1 5 6 7 8 9 10 | bottom
Quote# 105025

I suppose I should have figured this out earlier, but it seems that feminism is a dysgenic social movement. Why? The mechanism is very simple. From the perspective that women need to “rise up” and “take their place in the world” by taking on what was previously a traditionally male career path, it only makes sense that such a social expectation would be disproportionately placed on women of higher intelligence since, after all, they are “better able to compete.” And perhaps they do, for a time. Those who are able should pursue higher levels of education and career advancement; “to whom much is given, much shall be expected.” It is only a small disappointment for a dumb blonde to settle down in her 20’s and be dedicated to a family, but it is a great disappoint for an intelligent woman to forego her place in the workplace.

But the result of this is that more intelligent women are less likely to pass on their genetic material. As such, it is the less intelligent women who breed, which is a dysgenic effect.

Does it not seem weird that we are effectively saying to our best and brightest women that their most enlightened lifestyle is materialistic nihilism? Get a job, make a bunch of money, be independent. Don’t have children. Die alone without any genetic legacy. Women are to discern their calling to the Spinsterhood. If such a calling is unable to be undertaken, they may receive a dispensation from the sugar daddy government to have children paid for by taxpayers and divorced fathers.

Can we call it that? This generation of feminist spinsters, which by the nature of its prohibition of sexual reproduction, is memetically suicidal. Feminism guarantees its own extinction, because those most likely to live their life according to its precepts also have the most potential to forward it, but these precepts specifically prohibit partaking in the grand tradition of having a family and raising children. They opt out of societal continuity, and so choose their own ruin.

The Spinsterhood: 40+ year old women without children. This population has a higher-than-average intelligence, which means that the following generations are essentially quarantined from both their superior genetic stock, a great tragedy, and their inferior ideological disposition, a great mercy. Women are incapable of ruling the world because as soon as they have some power they immediately use it to secure their own immediate material desires, rather than laying down foundations for the future.
Not having children is selfish and stupid. It is a privilege to have children, a privilege much more available to women than to men. Under a feminist social environment, intelligence in women is an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. That’s strange. Intelligence, maladaptive? Were a eugenics program otherwise touted specifically in order to reduce the intelligence of successive generations, you would be led to think some great evil or psychological disability is afoot.

I imagine it is more difficult to raise the intelligence of a population through successive generations than to lower it. How many generations would it take to cover the ground lost by feminism in a single Spinster generation?

Yet another reason to favor patriarchy: so that successive generations of society may be more intelligent than their forebears. Indeed, within a patriarchal society, the intelligence of a lady actually becomes an attractive quality, since a better intelligence will help her to manage the affairs of the household better. This is certainly at a contrast with female intelligence in a feminist society, where it is a repellent quality, as it is so highly correlated with very un-attractive lifestyles, behaviors, and attitudes.


Anarcho Papist, Anarcho Papist 40 Comments [12/2/2014 4:29:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 105023

This culture is obsessed with sex. Even burger ads sometimes use sex to sell their product. Pornography is rampant. Gender confusion rules the day. Some even want laws to let men use the ladies' room. And if you are a pastor and don't agree, they may subpoena your sermons.

[...]

[Dr. Mark Laaser] notes, "Fantasy is the cornerstone of sexual addiction. All sex addicts and all people who get into trouble with adultery, to a certain extent, have problems with fantasy. Fantasy is an attempt by addicts to heal any woundedness of their spirit. So if they're lonely, they're going to find a fantasy that helps them feel a lot less lonely."

[...]

"We've had people who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on sexual activity....We've had men who have actually started robbing banks in order to pay for their prostitution habit. We're seeing a lot of crazy things. People being arrested....People being sued, those kinds of things. And then there's the divorce rate, the broken marriages, broken homes, abandoned children, as a result of sexual addiction. That's all very profound."

Jerry Newcombe and Dr. Mark Laaser, Barb Wire 35 Comments [12/2/2014 4:24:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 105022

Once we distinguish a "good Islam" from a "bad Islam," we have established the "good Islam" as a state religion. And then we have to support it and enforce its laws. Few leaders demonstrate the folly of trying to defeat Islamic terrorism by embracing Islam better than the Ayatollah of State [John Kerry].

