Contraceptive Pollution

 

This blog post was made in 2020

There is a kind of pollution in which fishes and other sea animals from all over the world are being feminized. It is not caused by plastic bottles or factories or fertilizers. It is caused by the contraceptive pill, which women take when they do not want to get pregnant.

It is mentioned excessively now how woman have the "right to choose", be it either by taking these pills or by causing an abortion. I was told that reducing the number of births - one of the reasons some people take the contraceptive pills - was good for the environment, but it looks like in the end harm was done to the planet anyway. 

The feminization of fishes can in fact affect our fertility rates (our men) but also the fertility rates of whales, sharks and carnivore fishes. Mommy nature is going to be angry. 

Freedom of Conscience vs The Pro-Life Movement

(This article was originally written in 2021)

Satanists will use freedom of conscience to promote access to abortion. Reporting from Breitbart News: 

"In the letter addressed to the FDA, Lucien Greaves, the Temple’s spokesman and cofounder, argued that the abortion drugs Misoprostol and Mifepristone should be allowed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) so as to be used in what the Temple referred to as their “Abortion Rituals.”

"I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states — will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion.

The battle for abortion rights is largely a battle of competing religious viewpoints, and our viewpoint that the nonviable fetus is part of the impregnated host is fortunately protected under Religious Liberty laws.

The Satanic Temple previously cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to overturn a set of pro-life laws in Missouri, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it."

My Take: 

Not all satanists will use human sacrifices, since all denominations of satanism are different. But while the Satanic Temple might only be a mock religion led by secular humanists, their "abortion rituals" obviously involve the shedding of blood. 

But what will you tell them? Freedom of conscience implies that every time there is a difference in opinions, great atrocities can be committed. 

Differences in opinion does not restrict itself to religion, it spreads to all areas of society; including science, morals, the life of individuals and medicine. The people who claim that freedom of conscience excludes harm to others are deluding themselves because it is extremely easy to defend violence, specially in a topic like abortion where the question revolves around whether something is alive or not.

To people who truly uphold freedom of conscience with no exceptions the discussion as to whether the fetus is dead or alive is of little importance because it is more important to make sure everyone can believe whatever they want regarding abortion. 

Freedom of conscience implies that if you believe that something is a human right, government can't prevent you from acting on this belief. 

Freedom of conscience implies that if you believe some humans have no rights or are not humans at all, government can't prevent you from acting on this belief. 

Freedom of conscience implies that if your religion or ideology say that you need an abortion, the government shall not infringe that. 

And that's why pro-lifers who believe in freedom of conscience are so helpless in this scenarios where their own beliefs are turned against them. In a world where everyone believes whatever they want, truth quickly becomes a mystery, an idea of the ancient past which will never come back. 

The Animal Farm Movie

The Mormon company Angel Studios set the world on fire with their attempted adaptation of George Orwell's classical novel Animal Farm.

Directed by Andy Serkis, this adaptation has been attacked for ignoring the serious subject matter of the book for the sake of turning the story into a childish comedy. 

To be fair, Angel Studios has NEVER been known for treating serious topics with maturity. One only needs to remember this was the studio that wrote Jesus Christ (yes, Jesus Christ) into making farting noises TWICE!. 

So forgive me for not being shocked that Angel Studios would treat this book without respect. However, what could the message of this parody of itself be? Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will offer my opinion on this upcoming movie. 

The Message of the Original Book

Some people work under the misconception that George Orwell was a fanatical anti-communist. This however couldn't be further from the truth. Orwell was a socialist who went to fight against Franco in Spain. The reason Orwell wrote Animal Farm was to attack the Soviet Union, because he believed their  communism was authoritarian and abusive. In other words, we only need to remember the mantra of western socialism: Stalin bad, Trotsky good. 

In Animal Farm we have a group of domestic critters who rebel against their owner (Mr. Jones) after an elderly pig calls for rebellion against mankind. The initial revolution is successful and the animals are happy to be free from their abusive master. However, two of the pigs start competing against each other for supremacy: Napoleon and Snowball.

Napoleon has a down to earth, dry approach to things, while Snowball is more idealistic and wants to modernize the farm with technology. Since Napoleon exiles his rival and erects an authoritarian farm were he kills rebels, everyone who knows a little bit of history identifies Napoleon as Stalin pig and Snowball as Trotsky pig. 

