Quote# 124866

The sadder aspect of this is how many children will now become influenced by particular wrestling figures, such as one Stone Cold Steve Austin and his ranting in support of gay marriage.

In his latest vulgarity spewed comments, Austin seemed to become defensive by the thought of churches who stood against the concept of gay marriage, not only taking a verbal swing at Christians, he enamored himself even more to families with his vulgarity in his defense of homosexuals. “Everybody’s going crazy about this, and some of the churches say, ‘Oh, no can do, you can’t do that.’ I’m for same-sex marriage. I don’t give a sh** if two guys, two gals, guy-gal, whatever it is, I believe that any human being in America, or any human being in the god**** world that wants to be married, and if it’s the same-sex, more power to ’em….

But Austin wasn’t done yet with his profane ignorance; “OK, so two cats can’t get married if they want to get married, but then a guy can go murder 14 people, molest five kids, then go to f****** prison, and accept God and He’s going to let him into heaven? After the fact that he did all that sh**? See, that’s all horse**** to me, that don’t jive with me.”

This is the same beer drinking, middle-finger pointing, cursing like a sailor wrestler that the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) seems to love to promote and one in which the audience seems to embrace. One might think it would be bad parenting to even consider taking a young child to something like a WWE event, but by a simple viewing of late night T.V., it appears many parents have no problem allowing someone like Stone Cold Steve Austin to indoctrinate and educate their children. And yet we wonder why our youth today are drawing further from the faith?

So while Mr. Austin might have no problem with his rabble rousing to satisfy the depths of his sinful heart and mind, allow me to quote the word of God to Mr. Austin (in the rare case he might read this article), it is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.“

It would serve Mr. Austin that while he might rule the roost at the moment in his world, God is the ultimate judge and unless he repents, no amount of body slamming or fist gesturing will save his soul in the flames of hell.

Christopher Gregory, The Prophetic News 12 Comments [2/25/2017 9:33:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 124865

15% of women have slept with their bosses. (37% of those got a promotion out of it.)

That 15% is the number of women who admitted to having affairs with their bosses, so we can safely double the number to get an accurate picture of the percentage of women banging up.

This is female hypergamy 101, the desire of women to date up, marry up, and fuck up. By “up”, I mean a man’s social, economic, and sexual status: women want a man higher than themselves in all the ways that matter, except looks and youth, in which women prefer to retain an edge over the men they screw.

The rise of a managerialist corporatocracy/gynecracy greased with conformist HR cogs from the effluvium of a thousand libarts colleges has created a sexual market that accommodates and amplifies the female hypergamous impulse. Any beta provider would be wise to steer his beloved away from hyper-stratified, super-SCALED corporate behemoths that are run as de facto harems by a few alpha males at the top supported by an admiring and desiring ovaclass of id-starved, Shonda Rhimes-raised women all too happy to turn the cubicle farm into a hive of gossip and sexual intrigue.

As long as humans are a sexually reproducing species, female hypergamy will always be a feature of life, but the least a healthy society can do is stop undermining its own foundation by feeding that hypergamy tasty morsels from the globohomo gadget mills and paper pushing parks.

CH, Chateau Heartiste 5 Comments [2/25/2017 9:33:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 124864

Why I won't let any male babysit my children



When our first daughter was born my husband and I made a family rule: no man would ever babysit our children. No exceptions. This includes male relatives and friends and even extracurricular and holiday programs, such as basketball camp, where men can have unrestricted and unsupervised access to children.

Eight years, and another daughter later, we have not wavered on this decision.


Group slumber parties are also out. When there is a group of excited children it is far too easy for one of them to be lured away by a father or older brother without being noticed.

When my daughter goes on play dates I make sure that she will be supervised by a woman at all times. So far she has only slept at one friend's house. Beforehand I spoke to my friend about our rule and clarified that if she's going to pop out to shops for example and intends to leave our daughter in the care of her husband or another man then the sleepover cannot happen.