[...]

Instead of religious freedom, the Secretary of State is promoting the Apartheid laws of Islam.

John Kerry doesn't have the right to use the United States government to enforce Islamic supremacism. He can be an Ayatollah, a Mullah or an Imam. Or he can be the Secretary of State of the United States.

He can't be both.

Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag 29 Comments [12/2/2014 4:24:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 105021

The gospel brings good news to homosexual men and women.

Gay theologians tell us that the traditional gospel message is a "bad tree," bringing forth the bad fruit of depression, apostasy and even suicide among gay men and women.

To the contrary, the message of the gospel brings forgiveness, freedom, hope and deliverance, as countless thousands of ex-gays can attest, by which I mean followers of Jesus who no longer practice homosexuality. Some of them have even become heterosexual, but even those who have not found a change in their sexual desires have found wholeness and satisfaction in the Lord.

[...]

To every reader who is same-sex attracted, I encourage you not to define yourself by your desires but to put all your effort into knowing the Lord and finding intimacy with Him one day at a time, not rewriting the Bible to suit your sexual attractions but casting yourself on God's goodness and mercy. You will find Him to be absolutely trustworthy, totally understanding and more than enough to meet your every need.

Dr. Michael Brown, Barb Wire 32 Comments [12/2/2014 4:23:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 105018

Demons live inside clones. Jesus died for all sins committed by all.
Jesus said that you have to drink His blood.
All people have soul, body, and spirit.
In animals, blood substitutes soul.
That's why you're forbidden to drink animal blood. Animals don't have spirit.
You're forbidden to drink human blood (like during blood transfusion) because sins transfer.
You're told to drink blood of Jesus (because He's sinless) so that your sins are forgiven.
Dogs are not allowed in your home and your church because the Holy Spirit will leave.
Supposedly, white magic helps people, while black magic harms, but, in reality, both cause harm. Casting spells is asking demons for help.
Thoughts and dreams have 3 sources:
1)God and angels,
2)demons,
3)yourself.
Most thoughts and dreams are from demons.
Demons never do good.
Pray the Jesus prayer slowly always:
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."
To have normal sleep, pray to your guardian angel. Also, sleep clothed.

anonymous, Y answers 33 Comments [12/2/2014 4:22:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 27

Quote# 105014

Hunger Games - MOCKINGJAY : Satanic Deception at work - Mockingjay is Mocking "J" ( Mocking JESUS )

EDIT:
Because so many people went on a tangent about Jesus. Let me simplify it:

Think about this;
Why call it a Mockingjay? Why not a repeatingjay? Or an echoingjay? Or a copyingjay? Or a parrotjay? Or anything else that goes with echoing or copying?
Why M O C K I N G J A Y?
Who are they mocking?
Or, to be specific, WHAT are they mocking?
When you mock, you reduce a value.
So, what are they trying to elevate by mocking your spriitual powers?

MOCKING JESUS is not about mocking a hairy bearded man dressed in red and blue. Its about mocking YOUR SPIRITUAL CONNECTIONS.

SO if you have understood this part, you will know that it is doing something to reduce your own spiritual value. A reduction in your spiritual value is dangerous, as the vacuum will be filled by other things.

abhie, Godlike Productions 42 Comments [12/2/2014 4:15:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 105013

“Not all women are like that.” Hate to bust your bubble player but they are and nothing you can do in this society will ever change that. Why do you think the Muslims treat women as property? Because given their propensities, civilizations will fall if they are given any role in society other than property. Funny thing is, Muslim women poll as being the happiest out of all women. Biological imperative and all that crap that no one wants to acknowledge anymore.

CM Sturges, Apocalypse Cometh 32 Comments [12/2/2014 4:14:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Em

Quote# 105007

God has distributed wealth according to His will (1 Samuel 2:7), and to redistribute it by force would be contrary to His will and to His decree. This also means that it is fundamentally immoral for government to redistribute wealth. God has not authorized the government to do that. Rushdoony’s book answers a lot of these types of issues.