Through the book the revolution that the farm animals make against their owners is never explicitly condemned, and is actually portrayed positively in some instances. After all, the oppression of the pigs did not start as soon as Jones was expelled; this is the story of a revolution that degraded itself, not a revolution that was corrupt from the very beginning. While the novel is written in such a way that even the strongest anti-communist can relate to it, only those whose knowledge of the story is minimal would say that it was written by an enemy of communism. 

The reality is that Orwell isn't as subversive as many seem to believe. Stalin Bad, Trotsky Good isn't that offensive because the western establishment wanted people, at least for a while, to hate Stalin. 

If his writings are useful, we can study them, but we shouldn't lionize Orwell for something he was not. There is a reason why this books are mandatory reading in some High School programs. 

What do the Mormons want to Tell Us? 

It is very important to consider that remakes and reboots are often used to promote new messages by movie makers. For example, in an attempt to make the film more feminist, Aladdin 2019 had a musical number about Princess Jasmine empowering herself 

It is also very important to consider that Angel Studios is selling the movie to anti-communist evangelicals. The tagline of the movie is "A Cautionary Tail", suggesting to the audiences that a communist nation that "works" (ie., that keeps it's inhabitants happier than those in regular countries) is an impossibility and will always end up worse than it's neighbors. 

However, a closer examination of the trailer reveals that this movie might not be as anti-communist as it's promoters would like us to believe. There are multiple signs that it will just be a generic critique of capital greed. Let me explain: 

In the book, the problem for the animals was not that the farm "sold out" to an abusive human master, but rather, that the pigs learned to be abusive, using politics and propaganda for their exclusive benefit. The humans were never a direct cause for this.

However, the trailer suggests the movie is about Napoleon trying to sell the farm to a corporate tech lady, a plot not much different from other family movies. 

This not only takes away the creativity of the novel but also turns the story into a vacuous critique of capitalism when the book focused on Stalinism. While some stones are thrown to the regular economic system, the intent of the book is not the outside treat of anti-communists but the possibility of communists becoming what they swore to destroy. 

This disloyalty becomes infuriating when we consider that Angel Studios goes out of their way to make their movies acceptable to all audiences in an attempt to make more money. 

Another reason this movie isn't going to be pure-bred anti-communist starts with a simple reason: the slaughter truck at the beginning of the trailer. All the farm animals are stuck in the lorry and realize they will be killed, after which they rebel and install their own farm. 

The purpose of the animals being treated violently and abusively in the novel was to show Orwell's conviction that socialism was based on genuine grievances. But if Angel Studios wanted to attack communism itself as an intrinsically corrupt system, why preserve the slaughter of the animals? Of course they are going to rebel if they are going to die! If the original purpose of the analogy has been misunderstood, how are we supposed to expect the criticism towards communists will remain? 

Conclusion:  

As of today, I can only predict that this film will be bad even if it turns out to be better than the trailer shows. It is a childish comedy adapted from a serious novel. It is a critique of authoritarianism made by a company whose owners belong to a cult. It condemns those who sell out to the greed of foreigners which is precisely what Angel Studios has done with Jesus Christ in other properties. 

Hopefully it will not be as bad as it looks, but let us meditate on the following for a moment: Is this the price we are willing to pay for high-budget "christian" movies? 

5 Threats to Children that are IGNORED by Mainstream Conservatives

Over the years I have seen conservative media obsess over stuff that is either stupid or irrelevant. Many lost their minds with controversies like Bud Light's trans advertisements, remake movies like The Little Mermaid and Snow White, the weird behavior of certain celebrities, and the strange pronouns that transgenders give to themselves. 

Pundits like The Daily Wire, Libs of TikTok and The Quartening waste people's time with this issues. With hyperbolic headlines and endless drivel, they make sure their audience remains puerile, incompetent, and debilitated.  

Unfortunately the sensitive topic of child rearing and protection is infected by slop content too. For example: This outlets were outraged when Netflix had a non-binary cow in a show for toddlers, but then went to praise the same company for K-Pop Demon Hunters despite the fact that this movie is much worse than a bovine requesting special pronouns. 

I am yet to see ANY mainstream conservative slop factory warning their audience about threats to children that go beyond a non-binary cartoon cattle or an annoying Colombian actress playing Snow White. Out there we have threats to the body, soul and minds of millions of children, threats whose danger is immeasurable and whose presence is within our very own house. 

So I decided to take upon myself the responsibility that they have failed to fulfill. Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will share with you the biggest threats to children that are ignored by mainstream conservatives. 

The Videos of Perdition

Some years ago, parents looked in horror as strange videos staring popular characters like Elsa and Spiderman appeared on the popular video platform Youtube.

