't really want to debate, but I see conservatism as a balance to progressivism. Society generally tends to continuously shift to the left. And that's probably a good thing. But the right should act as a counterweight to moderate that shift. Without the balance of conservatism, I think there'd be too quick a shift too far progressively, and we'd end up with the Russian Revolution all over again. Alternatively, without pregressivism to balance conservatism, we'd have 1930's Germany.

Both parties try to associate with America's founders and with Lincoln. On a fixed frame of reference, the founder's political philosophies are closer to the Republican party's than the Democrat's, but politics runs on a shifting frame of a reference, sliding continuously to the left, so that the founders were the progressives of their day.

Conservatism is a necessary ideology, to promote debate, and to provide a check to progressivism. There are a myriad reasons the current Republican party isn't doing the job the conservative ideology is supposed to, but I'm not going to go into that.

The French Terror happened basically the same way.
 

There were two Russian revolutions - the overthrow of the czar, and the overthrow of the nascent republican government by Bolsheviks. The former was driven by a desperate need to get out of WWI, the latter by external efforts to prop up the remnants of the old Russian regime (Britain and France wanted Russia back in the war) - in other words, the extreme measures taken by reactionary forces drove the revolutionaries to violent radicalism.

I guess I wasn't really referring to the immediate violent radicalism at the start of the communist revolution, but the ideologies and policies throughout. I should have just said something along the lines of communist USSR, and not tried to be clever.

You do realise the USSR ended up in many respects ridiculously capitalist and fairly conservative? In some ways it was most capitalist than the USA. Saying "We can't have all communism because look at (insert Russia/China/Vietnam/Cambodia)" is a ridiculous argument.

Also conservatism doesn't promote debate. It stifles it.
And society eneds rapid change. The way capitalism is set up is designed to prevent any change. Democratic capitalism is a force of immense inertia- it prevents moderate change by hiding behind small, insignificant changes which appear large. Mensheviks have been confined to the dustbin of history quite rightly.
But I not sure how much I want to debate either.. Maybe I'll make a new thread, maybe.

Says you, as basically this is just an assumption. It might be correct and it might not.

I fail to see the significance of a cap on progression. To assume that an overly progressive society will inevitably go through violent revolution is to assume that progress is an illusion, as revolutions by definition are cyclical and not progressive.

Conservatism is the atavistic fear of change. It is the demiurge. It is a sacrifice to tradition, in the name of the dead.

of course progress might very well be an illusion, in which case I guess it's all rather moot and we should just enjoy the ride along with whatever brand of bigotry we find most pleasing.

Who votes palin as spokesperson for the conservapedia?

wait... I made a mistake. I forgot to read the initial post.

This isn't about conservatism, this is about GAY MIND CONTROL!

well I'm all for that. (psychic) Power to the (gay) people has always been my motto.

If Venture Brothers has taught me anything, it's that flamboyantly gay super heroes are infinitely entertaining. Think of the possibilities!

Damn it you were right Nons, now I have all kinds of ideas. Although I guess, of a different nature than perhaps you did. More short run comic series, less banging hot dudes.

also, google maps needs to quit gay bashing.

Like Gay Gardner?

What a guy.

What the--why am I reading a Nazi forum! And why are they consistently hilarious! Those wacky Nazis!

Quit linking hilarious Nazi forums like this Stormfront, guys, pretty soon it'll be like TV tropes where you read it for hours because you just can't stop.

HOW DEAR THEY BE PREJUDICED AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE WITHOUT BLUE EYES! IT'S ALMOST LIKE PHYSICAL FEATURES ARE COMPLETELY TRIVIAL!

Another guy:

FACE-PALM

Can anyone explain to me how anyone maintains a White Nationalist ideology and keeps a straight face?

Inbreeding helps, but then they usually don't have straight faces - it's all lopsided because their family tree is a Christmas wreath.

EDIT: I was gonna put up a picture of Sloth from The Goonies as an example, but then I realized that Sloth is a good soul and doesn't deserve to be linked to the white trash from Stormfront.

People like this seriously make me want to go all Power of Greyskull.