Jason Lisle, Jason Lisle's blog 51 Comments [12/1/2014 5:47:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: Tony

Quote# 105006

Recently, I became aware that Philadelphia enacted a piece of legislation which mandates that all public buildings must include a restroom catering to transgenders in addition to the traditional male and female restrooms. Strangely enough, some libertarians have defended this project as a move towards equality.

[...]

There are quite a few people–particularly on the internet–who feel as if they are animals. Quite a number of these individuals say that they are actually cats. Should the government be mandated to place litter-boxes everywhere in order to accommodate these individuals since they would feel oh-so persecuted to have to use a regular restroom? As well, the textbook psychology example of delusion happens to be people who truly believe they are Napoleon. These people are adamant that they are Napoleon. Should the government be mandated to build everyone who thinks they’re Napoleon their very own Versailles and act as France in order to treat their dysphoria? Of course not. It would be laughable for the government to be required to appeal to these segments of the population; yet, taking “equality” to the extreme, the government must provide for these people, or else the government is “depriving equal access” to the group and “not treating them equal to everyone else.”

Everyone (read: everyone) knows that “male” and “restrooms” refer to a person’s genitalia. It’s just merely less obscene for facilities to say “women” and “men” versus “vagina” and “penis.” There is no need to change how things work just because a very tiny percentage of the population might potentially feel uncomfortable. Certainly, there is no need to have tax-payers foot the exorbitant bill for something as irrelevant and inconsequential as additional bathrooms for people who may never even use them. In fact, the construction of these restrooms has huge potential for exorbitant abuse of tax-payer money.

Since the transgender restrooms are going to be installed under the banner of “equality” and “human rights”, the government will not shy away from going all out in order to fund it. No politician wants to be known as that person who said “no” to funding something as great as equality, of course—especially when the town said it has an agenda of catering to the gay community!

Ashley Rae Goldenberg, Liberty Without Apologies 27 Comments [12/1/2014 5:47:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 105005

Despite being a public school, I chose to attend George Mason University because of its phenomenal economics program. Before I came to Mason, I was vaguely aware of its demographics. I knew the school prided itself on diversity, which is generally a code word for political correctness. However, George Mason University does more than attempt to be politically correct: George Mason University uses tax-payer dollars to propagate Islam.

The center of George Mason University is the Johnson Center. The Johnson Center contains the main food court, academic offices, and meeting rooms. On the first floor of the Johnson Center, there is one set of bathrooms which include Islamic footbaths. There is absolutely no denying that the Islamic footbaths are for religious purposes. They are for the expressed purpose of Muslim ritual. The university does not even attempt to hide this fact. Right there, this is a blatant violation of tax-payer money being used to promote one religion.

[...]

Edit, 7:05 PM: Since publishing this post, I have remembered that my school has a Muslim basketball team. Flyers were distributed, and I took a photograph of one of them. I am currently trying to locate the photo. There are also dining services on campus that are Halal.

Ashley Rae Goldenberg, Liberty Without Apologies 24 Comments [12/1/2014 5:47:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 105004

The extent of exposure to any culture's concepts is simply a function of these 2 interacting factors: exposure & perceived superiority. This is almost exclusively a one-way interchange, with few concepts (food is a notable exception) going the other way. This can be seen in the changing role of women in society, which has both good and bad connotations. While status upliftment of the female sex is the need of the hour as well as just, carrying it too far can lead to breakdown of the family, as in the west, where the family is all but dead, with divorce rates pushing 45% or more as per information available to me.

The exposure is also leading to outright negative effects like rampant body exposure by both the sexes, pre- and extra-marital sex, treating traditionalism with disdain and condescension, inordinate regard to English fluency, lack of knowledge of inherited culture and quite simply aping the west. The impression in the minds of some people, for ex, that females look more fetching in western dresses is nothing but mindless west-copying. The female form looks far more alluring in a sari, for example. These are all examples of aping the west. I not not raising the issue of tobacco and drink here since the link between western values and these two is tenuous at best. Another example is music; nothing wrong with listening to rock or jazz. But if you regard eastern music as trash - then you have a classic case of mindless aping.