This videos were everywhere. They were directly connected to, let's say, very evil people, and showed cartoon characters engaging in behaviors that can only be described as violently deviant. The name of this event is Elsagate. 

This was quickly recognized as a grooming strategy to familiarize children with obscure behavior. Others speculated that it was a government-sponsored MK-Ultra manoeuver. And who can blame them? Youtube was busy censoring swear words when a literal predatory underworld was being built under their very eyes. 

Eventually the scandal grew so powerful that the company had to take action. YouTube made their laws even stricter and many of this channels were banned. 

However, the company still struggles to prevent the flourishing of this content. Now we have Elsagate-style videos with other franchises like Minecraft, Super Mario, Poppy Playtime, Teen Titans Go and even the accursed Labubus. They have probably made it to social media too. 

A similar problem would be Brain rot content. Brain rot is defined as a surreal video whose stupidity is so great it makes you feel your brain is rotting. While brain rot videos are not necessarily inappropriate, I believe they sould be avoided since they might harm children in other ways. 

Despite the fact that this phenomenon has been going on for a while, I am yet to see people like Chaya Raichik speaking against this. Really says a lot about their character & competence.  

The Fandoms of Doom 

Many people all over the internet have a limitless passion for whatever it is that entertains them. Whether it is a game or a movie or a show, anyone can become a "fan", meet with other fans and create a community named Fandom.

Fandoms produce fan art, fan fiction, fan animations, fan songs and fan games about media franchises like SpongeBob, Marvel, Super Mario or How to Train Your Dragon. Many fans are unlikely to harm children through this communities, but there is always an exception to the rule, or fandoms were the exception becomes the rule. 

In particular, we know that multiple franchises whose products are specifically designed for children have extremely inappropriate fandoms. 

Some of them have disrespectful fanatics who can't tolerate a slightly different opinion (I am thinking of the show Steven Universe), while others struggle with highly deviant members who waste their time drawing / animating cartoon characters in, let's say, very uncomfortable scenarios. 

A particular set of concern would be the Furries, people who like to dress and imagine themselves as anthropomorphic animals. While not every furry is a pervert, the community itself is not family friendly and everyone would do good to stay away from them. 

Here is a list of toxic fandoms: 

The Loud House (specially this one!) 

Sonic the Hedgehog 

Five Nights at Freddy's 

Animal Crossing 

Paw Patrol 

Poppy Playtime 

101 Dalmatians (the show)

Zootopia 

The Abominable Games 

Recently the popular platform Roblox got under fire for banning a popular you tuber named Schlep. This individual hunts for pederast groomers in the game and seeks to expose them. The company forbid him access to the game despite the fact that very disturbing stuff has happened in Roblox for years. 

For your information, Roblox is a game where random people can make their own games. It also allows children of all ages to enter into conversation with total strangers. The fact that this was allowed in the first place is beyond me - it is clear that any videogame with children and a live chat is a bad idea -. No amount of regulation can permanently forbid groomers from the platform. 

Many adults/teenagers who play Roblox are not afraid of, well, role playing their weird fantasies on the videogame. And despite the fact that the Roblox default characters look like Lego figures, it is possible to find deviant or inappropriate games within the platform. This is also true about other games with similar features, like the  allegedly educational game Animal Jam. 

Another risk would be getting scammed or hacked - 6 year olds are not particularly capable of detecting red flags. 

In general, it shocks me that games like this would even exist. Other videogames like Minecraft allow online multiplayer too, but it's not necessary to be with strangers to have fun. This is not the case in Roblox or Animal Jam were the multiplayer experience is the game. The fact that so few have condemned this platforms and their main feature is beyond me. 

The Plague of Family Channels 

Family channels are disturbing accounts where creepy parents film their children's day to day life. With artificial smiles and uncanny special effects, this parents grab the attention of millions of minors all over the globe with videos of their children opening expensive toys, going to the zoo or just playing in their massive gardens.

This is a risk to children for a variety of reasons: They grow up with no privacy and eventually become money making assets for their parents. They are exposed to millions of people who can harass them or make harsh criticisms about them or their content. They are also exposed to creepy fans and predators. It's child endangerment with Hasbro sponsors. 

The same can be said about celebrity children from movies and tv shows.  

Furthermore, some of this blog parents have been exposed as practitioners of cruelty inside & outside of the cameras. One of such cases was Ruby Franke. She would strictly punish her children for dumb reasons and laugh while filming this for YouTube. As she would often refuse to give them food, the witch is currently observing a 30 year prison sentence. How unfortunate that her psycho husband is still free. 