Like, you gotta try to be this mentally fucked up.

Seriously, the only things he's missing are blue eyes.
 

http://top5best.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/he-man.jpg

Oh yes, because the individual usually wielding the power of Greyskull does by no means conform almost exactly to the ideals of White Nationalism, no sirree.

One could argue that Mirai would be fighting them with their very symbol. It;s irony.

I totally considering going and posting my essay which used the example of Nazi germany to contend that the Arayan movement, at its top, was purely a cynical economic/political movement with no regard for race/science so I can take away their heroes.

It would be ironic but it was more "He-Man was so gay" therefore hilarious that I'd use such a character against these idiot conservatives terrified of catching 'The Gay.'

You could do that but I like my theroy better cause Irony tastes better :p

Who would'nt wanna catch The Gay? it gives you psychic powers!

If they haven't changed the rules, your posts are screened by a moderator before they're posted until you've proven yourself a true white nationalist hero. So, good luck with that. :)

I thought they had a "dissenting opinions" forum?
Besides, they'd just call you an apologist or white self-hater, liberal swine,yaddayaddayadda

I've also got an essay on why the allies were greater villains in World War 2 than the Nazis and their loss was not positive so I'll post that first to get supermod status.

I'd be interested in how you justified that. Also, I'd be interested where you got that quote in your sig from.

Simple.
Smarty does not care.
He's The Beard. He doesn't need justification.

Image you are walking along on a clear night, perhaps after a night on the drink, seeking a home, seeking a bed to rest yon weary head, the alley arrives, and you see this motherfuckerhttp://content.artofmanliness.com/up...urchill_01.jpg coming at you. Tell me you wouldn't piss your pants in fear.

The quote comes from either A) Atheism in Christianity by Ernst Bloch or B) My rambled, fevered writings forming my grand manuscript on life/truth and mastery of poetic art as emphasised by a russian chess grandmaster. I can't remember right now. One of the two.

I find that as long as he's not sticking two fingers in the air like he's about to poke your eyes out, us germans are fairly safe.

Black people on the other hand...
And Arabs...
And pretty much everyone who is not an upper middle class white man/jew. Especially Indians.

Edit: This site is a vortex sucking me deeper and deeper. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
My particular favourite strategy of theirs is that you can defend any behaviour if the founding fathers did it. I'm going through the US in a few days, I'm totally going to just murder some poor folks and be like "George Washington was down with it".

A bit late, and going back a bit, a few comments I want to make:

The failure of all of those far end progressive movements to achieve their ideological goals is precisely what I was referring to. I would, potentially, argue that the extremes of either conservative or progressive ideology, when put into practice in an imperfect world, wind up looking quite similar.

I disagree.

I'm not particularly good at debating with any sort of sources of evidence to back up my theories or opinions. I tend to
make statements based on general observation, not backed up by any sort of rigorous study, but that make sense to me. That may or may not be totally bogus, making me an easy target for more rigorous debaters.

But it's still fun.

Also, Conservapedia. Having learned more about it (mostly from the Daily Show interview with its founder) since the last thread we had on it, I have to change my opinion. I had thought the more insane articles were generally vandalism, as the site is a big fat easy target, and a source of much hilarity. But they do keep a pretty tight rein on the edits, so I have to think the people running it are crazy, and that sadly it reflects more of the mindset of mainstream conservatives than I'm comfortable with.

It seems that while I agree with many ideological tenets of conservatism, I can't stand conservatives.

The problem with pretty much all those "progressive" revolutions was they ended up in charge of people I would label "conservatives". I don't think it is an inherent problem with the movement itself but more with the people behind it and the specific conditions involved.
Though my biggest problem is single country revolutions which are completely untenable to me- so I will agree with you that an extreme leftwing revolution will always fail in a single country. I just think if it is properly extreme it will transcend countries- as nations are a pretty nonsense rightwing idea.

As for your other comment, I really can't believe that Conservapedia represents anything but the most radicalised rightwingers. I make fun of right-wingers a lot but even I give them more credit than most of the things tha t are on that page. Like there is no moderation to it- no concessions- everything is either liberal and evil or conservative and good.
Like I mean hoshit- A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.[1] Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.