Prashaat Singh, Quora 10 Comments [12/1/2014 5:47:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 104999

While no one expects the eloquence of Abraham Lincoln to issue from Barack Obama’s lips, the President’s Proclamation of Thanksgiving 2014 lacks not only Lincoln’s style, but unfortunately even a basic understanding of what America’s greatest feast is all about.
When Abraham Lincoln solemnly proclaimed the Thanksgiving holiday in 1863, during the bitter heat of the American Civil War, he consciously instituted a God-centered feast. He invited a divided America in the midst of acute hardship to count its blessings and to acknowledge the goodness of Almighty God, rendering Him the gratitude that was due.
Lincoln saw that “we are prone to forget the source” from which our blessings flow, and to remedy that, he enumerates the bounty that has been poured out over America by our Maker. These gifts of God are so great, Lincoln reasons, that they “cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.”
And his conclusion is that “no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
And so President Lincoln invited all Americans, even those at sea or sojourning in foreign lands, “to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”
The humility and sincere religious faith of the 16th president is nowhere in evidence in this year’s Thanksgiving proclamation. It isn’t irreverent, or course, or lacking in niceties about blessings and community and shelters and soup kitchens. It is, however, lacking in any mention of God’s providence and gifts, except a single nod to us carrying forward the legacy of our forebears “with God’s grace.” Yes, if you blinked you will have missed the sole reference to God in the proclamation of a feast supposedly instituted to give Him thanks.
This is not a momentary lapse, but a constant in the President’s Thanksgiving proclamations, as Breitbart has noted in other years. Obama’s 2009 statement made history by being the first Thanksgiving proclamation ever to omit any reference to God whatsoever. Reading back over Obama’s Thanksgiving proclamations, Chuck Norris felt obliged to admit that “for five years, the president has flunked Thanksgiving Day remembrance and proclamation.
And so we are invited to reflect on our blessings and gather with family and friends in a spirit of gratitude, and yet as we do so we realize, as Abraham Lincoln so wisely noted, that “we are prone to forget the source” from which our blessings flow.

Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart.com 21 Comments [12/1/2014 5:46:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 104998

'O Christmas Tree' is no better than 'Sympathy For The Devil' by The Rolling Stones. Either way, God is being robbed of praise that He is rightfully due from mankind. Most of our American culture today is anti-God and anti-Christianity. I'll get to the blasphemous term X-MAS in a moment. We spit on God as a nation. I pray for God to punish our nation. We deserve a Police State, for being complacent and tolerating sin. That's why people tolerate government tyranny, that is, because their foolish hearts have been darkened by Satan.

If people don't care about the sin of abortion, and they don't care about the sin of homosexuality, and they don't care about the evil public schools, and they don't care about the evils of drunkenness; then pray tell me, what makes you think that they'll care ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE??? It's not that hard to figure out! People don't care anymore! People who don't care about God won't care about their fellow mankind either. Until people start caring about morality, then they won't care about liberty nor freedom either. Americans have been lulled into a semi-unconscious state of psychosis.

Blasphemy is anything which mocks, speak evil of, or attempts to replace God. This song is so evil, attempting to substitute the true meaning of Christ in Christmas with a worldly message of pleasure, self-fulfillment and baseless joy. It's absolutely sickening. I wanted to vomit as I listened to the cast of Glee sing this song. I mean, the Bible proclaims that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and forever (Hebrews 13:8); not a lousy Christmas tree! It's blasphemy to attribute such omnipotence to a Christmas tree.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 46 Comments [12/1/2014 5:46:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 104993

Texas' State Board of Education has approved new history textbooks that say the U.S. Constitution was based on the Bible. A group of university professors complains that the textbooks are filled with "inventions and exaggerations" about Christianity's influence on the Founding Fathers, but board chairwoman Barbara Cargill said students will now learn about the country's "rich religious heritage."

Texas Board of Education, The Week 41 Comments [12/1/2014 3:37:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: Daniel

Quote# 104901

“Ray Comfort, who I am sure is a wonderful human being, would lose a debate, in such a horrible way ie utter embarrassment and shame, if he were to ever debate actual experts in the evolutionary and scientific fields…” Zane Grant

In other words “Ray Comfort is really nice…kind of like Gomer Pyle.” Then put me beside your biggest and best and let him rub me into the floor so that no one will ever listen to me again. But Professor Dawkins won’t let that happen, because he only likes debating elderly ministers or hijacking young ladies with no warning, as he did with Wendy Wright.