Some people argue that this channels are a necessary evil, because in this way this people publicly expose themselves and it's easier for outside forces to intervene in behalf of the children. Other parents are also abusive but nobody knows it because they hid it well. 

This is a valid point, but it only applies to parents that are dumb enough to show their true colours on camera. Furthermore, that doesn't automatically make filming your child for YouTube a good thing. 

Many children probably grew up consumed with envy - how is it possible that they have fame and toys and travels and I am stuck with school!? - only to learn that their favorite Vloggers were dying inside and nobody cared. 

Other Children Can be a Risk Too

Far from me to encourage you to socially isolate your children. However, it is important to keep in mind that other children might be a gateway to some of this stuff. Few kids, for example would be tempted to play Roblox if it were not so popular and their friends wanted them to try it out. 

The solution in my opinion is to make confident, socially capable children who have values and know how to say *no*. Banning stuff isn't enough. Children are entitled to know why certain stuff is dangerous or a potential threat. Your child should be independent enough to know which friends actually like their company and which ones will reject them for superficial reasons. 

Furthermore, while the videos, fandoms and games mentioned above are dangerous, there is no need to lose your mind if they enter into contact with this things a little bit. 

I've heard of someone who watched Elsa Gate content out of spite after a particularly aggressive scolding only to grow up and realize for themselves why that content was inappropriate. In their case, an explanation as to why this things were wrong would have been more fruitful than their parent's reaction. 

Conclusion 

In order to protect children, it is important to: 

+ Avoid Unsupervised use of You Tube & the internet

+ Avoid Fandoms in general 

+ Avoid videogames where chatting with strangers is a main feature. 

+ Avoid ANY family channel 

+ Make the children appropriate this teachings as their own

In order to protect children, it is not important to:

+ Sign a petition in Life Site News for Netflix's deaf ears

+ Share a thousand memes about Disney's latest woke flop 

+ Subscribe to Libs of TikTok to see her cry at pro-palestine protestors

+ Obsess over Budweiser selling beer with a lesbian Clydesdale. 

+ Obsess over Cynthia Erivo's receding hairline 

+ Clap like a seal whenever Trump Tower makes more money than Disneyland 

And any "protect the children" figure that distracts you from real threats is either ignorant or evil and should be ignored for their own good.  

What is Poppy Playtime?

The titular character, Poppy the living doll

Poppy Playtime is a series of horror videogames. This are surprisingly popular with children. Made by the independent studio Mob Entertainment, it has 4 chapters and deals with a toy factory owned by the evil corporation Playtime. The factory has been abandoned after it's workers went missing. You play as an ex-worker, called to the factory by a mysterious note that promises to reveal the location of your former workmates. 

Poppy Playtime is a mascot horror game. This games are all about family-friendly mascots who became corrupted and hunt the player, who must survive their attacks. 

Most of this games involve evil corporations, with the mascots being animated by the souls of dead people. The story is revealed through secrets that can be uncovered while playing.

Poppy Playtime and it's characters are fairly popular, and I think it is important that parents are aware of its contents. Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will introduce you to the world of the evil Playtime company. 

Lore

The history of the games is not finished, only 4 chapters and a spin-off have been released. Yet, this is the story of the saga so far: 

Playtime Co was a successful toy company. It's founder, Elliot Ludwig, became distraught after a tragic incident: the death of his daughter. 

Elliot became obsessed with transhumanism, the idea of improving and transcending the human body. His company started experimenting on orphans - which were kept within the factory in an underground facility -, seeking to infuse their souls and bodies into the toys of the factory. 

Playtime was also involved in worker abuse. Some of them were experimented upon as well, while the majority suffered from lackluster worker security. This is what we see in the spin-off game Project Playtime. 

It is unknown if Elliot was aware of any of this. 

What is certain is that at some point, the living toys rebelled against the company, slaughtering all the workers guilty and innocent. This plan was made by an evil toy named The Prototype. After this the toys split in two factions, one of which is led by Poppy the living doll. 

The task of the player is to survive the servants of The Prototype and help Poppy and her friends. The player explores the factory and it's twisted interiors, discovering gruesome secrets, dead toys, and the depressing history of the company. 

The Characters

Huggy Wuggy and Kissy Missy

Huggy Wuggy is the first toy to attack the player. He appears in chapter 1 and will likely reappear in the coming games. He is blue, aggressive, and intelligent. Huggy is extremely popular as a toy and in marketing, despite his corrupted violent nature. 