See, I'm torn. Is this the fringe right? Some terrible joke? Or is this what conservatism has/will become? I don't know if I can even associate with the word anymore, what with this and Pat Robertson.

I know this isn't the majority opinion, but I can't...fuck it call me a moderate. I can't take this shit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with conservatism, really. I mean I disagree with several aspects of it utterly but the way the neocons bat around blame and ack-basswards racism and prejudice you can more or less spot the apeshit bananas ones in a crowd. There really isn't much distinction anymore in the public eye, tragically, and these insane statements and cries the neocons make only further alienate both sides of the winged fence, as the republicans grudgingly rally behind it with no real alternative as the bible-whipped carry the voting power, and the democrats rally on the other side letting their monkey shit-flinging displays speak for themselves.

It's really gotten totally out of hand. I might just be naiively fond of nostalgic memories but I don't think things have always been this awful.

EDIT: RANT GET

Why don't we just agree that sadly, "conservatives" died out around the 1990s. They have now been replaced by "dicks".

Because while I guess I am more liberal, I agree that conservatism isn't absolutely horrible. Unlike the current Republican ideology, which is. Thus, current Republicans cannot possibly be conservatives. What else are they? Why, dicks, of course.

That would make Ronald Reagan a conservative and not a planet murdering asshole.
Conservatism died in 1929.
Or if it lived on it defineatly didn't survive the 80s. Or the 70s. Reagen murdered its corpse anyway.

If Conservatism died in 1929 I'm not sure when it was ever a good thing since we can basically assume that the robber barons giving away to the rampant and unrestrained capitalism leading up to Calvin Coolidge and the stock market crash wasn't a good thing either, especially when the "balance" was conservative and extremely racist Democrats in the south.

Republicans here being the US party, not others.
 

I do have to wonder why more traditional (non-Neocon) conservatives aren't distancing themselves Rush Limbaugh's awfulness.

Also, go Roger Ebert.

Why don't you guys stop beating around the bush and just say conservatism has never done anything good for anyone ever and is concentrated evil?

See, I've gone my whole life being taught that Reagan was liek teh best guy evar. Please enlighten me. And I'm also interested in how the allies were the bad guys in WWII. You seem to be a fountain of untapped knowledge, though I hesitate to drink of it.

Reagan was terrible because of Reaganomics, also known as "trickle-down theory," which states that by giving money to the rich, they will both not hoard it and distribute it to the poor via their purchases. Neither of which is remotely true, but the rich sure as hell liked it. I'm sure there's other stuff, but forever ruining the ability of the government to actually have a real economic policy is bad enough.

Political Conservatism= I don't want the government to do it's express job of serving the people cause I don't like taxes cause I'm selfish.
Cultural Conservatism= I don't want other cultures to exist anywhere near me, and preferably not at all. Cause I'm intolerant.
Religious Conservatism= My religion is more important than anything else. Including other people. Cause I'm selfish.
Economic Conservatism= I want me and only me, plus my rich friends, to make money, screw ya'll. I did it by stepping on your heads, why can't you?

Reagan was a key part of preventing any action for global warming. Carter actually paid attention to the scientists who were making the first prediction of global warming in the 70s and was starting to put some policies through. Reagan threw them all out because big business was his buddy.

I thought the 70s were about the fear of Global Cooling, not Warming...

People suggested it but the research that was started to prove it showed the opposite and is the starting basis of warming research. It was also suggested late 60s, very early 70s. By the time Carter was in it was established that the opposite was happening because they'd done some research and Carter tried to act on it.

It does'nt get any colder than the Cold War.

And there were actually only two maybe three papers on "Global Cooling" if I recall and within a year or so the scientists themselves came forward announcing their error and their experiment basically showed the opposite.

I once again propose to rename the site "People's Forum of Nuklear Power". Cause that's what we are. And it's AWESOME!

As an outsider looking in, I thought traditional conservatism died on May 4th 1970.

I bags People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs.
Hopefully nobody will work out my cunning plan.