As you can imagine, this was not an easy conversation to have. To my friend's credit she respected our family policy even though she doesn't have the same rules herself. In subsequent play dates and sleepovers my friend has rearranged logistics so that she can be present at all times.
I am certain that some of my other friends and acquaintances would not react so graciously and would see my request as a direct attack on their husbands and/or their parenting choices. I am dreading the day when I have to have the same conversation with someone who will not be as understanding.Advertisement
Would I prefer to be a more chilled out parent? Absolutely.

Will I change my family policy? Unfortunately no. Child sexual abuse is so prevalent that I won't back down on my no-male-babysitters policy.

To be clear, I'm not saying that all men are sexual predators. Nor do I think that men harbour predatory instincts that lie dormant only to spring forth at the first opportunity.

But child abuse by men is so common that taking precautions to keep my daughters safe is a no-brainer.

According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies the prevalence of child sexual abuse is 1.4-8 per cent for penetrative abuse and 5.7-16 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for boys and 4-12 per cent for penetrative abuse and 13.9-36 per cent for non-penetrative abuse for girls.

To put those figures into context, the "best case" scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.

Yes, women can also abuse, but as the Australian Institute of Family Studies' Who Abuses Children fact sheet makes clear, "Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males."

An Australian Institute of Criminology 2011 paper "Misperceptions about child sex offenders" shows 30.2 per cent of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a male relative, and 13.5 per cent by the father or stepfather. A tiny 0.8 per cent of cases were perpetrated by mothers and stepmothers, and 0.9 per cent of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a female relative. The other categories of perpetrators were family friend (16.3 per cent), an acquaintance or neighbour (15.6 per cent), another known person (15.3 per cent) – without specifying the gender split.

Data from the US National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) showed that males made up 90 per cent of adult child sexual assault perpetrators, while 3.9 per cent of perpetrators were female, with a further 6 per cent classified as "unknown gender".

While we're all terrified by the prospect of strangers abusing our kids and most of us would never let our young child walk around the streets by themselves, the Australian Institute of Criminology paper said that "in the vast majority of cases, children's abusers are known to them".

Children are at far greater risk from relatives, siblings, friends, and other known adults such as priests, teachers and coaches.

The blanket rule against allowing our daughters to be in the care of lone male adults means that we do not have to make a moral assessment of every man. My husband and I do not want to delve into the characters of every man that we know and assess whether or not they are potential sexual predators, so we apply our rule to all men to avoid casting aspersions on people.

We're also not sure if we can trust our judgement. If anything, the statistics suggest that many parents aren't very good at determining which male adults are safe and which are not.

No doubt some people will call me a man hater and, just as we saw with the backlash against Tracey Spicer's article as a couple of years back about not wanting her unaccompanied children sitting next to a man on a plane, people will react as if the protection of children is secondary to men's right not to be offended.

But dismissing this as a hysterical reaction of a misandrist is not only incorrect, it's also missing the point spectacularly. My husband and my decision is based on straightforward risk analysis: a cold, hard, unemotional reading of the statistical data.

When I look at my daughter's class lining up on assembly and think that statistically between one and nine of them are going to be sexually abused before they reach adulthood, I am determined to do everything I can to make sure my daughter is not going to be one of them.

I know it's a hard line, some would say extreme. But I also know that sexual abuse can rob a child of their self-worth and dignity in an instant – and it can take decades for those wounds to heal, if at all.

In this context, potentially hurting peoples' feelings is the price my husband and I are prepared to pay.

Kasey Edwards, Brisbane Times 16 Comments [2/25/2017 9:32:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 124862

After it is scientifically proven—in the laboratory—that the entire Bible was put together in a supernatural manner with a secret coded system, we will discuss the issue of how we must now understand and interpret all this new information.


unknkow, angelfall 13 Comments [2/25/2017 9:32:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 124861

Good morning and good day to all! Hello my fellow champions of truth, enemies of hypocrisy, foes of the Leftist agenda. And to all SJW’s, BLM fascists, and refugee defenders who fancy yourselves freedom fighters, piss off :D thank you to all who have followed me and who have gotten to know me. I’m glad to be so well-received by Tumblr, knowing I have like-minded individuals online, when even the internet is dominated by goose-stepping fascist Leftist idiots and morons, touting the Left’s agenda and that of the Leftist media and corrupt politicians who claim to represent the people of our once great republic. Stay strong, and keep fighting the good fight brothers and sisters. For Liberty, for Reason, for Truth.