Kissy Missy looks like Huggy Wuggy, but is female and friendly. She helps the player through the game and carries Poppy in her elbows. 

Poppy is the toy nemesis to The Prototype. She asks the player for help and has appeared in every single game. Poppy is tough and has seen horrible things. 

Mommy Long Legs us the main antagonist of chapter 2. She forces the player to complete a series of deadly games, which were used to test the habilites of the children under Playtime. She is torn to shreds by the player after her hand gets stuck in a grinder. 

Catnap is the main antagonist of Chapter 3. This vicious purple cat emits a poisonous sleeping gas from his mouth, a gas that was used against the children. He worships the prototype and tortures the toys who rebel against his tyranny. He is electrocuted by the player and impaled by his beloved boss. 

Boxy Boo swallows people on Project Playtime. He is yet to appear on the main chapters. 

The smiling critters are a collection of scented plushies. There are small and big versions of them. One of them, the dog, had his limbs torn from his body by Catnap. He shares his last words to the player, after which small smiling critters get inside of him through the wounds and eat him. They then attack the player inside the dog toy. 

Other characters from left to right: Candy Cat, Bron, Bunzo Bunny, Daisy, Catbee and PJ Pugapillar. Most of them can be found, dead and bloodstained, on the factory. 

Douey the Doughman is made of clay, and three children live within him. Their personalities clash against each other. This amiable character is freezed and crushed by the player after all his friends die and the violent kid takes over him. Here he is with Pianosaurus and Yarnaby. 

The Nightmare Critters are the evil version of the smiling critters.  

Rating and Conclusion 

It is clear that Poppy Playtime is not a game for children; with gory toy deaths and depressing themes like child abuse and body horror, Poppy Playtime is much darker than many other mascot horror ganes, including the world-famous Five Nights At Freddy's. 

However, the reason why children are invested in this game is easy to explain. The first two chapters to be released were certainly spooky, and yet they have a fairly limited amount of violence. Many you tubers and streamers like Markiplier played the games, and their young viewers became endeared with this thing and it's characters. (After all, these are supposed to be toys) I am fairly certain that some of this children have never played the game, and yet they like what they see from their favorite gamers. 

Poppy Playtime received criticism from older gamers for being too childish and not scary. This caused Mob Entertainment to make chapters 3 and 4 more gory and disturbing, to a point where no child should be a "fan" of the series. 

To make matters more concerning, some perverts upload weird and degenerate Poppy Playtime videos to YouTube and akin platforms, grooming the little fans of this dark franchise and teaching them fetishes. This, in my opinion, is worse than the violence in the games. 

In conclusion, Poppy Playtime is a videogame for adults which should be kept away from children. Many people feel that because something is childish in appearance it is certifiably family friendly, ignoring that people who were children at some point might want to revisit their past with a darker, more mature twist. 

Church Pop Prays for Celebrities

Church Pop is a cringe Novus ordo website owned by EWTN and aimed at young people. 

On June 12th 2025, the english sector of the blog published "6 Celebrities We Should Pray for and the Saints Who Can Help Them". It was written by Mr. Will Tynan, and when I first read it made me very angry. I expected normal prayer petitions and instead I got an example in superficiality and immaturity. I didn't expect anything and yet I was disappointed!

So today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, we will roast this article and provide it's writer with some advice for the next time he wants to pray for celebrities. 

Introduction 

The article starts with a fairly decent reflection on fame, except when Tynan says this: 

"Knowing so much about their lives might be a boon for us because it allows us to know exactly what we need to pray for to help them." 

I disagree with this statement because the reason why so many celebrities are scandalous is precisely this ability to know all about their lives. 

For example, Miley Cyrus would not be able to scandalize me aside from public statements and songs, but since she has an entire army of professional gossipers, any sin she commits is paraded across the world instead of staying in the privacy of her house. 

Also, it should be possible to pray for them without feeding from the constant detraction and sludge of celebrity gossip. 

The Celebs 

Tynan proceeds his article by numbering 5 celebrities and the reasons he believes they need prayers. He then mentions the saints who can help them and the reasons why. 

First we have Trump and Elon, paired with St. Peter and St. Paul. Then it's Rihanna, paired with St. Norbert. Mr. Beast was placed with St. Augustine, and actor Tom Felton was placed with St. Matthew. 

He also included the basketball player named Caitlyn Clark, but we will not talk about her today. 

There is nothing wrong with praying for these people, albeit I think it would be better to pray for all celebs without being specific. The problem comes with what Tynan reasons about their faults and problems. 