So instead of waiting for the experts to come to me I went to them and we debated eye-to-eye. These were evolutionary experts—university professors from UCLA and USC. Watch them flounder as they try and think of some scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.

It goes without saying, but I’m not a great debater--which makes them look even worse: www.evolutionVsGod.com (1.9 million views)

BTW. Richard Dawkins tweeted about this video five times. Someone said he would have a cow when he saw it, and he did.

Ray Comfort, Facebook 32 Comments [12/1/2014 3:36:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 104890

I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store, and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoilt, cranky kids in tow, and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats—one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous, and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation—legal and cultural—have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men's testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines—they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads. The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as The Dangerous Book for Boys proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again—the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy, and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun—or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more inclined to divorce (and get custody), never marry, or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with "Kiddie Cocaine." Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia, and death. Writing for the PBS’s “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite sixty years of stimulant use with children…some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken, “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon are replacing deep-voiced, mucho men. Tom Brokaw, for instance. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking...


Ilana Mercer, Barely a Blog 32 Comments [12/1/2014 3:36:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 104865

But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world`s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.

During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world`s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men`s intelligence. The “Bell Curve“ of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women. They are, consequently, more likely to enjoy very high but suffer very low IQs.

The subjects in which so few women have demonstrated excellence require particularly high IQs. And women, so the theory goes, simply have fewer high IQs.

However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ—their median may be as much as five points above that of women. This means that there are even more high IQ men than women. At an IQ of 145 there are about ten men to one woman.

The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women`s mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men`s on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.

Lynn, working from his developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, demonstrates that while men do enjoy the aforementioned advantage, adults are, on average, equal in verbal ability, with one minor exception: women are better at spelling and foreign languages.
Women`s relatively scant accomplishments in the second half of the 20th century as quantified objectively by Murray certainly puts meat on the bones of Lynn`s findings.

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer?
In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul.

But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize.

I`m not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek`s dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Questions also surround this year`s choice for the most prestigious prize in medicine. I personally doubt whether Linda B. Buck`s olfactory discoveries warranted a Nobel (shared with Richard Axel). For example, this year`s Nobel winners in Chemistry—two Israelis and one American—appear to dwarf the Buck and Axel smell sensation.
Was the committee compelled perhaps to showcase at least one female scientist?

To overcome the shortage of women in male-dominated professions, some institutions are stacking the deck.

Statistician La Griffe du Lion has documented the campaign to make entry into engineering schools easier for women. To overcome the advantage that men have on the crucial mathematical reasoning sections of the admission tests, educational administrators are devising subtle ways to lower standards.

On a lighter note, look at the zany world of reality television—as presented in this scene from the first season of The Apprentice.
The task confronting the two competing teams was to refurbish and rent out two apartments. The team leaders—Katrina Campins and Troy McClain—were vying for the best apartment. Campins, tart and schoolmarm rolled into one, is a real estate “expert,” but is unsure which apartment is the better bet.

Although it is unclear to what avail, Campins decided that she and her rival would write down and then exchange their respective choices. Troy McClain, who had been watching her closely as she brainstormed (or infarcted) for the camera, smiled amiably and complied. When Campins opened McClain`s note, she went berserk. He had effortlessly outsmarted her: “I want what you want,” McClain had written.

Then and there he figured out how to claim the prized pick by picking the professional`s brain.

Of course, The Apprentice candidates constitute a restricted sample, chosen for a combination of looks and status.

Despite this, the disparities in character and cerebral agility between the men and the women could not be more glaring. An obviously déclassé act, the women would have been utterly risible if they were not so revolting.
I sincerely hope The Apprentice is not an accurate reflection of the crème de la crème of up-and-coming distaff America.

As a measure of woman, the Nobel Prize is depressing enough.