gaylibertariansc, Tumblr 13 Comments [2/24/2017 9:35:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 124860

1. Killing isn't murder when God commands it. In Genesis 9, he commands that a life be taken for a life. If you commit murder, and you recieve the penalty of death, your death is not murder.
2. The fetus, hereafter refered to as a baby, gets to have its soul at the moment of conception. John the Baptist, an unborn 6 month old baby, recognized Jesus, a days old unborn baby, by leaping for joy, in the womb.
3. God has judged and has been clever enough to reveal his judgment coherently in the scriptures.
4. Allah is not the same as God.
5. And yes, when God kills it isn't murder. When he commands the killing, it isn't murder. He can kill us all, because we have all vilely sinned against him. Some of us he spares by attributing the substitutionary death of his Son to us. The Son dies instead of us. Because the Son is God, his death is big enough to account for al the sins of the world.
6. Because the muslim version of God, Allah, denies the existence of the Son, the muslim does not worship the true God.
7. It doesn't take much, apparently, to gain wisdom these days. If knowing that abortion is murder is all it takes, I must have attained to the heights.

Anne Kennedy, Patheos 21 Comments [2/24/2017 9:34:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 124859

A number of critics attack the character of God’s love for all humanity by comparing Hell to Auschwitz. Would a loving God send his creatures there?

There are several differences between hell and Auschwitz, but two are dramatic and must be emphasized: 1. No one would choose to be in Auschwitz and 2. no one would choose to remain there if given the option to leave. Whereas scripture teaches us that the character of the human heart is such that unless God changes us, we would rather live in eternal torment than in harmony with our Creator.

First, our hearts are set against him. We suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-33). We willfully violate the laws he reveals in scripture and inscribes on our hearts (Rom 2). We do not seek to know or love God, but rather to replace him (Rom 3:10-20). We are, by nature, children of wrath (Eph 2:3).

Second, this hardened animosity toward God is stronger than our desire to escape anguish and torment. Observe that the Rich Man in Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:19-31 does not ask to be let out of the place of torment and ascend to be with Abraham and the poor man Lazarus. Not at all. He wants Lazarus to come down:
‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’(Luke 16:24)

He sees heaven, sees glory, sees Abraham and doesn’t want it. He wants relief but not redemption.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man only illustrates the biblical pattern of rebellion. God provides life, love, sustenance, and virtue. Humans respond by repudiating God. As life becomes coarse and suffering increases, the rebellion only gathers steam. Torment does not lead to repentance and dependence but to increased hatred.

....

God’s wrath is, for those who reject God, preferable to repentance and surrender which would bring mercy and peace.

We must not, therefore, think of hell as a place where God imprisons people against their will. Hell is the place where the human will is fully actualized.

This leads, of course, to a deeper question. God is omniscient. God knew from eternity those who would be damned. Why did he create them?

....

We cannot say then that God created morally neutral beings and then caused them to rebel against him and then punished them for acting according to the evil he created in their hearts. That is, sometimes, the caricature that critics of Christianity like to paint. It is, also, a caricature that many would like to lay at the feet of Calvinism in particular. But the problem is not one that is unique to any one theological perspective. All Christians believe that God is omniscient. Therefore, all must wrestle with the fact that God created many millions of people knowing that they would reject him and live forever in torment.
So God did not create people and then cause them to rebel against him.

God did create people, giving them life, love, the blessings of his created order, truth, common virtue, knowing that they would harden their hearts against him and return his blessings with curses. In fact, he created all people knowing that every single one of us would despise him, his love and his many gracious gifts.

God would be fully justified in handing each of us over to this despising and allowing all humans to continue to hate him for eternity. This would be both consistent with his love – creating, blessing, delighting in the beloved and then giving the beloved the desire of her heart – and consistent with his justice – sinners would experience the consequences of sin.