Trump and Elon: Friendship is Magic? 

Trump and Elon wield great power and privilege. The day of judgement will probably fall upon them with unmeasurable wrath. Yet Tynan thinks they need prayers because they fought with each other! See for yourself: 

"In the past week or so, however, the relationship between Musk and the president has become a bit… well… rocky. The two have had one of, if not the most public, fallouts of all time. But don’t think this is the first time two prominent figures on the same side of history have clashed! 

Saint Peter and Saint Paul, two of Christ’s closest friends, also had a seemingly critical feud between them. The two saints, while sharing the same ultimate mission, had vastly different approaches to evangelism. In a particularly fiery encounter, Saint Paul scolds Saint Peter for making salvation seem like an act of the people and not the mercy of God. In Galatians 2:11, Paul writes, “And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.”

Trump is actively funding a genocide in the middle east, betrayed his fan base by protecting a child trafficker and lied about coronavirus. Elon grifts people with electric cars. And yet, Tynan treats them with the maturity of a My Little Pony episode. It would be better to pair them with saints who were either public sinners or held positions of power 

Rihanna and Tom Felton: Worldly Blindness 

For Rihanna, Tynan felt equally short. For him the problem with the singer is not scandalous songs or raunchy outfits, but the simple fact that she has pretty much given up her musical career.

He writes "Unfortunately for fans, she hasn’t released a new album since 2016. A few movie tracks and features here and there, but nothing from studio to table for nearly 10 years."

This could be because of her success in the makeup industry with her brand Fenty Beauty, but it is a shame for listeners everywhere that she hasn’t bothered to grab a pen and paper and jot down some lyrics." 

I am sorry, but Rihanna is actually better off like this. The music industry is demonic; whether is the songs themselves or the people who move around those circles, you are certain to find untold evil. 

While Fenty Beauty can be scandalous in other ways, Tynan doesn't mention that, nor does he prove that it is worse than singing about breeding in front of millions of children at the Super Bowl. 

Instead, Will Tynan compares the conversion of a man to the Lord with Rihanna going back to the studio. 

"Saint Norbert was a high-ranking member of the German imperial court in 1075. Just like Rihanna, Saint Norbert showed no real signs of piety and chose for a period of his life to pursue luxury and comfort rather than using his wealth and brilliant mind for others. In a dramatic encounter with the Lord at age 35, Saint Norbert was struck by lightning and dedicated his life to discernment and monastic life. 

The switch from comfort and apathy towards dedication and hard work is exactly what fans hope to see from Rihanna. If there’s anyone who can get her in that studio, it’s Saint Norbert."

Tynan comparing Rihanna's musical apathy with the conversion of St. Norbert is blasphemous. Rihanna surely needs conversion, but I think we know she will not get it by synergizing generic songs. 

Tom Felton and St. Matthew received similar treatment. I am blissfully unaware of what has been going on with his life, but he doesn't seem to be a particularly notorious source of scandal. 

However, Tynan thinks we need to pray for him because he hasn't been able to have a successful career outside of playing the Harry Potter character Draco Malfoy.

"In 2022, he released his book “Beyond the Wand,” -Tynan informs us - recounting his years on the set, and has recently announced he will revise his role in the Broadway play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child."

"Many fans have echoed the sentiments of another actor from the series, Miriam Margolyes, who encouraged “Harry Potter Adults” to grow up and move on. If there is anyone who can give Felton help on this path, it is surely Saint Matthew the Apostle." 

If "moving on" means involving himself even further with Hollywood, then you might as well wish he becomes a narco. Considering that Hollywood is corrupt and full of evil, Mr. Felton is actually better off with a dead career. 

Not to forget, of course, that Harry Potter is a wiccan/alchemist fantasy series were school directors hire soul-sucking entities to "protect" students. 

Despite the fact that both of them need true prayers, Tynan focuses on superficial success - things that fans want - and not in true spiritual benefits - things that celebs need -.

Mr Beast: Portrayed as a Psychopath as his Real Evils are Ignored 

The next celebrity we have is Mr. Beast. Also known as Jimmy Donaldson, he is a successful you tuber famous for giving money to people and organizing Wipeout-style challenges.

Recently Mr. Beast has been losing popularity because many of his ex-employees have accused him of mistreatment and exploitation. 