Ilana Mercer, VDARE 11 Comments [12/1/2014 3:36:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 104846

I'm always wondering if the Lord will come for us at a moment where I'm NOT decent, ie, in the shower, just out of the shower and in the process of changing, or, the WORST, IMHO, on the latrine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously; I think about that often and pray I'm not in any of those places

XMaryX, Rapture Ready 38 Comments [12/1/2014 3:36:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 104388

When I see God as the One who directed the rapist to my personal front door, I end up directing the bulk of my rage at Him, and He in turn has the wisdom and power to help me process my experience in a way that will have a positive effect on my insides. When I see God as the Mastermind behind my assault, I then see the rapist as merely the instrument that he was. Of course I still hate the man at first, but since I am now fully engaged with God and looking for Him to help me process my experience, I am going to find that my hate for the human is eventually transformed into compassion. The truth is that God loves the rapist every bit as much as He loves me. I will of course try to avoid thinking about this at first, especially when I need to believe that God is on my side and far more concerned with my pain than He is with that human creep. But the reality is that God is equally concerned with both me and my rapist, He is equally compassionate towards each of us, and He is using our common experience to try and grow each of us to a better place. 

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 34 Comments [12/1/2014 3:23:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 104146

Accordingly, the Islamic State dealt with this group as the majority of fuqaha’ have indicat- ed how mushrikin should be dealt with. Unlike the Jews and Christians, there was no room for jizyah payment. Also, their women could be en- slaved unlike female apostates who the majority of the fuqaha’ say cannot be enslaved1 and can only be given an ultimatum to repent or face the sword. After capture, the Yazidi women and chil- dren were then divided according to the Shari’ah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State’s authority to be divided as chums.

This large-scale enslavement of mushrik families is probably the first since the abandonment of this Shari’ah law. The only other known case – albeit much smaller – is that of the enslavement of Christian women and children in the Philip- pines and Nigeria by the mujahidin there.

The enslaved Yazidi families are now sold by the Islamic State soldiers as the mushrikin were sold by the Companions (radiyallahu ‘anhum) before y the Companions (radiyallahu ‘anhum) before them. Many well-known rulings are observed, including the prohibition of separating a mother from her young children. Many of the mushrik women and children have willingly accepted Is- lam and now race to practice it with evident sin- cerity after their exit from the darkness of shirk.

ISIS, Dabiq Magazine 18 Comments [12/1/2014 3:22:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 104110

A man’s dominance to be ethical and legitimate has to be directed to the woman’s benefit; it has to be part of the general ethic of placing women’s interests above men’s interests. Likewise a woman’s submission is only functional when it facilitates the woman’s well being and the woman’s ability to contribute to others. Male dominance is directed towards the goal of service to the woman while female submission is directed towards the goal of service to others.

An interesting thing I have learned about myself. When I look towards a woman I have found that what I most want is a connection to God. Love and sex is not what I value most in a woman; what I value most is her Godliness, her spirituality, her higher moral purpose, her feminine gift to the world. If all a woman can offer me is love and sex I am not interested; love and sex has to be combined with morality in order for me to be interested. In other words my relationship with the woman has to be moral; it has to serve a higher moral purpose. The woman can’t be attacking me or trying to undermine me or trying to manipulate me or trying to “get something out of me.” All of these behaviors by the woman destroy my moral purpose in the relationship; they all undermine and lessen my value as a man and represent the woman seeking to harm me or harm others for her own selfish benefit. If the woman claims to be my “equal” and is not willing to submit to me this tells me that her intention is to steal from me or manipulate me or attack and undermine me in some way. Additionally the woman should be idealistic so that her inclination is to use my support for her in service to others rather than her being selfish and inward looking. My purpose in giving to a woman is not just to help the woman; it is to help the woman help others.

When I refer to a woman being “in service to others” what I mean is her being in service to her children or our children or my children; in addition her being in service to a wide variety of potential “others.” She may be in service to other children in her extended family, she may be of benefit to the neighborhood kids, she may volunteer in service to the less fortunate in a number of ways, she may care for the elderly, she may mentor younger women growing up or starting out in life, she may contribute to the religious community she is a part of, she might work to spread her religious faith to others, she might write books or maintain a blog to communicate positive moral teachings or practical advice to others. There are many ways a woman can be in service to others. When I financially support a woman what I am doing is giving her her time so that she can then give her time to others.