Instead, he choose to rescue some from this fate and not others. He chose to draw some to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:37-40, 44, Romans 8:29-31, Eph 2:4-10) and allow others to follow their own hearts to their own end. As RC Sproul has pointed out so brilliantly, no one is treated unfairly. Some receive mercy. Others justice. No one can complain that God is in the wrong. And no one can say that they have not been loved by him.

But, to return to the problem, God determined to create millions of people, knowing that he would shower them with love and truth and that they would nevertheless hate him and, here’s the crux, knowing that he would not to soften their hatred and turn them to love, knowing that in the end he would say to them, “thy will be done…”

Why?

....

Paul, as he often does, asks what appears to be a rhetorical question. But the question is not really an open one. God allows people to follow their hearts and choose hell over repentance so that his loving-kindness to his enemies might be displayed during their lifetimes and his justice might be displayed at the Judgment (Rev.20)

Just judgment makes God’s justice manifest and when his character is revealed. he is glorified.
So is this what it is all about? God’s own glory?

Yes. That is what everything is about. God is the origin and measure of all that is good. A truly good being will glorify all that is good and that means God will glorify himself and all his attributes above all things.

With regard to those who despise him and violate his law, his glory is made manifest in the outworking of his justice – his “doing what is right”

But even then, and this must be observed, God does not merely snuff them out. They bear his image. They are his creatures. He gives even those who hate him the desires of their hearts. They would not have it any other way.

Anne Kennedy, Patheos 18 Comments [2/24/2017 9:34:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 124858

My child has a best friend, who’s mother is a Jehovah’s Witness. At first we were told that she was not a strong witness, and was still a Christian, so my son did not get too concerned about getting together with his friend in his house.

But then my son went over to his best friend’s house this past Thursday night, to work on a school project together. All seemed quiet and peaceful, until a group of Jehovah’s Witness elders came to the door, and asked to speak to this kid’s mom. She went out and spent several hours with them, talking out in the yard. My son could see and feel the demons presence. The JW elders that were visiting had huge dark demons attached to them. As they met and spoke, even more demons came forth. Towards the end of their meeting, there was a large swarm of black demons swooping around in their back yard.

My son bound them up in the name of Jesus, claiming that they could not harm him. The demons left my son alone. When my son and his friend finished their work for the night, my son left through the front door, and drove home.

Dreams of Dunamis, Dreams of Dunamis 15 Comments [2/24/2017 9:34:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 124853

Homosexuals are relentlessly trying to have laws passed to silence Bible-believing Christians. Thankfully, the Bible will never be silenced. God's Word stands true against homosexuality (Romans 1:18-32), and no matter how much they may try to eradicate the Bible from society, it won't happen. Even if homosexuals were successful in silencing all those who disagree with their sinful lifestyle, it wouldn't make them any happier. God is still on His throne. No one can truly be happy while living in rebellion against God. Sin always brings misery! AIDS isn't going away.

The homosexual community thinks they'll be happy if only they can live in a society that openly accepts homosexuals; BUT, no one can be happy while living with AIDS. Oh sure, there's a temporary happiness that comes from sinful pleasure; BUT, there can be no peace and joy in one's soul until a person makes things right with God. The Bible is clear in Isaiah 48:22, "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked."

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 13 Comments [2/24/2017 9:33:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 124852

You are not really thinking outside the box of our physical universe. Time is a property of our universe, but most likely not a property of whatever brought the universe into existence. The ultimate source of all existence must exist in a timeless state, otherwise it would need a beginning which needs another source ... (turtles all the way down!).

Alan Burns, Religion and Ethics 7 Comments [2/24/2017 9:33:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 124829

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) - A New York woman is facing charges after police say she lied about being raped by two football players from a Connecticut university due to fears a third student would lose romantic interest in her.

Nikki Yovino, of South Setauket (seh-TAW'-kiht), New York, has been charged with falsely reporting an incident and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.

The 18-year-old Yovino said two Sacred Heart University football players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom in October during an off-campus party.