However, Tynan says nothing about it and instead portrays this competitions as some sort of gladiatorial torture contest. See for yourself: 

"Mr. Beast is a YouTuber with more followers than any other creator on the platform. When he posts a video claiming to test whether someone can survive one hundred days trapped in a room to win $500,000, he means it. His success has taken him far enough to launch his own TV series called Beast Games. 

Mr. Beast is estimated to have a net worth of around one billion dollars, but along his journey to success, many have raised concerns about the ethical implications of his videos. Putting people into psychological experiments that can only really be labelled as voluntary torture has become his primary mode of income." 

Forgive me if I am wrong, but while the content of the challenges might be questionable, people have not attacked him for this. They demanded him for not paying his employees while forcing them to work for long periods of time. 

Furthermore, a brief resume of these  infractions would be better than attempting to judge his intentions. 

Tynan writes: "Considering the immense wealth he has already amassed, it seems clear that he is continuing these experiments for the thrill of dehumanizing his lab rats... 

One story that stands out is Saint Augustine stealing pears in his youth. He recounts how his desire to steal pears from someone’s tree was not driven by need or hunger, but the sheer desire to steal, which he looks back on as a profound moral failing. 

Saint Augustine wasn’t hungry, and Mr Beast isn’t starving for viewer engagement. The only reason Mr. Beast continues his callous trials is for the love of a wicked game."

Who cares about Mr. Beast's intentions? If he did something evil we call him out regardless of his interior malice. Tynan focuses on condemning his fake and overtly acted videos when the he could have easily pointed out the real allegations made against him as reasons for prayer 

Conclusion 

Overall, the article suffers from a striking level of superficiality. Praying for someone because they don't want to write lyrics or because they fought with their friends is something that children can do, not adults.

I am also kind of shocked he didn't point at the celebs that are clearly suffering, like Justin Bieber and Kanye West. 

Church Pop themselves seem to be aware that his blog post was not very good, because at the end we find this note: 

"Of course, these prayer proposals are less inclined towards true conversion and may have been (slightly) based on this author’s opinion. These recommendations are certainly things for which you can pray. Prayers for the conversion of souls are probably more likely to be answered. Whether for these celebrities or others, for these specific intentions or anything else, the best piece of advice is to follow the guidance given in 1 Thessalonians 5:17, “Pray without ceasing".

Yes, I agree. We should pray for Will Tynan, that he might never write such a superficial, tone-deaf piece ever again. 

Toy Story 4 is a Corrupt Movie

In 2019 Pixar decided to release the 4th installment of the Toy Story movies. While the media praised it's endearing animation and storytelling, others have called out this movie for  highly questionable morals. 

What is the story of this controversial movie? 

A new toy is added to the Toy Story family when Bonnie's art project (an anthropomorphic spork) comes to life. The utensil thinks he belongs in the trash and constantly throws himself in it. Woody, who is experiencing an existential crisis, constantly has to save him from the rubbish. 

During one of this confrontations Forky and Woody get lost and encounter an evil doll, Gabby Gabby. She demands Woody's voice box for herself, arguing that her own device is broken. Woody escapes but Forky is held hostage until the cowboy agrees to the organ trafficking operation. 

Fortunately for the eating utensil, Woody encounters Buzz Lightyear and his long lost love, Bo Peep. Together they attempt to save Forky but fail.  This causes them to fight and take separate paths, with Woody alone against the doll. 

During the confrontation Gabby Gabby talks about how much she would love to be with a child, so Woody agrees too surrender his voice box. Forky is freed and they help the doll to find an owner.

 

At the end of the movie Woody stays with Bo Peep and abandons his friends to help other toys looking for owners. 

On the surface it might look like those who condemn this movie are acting out of insecurity and nostalgia, showing excessive anger towards a mere movie for children. However, upon closer examination we see that their criticisms are justified and as a result this movie should be shunned. Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will show you why Toy Story 4 is an evil film. 

Forky's Self Destructive Tendencies 

One would never expect the topic of suicide to be explored in a movie about living toys, yet the directors went out of their way to connect Forky's trashy obsession with self deletion. 

At some point we see a montage of Woody saving Forky from the rubbish multiple times. While this happens, a song with the following lyrics is played in the background: 

"Don't you wanna see the sun come up each morning? 

Don't you wanna see the sun go down each day? 

Don't you wanna see that little girl that loves you so? 

Her heart would break if you should go"

A topic like this should never be touched in a family movie, at least not without the utmost seriousness and subtlety, properties which I do not find here. 

The message is clear for anyone over the age of 10 and yet the montage consists on a plastic scrap running to the trash while a cowboy ragdoll tries to stop it on the most ridiculous scenarios possible. To call it disrespectful is an understatement. 