I do not want an “independent woman.” What purpose do I serve with an “independent woman?” My goal is to help others through my support of the woman so that my relationship with the woman will serve a higher moral purpose that is pleasing to God. Therefore the woman must be dependent upon me in order for me to achieve my full value and my full purpose as a man.

My intimacy, my dominance, and my service to the woman are not just things intended to benefit the woman; they are also meant to benefit me and my sense of higher moral purpose. I want a woman that accepts my intimacy, my dominance, and my service to her in addition to me myself seeking to give intimacy, dominance, and service to a woman.

In order for a woman to be able to offer me intimacy, submission, and service to others she has to be trusting towards me and she has to be idealistic and not selfish. Feminism is the antithesis of these things that I need from a woman. Feminism on principle refuses to trust a man no matter how trustworthy he is; the refusal to obey a man very clearly being an assertion of contempt and an expression of fear. Furthermore feminism is selfishly oriented fixated on “women’s rights” the rights of everybody else be damned.

What I most want is for a woman to be Godly. Conservative religious teachings and the overall religious view of life with God and obedience to God being the central organizing theme; this is very desirable in a woman as these things support a woman’s ability to trust me given my trustworthiness in reality and they support an idealistic generous orientation towards others. A Godly woman true to her traditional religious faith will be able to offer me the intimacy, submission, and service to others that I am looking for in a woman.

The reason for me joining my life with a woman is to gain access to her femininity for myself and to contribute her femininity to others. It is the woman’s femininity that I want for myself selfishly and to contribute to others idealistically. Femininity is the skill areas and abilities that women are better at than men; masculinity is the skill areas and abilities that men are better at than women. Femininity is what I don’t have or at least am weak in. Femininity is what I need and what the world needs that I myself do not possess; it is something I can only gain access to and contribute to others through the means of entering into a relationship with a woman and supporting that woman. Likewise masculinity is what a woman doesn’t possess herself and can only get through a relationship with a man. The purpose of masculinity is the support and empowerment of femininity. The purpose of romantic relationships between men and women is male masculine support of women’s feminine contribution to children and society at large.

What I have to give as a traditional man is intimacy, dominance, and service. What I want to receive from a traditional woman in return is intimacy, submission, and service to others. This is the complementarian relationship between men and women, this is patriarchy as it is expressed in romantic relationships between men and women, this is how the romantic bond between man and woman is given its higher moral purpose. This is what I have to give as a man and what I want to receive from a woman.


Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy 21 Comments [12/1/2014 3:22:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 104012

There Is A Very Very High Chance That Jesus Was Genetically Was The Son Of King David..
Does Everyone Remember The Son Who Died To Redeem David's Kingdom Because Of David Sin With Bathsheeba ? He Had Murdered He Had Committed Adultery And He Had Released An Entity Of Death( SINS UNTO DEATH) Into His Own World. Something Was Going To Die.
The Older/ Greater Than Solomon Son Of David ... The Promise Was A Son Of David Will Reign Forever. ... Which By The Way Is One Of His Names.

Then He Was Raised By The Genetic Male Heir / King Of Israel AKA Joseph . Who Would Be Like A Genetic Father AND SAME CLAN And Probably Had David's Heart.. . He Was Probably Genetically Really King David's Own Son In His very Genes.. The One Who Died , Who Redeemed David's Kingdom Or There Would Be No Redemption For The World, No Temple No Nothing.. there would be No Way To God.
He Was Probably Also The Lamb Offered In Isaac's Place...... How I Wonder Now How Many Times He Has Died For Mankind.. He May Have Even Been Every Spotless Lamb Every Year In Jerusalem. When We See Him In Heaven He Is A Lamb And The Son Of David And A Lamb With 7 Eyes Too .. I Don't Know I Just Know He Loves Us And He Wants To Redeem Us And He Wants and loves his Family More Than He Loves Himself.
how many times has he stepped in ?
He Says If You Have Done It To The Least Of My Brethren You Have Done It To Me..
I Wonder How Many Times He Has Stepped In?
How Many Abortions He Has Stepped Into ?
How Many Beheadings ?
How Many Mongering Has He Stepped Into , To Protect His From The Hell That Is Between Men's Ears And In Their Deeds ?
I Suspect Lot Of Them Could Easily Be Him Sharing In His Families Pain And The Deaths Of Those He Loves.

His Genetics Were probably From David's Own Son. that is the promise and it is his name after all.

NannaNae, Christian Forums 33 Comments [12/1/2014 3:21:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Armoured

Quote# 104000

Satan HATES the Christian Sabbath because it reminds him of his defeat by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead....He will do ANYTING to make the world forget that glorious event. That is why Emperor Constantine changed both the TIME and PLACE of the Resurrection:

St. Paul warned US not to be ignorant of his devices:

Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (II Corinthians 2:11).

The Vatican is using Islam and multinational corporations like Walmart to treat the Sabbath as just another business day. This is a Satanic conspiracy to secularize the Sabbath with its eventual elimination by Islam. This is an instance of BIG false religion and BIG business united to undermine the Sabbath and break the 4th Commandment.

The Vatican and Islam are trampling the Sabbath underfoot!!

The Vatican wants to replace the Christian Sabbath with her "holy days" like Christmas and "saints" days.

Islam has no Sabbath, and yet Allah threatens to turn Muslim Sabbath violators into APES!!

It is business as usual on the Sabbath for giant corporations like Walmart who are open for business on the Lord's Day!!

Islam STOLE the 7 day week from the Christians, however, they are not commanded to cease work on any day of that week.

After prayers to their false god Allah, Islam treats Friday as just another day of the week. Here is a quote from the Koran:

Believers, When you are summoned to Friday prayers hasten to the remembrance of Allah and cease your trading. That would be best for you, if you but knew it. Then, when the prayers are ended, disperse and go your way in quest of Allah's bounty. Remember Allah always so that you may prosper. (Sura 62:9).

Even though Islam has no Sabbath, Allah threatens to turn his followers into APES if they violate the Sabbath. Here is another quote from the Koran:

You have heard of those of you that broke the Sabbath. We said to them: 'You shall be changed into detested apes' (Sura 2:66).

Allah threatening to turn Muslims into MONKEYS seems to be evolution in reverse!!

Besides big business and Islam, Satan has a vast array of weapons aimed at breaking the 4th Commandment and undermining the Christian Sabbath. One of his fiery darts is PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. Up to the year 1934, it was ILLEGAL to play professional baseball . . . or any sports on the Sabbath.

Another outfit that works ceaselessly to undermine the Sabbath are the Seventh-day Adventists. It is very easy to expose their falsehoods about the Sabbath if you know Greek and have a true knowledge of Christian history.

Satan also uses Khazars to undermine and commercialize the Christian Sabbath. In the British Empire state of "Israel," the Christian Sabbath is just another working day.

It is doubtful if the Jewish religion could have survived for 1500 years prior to the Messiah without their weekly Sabbath reminding them of the Creation and Exodus. It is also doubtful if Christianity could have survived and flourished without the weekly Sabbath to remind the believers of the Resurrection of their Saviour.

Patrick Scrivener, Reformation 17 Comments [12/1/2014 3:21:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 103959

Misogyny, from Greek misos (µ?s??, hatred) and gyne (????, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example.

Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist", a "misdogist", because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't? And the same goes for "homophobia" (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), "race hatred", and the like.

But of course the subhumans' inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply "But no, you are not superior, you are inferior", which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman ;)

Anthony Zyrmpas, Orgy of the Will 15 Comments [12/1/2014 3:21:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Kncac

Quote# 103813

Women do leverage sex for additional benefit, unless his attractiveness is drastically more valuable anyway. So... in a way.... brace for it... most women are prostitutes. The only difference is you've got a long-term contract going. The one where you can take him to the cleaners any time. That scam called marriage.
For the sake of argument, lets stick with the strictly economic form of hypergamy, i.e. women marry up economically. In male-female households, the woman usually earns more practically very little of the time.
So, lets say we minus the cost of a nanny, daily sessions with a shitty therapist, all his own expenses, and a housekeeper... what is the rest he's giving her for? Lets say she works part-time. Minus that too and it still leaves a hefty sum left over(in the salaries of most median earning men at least).

We_are_legion, reddit 15 Comments [12/1/2014 3:21:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 | top