Buzz Lightyear: To Stupidity and Beyond 

Through the initial trilogy Buzz is a competent, highly intelligent, and skilled military man. Despite his initial inability to understand he was a toy, Lightyear is capable of quick thinking and resourcefulness.

However, 2019 Buzz Lightyear is remarkably stupider and is treated as a joke character. Instead of using his wits for decision making he presses buttons on his chest to listen to pre-recorded lines which then he interprets according to whatever the plot needs. 

Why would that be? Would it be because he is the figure of a man, a symbol of competency and intelligence that could possibly offend journos and give the wrong message to children? 

Hollywood calls you sexist for noticing this kind of stuff, as if women outside or Meryl Streep meant anything for them. Maybe they genuinely think people press buttons on action figures for life advice. 

Gabby Gabby is an Organ Trafficker and an insult to Handicapped People

When the movie came out many praised the character of Gabby Gabby for "representing" handicapped people. However, I am yet to hear of amputees willingly mutilating other people in an attempt to get new legs. 

Gabby Gabby appeals to violence for her physical improvement: In Toy Story 4, children are taught that kidnapping and ripping off other people's body parts is okay as long as you have suffered and they say yes under pressure. The evil doll goes unpunished, getting her cake and eating it too, cornering Woody for a voice box that might not even work for her. 

Those who praised this movie for "representation" need public shaming, because instead of recognizing that there was nothing wrong with not having a functional voice box, Gabby Gabby "fixes" herself with mutilation and manipulation. 

The Deconstruction of Bo Peep

Bo Peep is a porcelain lamp with the shape of a shepherdess. Fragile and hearty, she was a kind woman who supported everyone with her empathetic character. 

And yet, as soon as I saw her new design in the movie posters, I knew she was going to get the Girlboss treatment. 

It makes sense for her character to roughen up after so many years as a lost toy, except that Pixar changed her personality even during the flashback scenes. Now Bo Peep is another girl boss: competent, always right, super tough and a warrior. 

The movie wants you to believe Bo Peep and Woody love each other, but the reality is different: The shepherdess seems to have changed her mind quite a bit about the cowboy. She sees him as a clingy, weak ragdoll who is too obsessed with working for his owners. 

She even disrespects him multiple times; she calls him an accessory, doesn't appreciate his ideas, and it's quite clear she considers him an obstacle. 

If anyone says that you are not a friend but an accessory, they are not marriage or couple material of any kind.  And yet, this is what Bo Peep tells to everyone about Woody! She treats him with condescension. Are we supposed to be happy that he abandoned his family and friends for her?

Woody's Choice Was Questionable 

Based on what we have seen, Woody did harm himself by choosing to stay with an abrasive woman... But, did he abandon anyone else? 

Firstly, Woody abandoned Forky, the suicidal toy. While the spork had found motivation during his conversations with the cowboy, there is no reason to believe he will need no help in the future. Since Woody was his first friend and none of the other toys cared about him, he should have stayed with Forky. 

Secondly; Through the movie Bonnie shows attachment to Woody. While not as great as it was in Toy Story 3, Bonnie still plays with Woody during the movie, meaning she is still willing to keep him. Does the cowboy ragdoll not know how children feel when they lose their toys - specially if they can't understand why? - What if he becomes the favorite toy again but Bonnie can't find him?

Furthermore, there are clues in the movie that Bonnie's dad is not exactly a good person. One of the toys -a unicorn named Buttercup, constantly gets excited thinking the father will end up in jail.  This comments are random and have no development. Why would Buttercup hate him so much? Many have speculated that he knows something really bad about Bonnie's father, something that would make him worthy of punishment. 

Previously in the franchise we have seen them trying to intervene in defense of other toys; defending a child against an abusive father or dangerous assassins is not entirely impossible for the internal consistency of the franchise. 

Woody took the choice with little premeditation and without considering his responsibilities (namely, being Bonnie's toy). If he wanted to help other toys, he could have done it from Bonnie's house or at least waited until Forky was healed and the child didn't want him anymore. Instead, children are taught that abandoning ones family for that girl who used to be your girlfriend is a cool and elevated thing to do. 

Conclusion: Toy Story 4 is an evil movie

The devil is in the details, and no matter how much people gloat about the impressive 3D animation and the nostalgic soundtrack, one only has to pay attention to see him lurking within. 

Toy Story 4 is a corrupt movie that received praise when it deserves hate. Certainly, we must throw it away from our lives.