The men said it was consensual.

Capt. Brian Fitzgerald tells WABC-TV another student informed authorities of explicit text messages between the three. He says one man also recorded some of the incident on his cellphone.

Yovino's lawyer, Mark Sherman, tells The Connecticut Post his client stands by her original story.

Nikki Yovino, WIS 10 Comments [2/24/2017 9:32:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 124824

My friend, how would you react if you were told today by a doctor that you only had a few months left to live? Would you cry in sadness? Would you tell everyone, no one, or just your family? Would you praise the Lord that you're going home to be with the Lord in Heaven? What would be your response? I know I would be exceedingly glad to learn that I only have a few months to live, knowing that I am going to be with Jesus in Heaven. Goodbye cruel world! I am looking for the glorious appearing of my great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, at the Rapture, but if the Lord tarries His return, then I know assuredly that I will be with the Lord in Heaven before too long. I am ready for the Lord to take me home whenever He decides.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 14 Comments [2/24/2017 9:32:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 124794

(On the NoDAPL movement)

Yea, because you BURNT OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY, and even worse, POLLUTED THE LAND YOUSAY YOU DEFEND, and the most fucked up on of all, HERDED BUFFALO TO A SITE WHERE POLICE AND PROTESTERS WERE!!
Fucking BUFFALO!! Tell me why the hell any of that makes sense?!? Besides, Standing rock wanted you idiots out because you did more damage than help! The only reason the POLICE, not the military, is there is because you refuse to follow the law that everyone is required to follow.

Jordansreblogs, Tumblr 1 Comments [2/24/2017 9:32:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 124783

There is considerable evidence that any democracy devolves into this state over time, as when women gain the right to vote, they ruthlessly vote for an outcome like what you described. This is because since women are the scarcer reproductive resource, the bottom 80% of men seem to be of no value whatsoever. Hence, they do not even deserve human rights.

Of course, the men who give women tingles are not the ones who built civilization. A case can thus be made that the brain-gina interface possessed by women is obsolete.

Anon, Dalrock 6 Comments [2/24/2017 9:32:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 124775

[FAQ of the sub]

Is /r/Physical_Removal a hate sub?

If this sub is a hate sub so would /r/FuckRapists. Its no more a hate sub as it would be if it were a subreddit for how people don't like other people who violently beat and rob them, or others. If leftists don't want to be "hated" then don't try to steal our private property or go around causing harm to others.

But why remove them?

http://i.magaimg.net/img/m0.png

The same reason bar owners have security (bouncers) who will evict unruly citizens from their premises.

Anarcho capitalists, libertarians, and capitalists are NOT pacifists. We are against the INITIATION of force and violence. This means we will and must defend ourselves from your threats, or acts of violence. For you to implement communism it requires you to initiate force or agresss upon us, seize our private property to redistribute and abolish property rights. Private property owners may even feel threatened enough for preemptive defensive measures to ensure their safety depending on the severity of the threat. If you don't want to receive our defensive measures or threats to impose them, then don't threaten to seize our private property and implement communism upon us. Just leave us alone!

Why helicopters?

Traditionally the tool of choice (adpoted by Pinochet) was the helicopter. But its not absolute, nor the only method used to protect us.

Helicopter ride = x

Where "x" is whatever method of defense is issued by the capitalists or private property owners. This includes physical removal or eviction from the free society. Of course the market would devise the most efficient defense methods. Helicopter rides are just a meme example and is also fucking hilarious which helps get the message across. Leftists don't value free speech, thus logic and reason does not work. Historically, violence tends to be the language they comprehend the most.

This is also the logical reason why freedom loving people love being gun owners.

Are you fascists??

Protecting oneself from violence and theft of private property is simply called defense, not fascism. It should also be noted that fascism has historically never operated under or advocated free market conditions.

I assume this community supports Hitler's views?

Not really. Hitler was a socialist who hated jews. Although yes some jews created socialism and communism, it also doesn't not mean all jews are socialists and communists. We are not so focused on race here, merely the actions of humans.

Why the love for Augusto Pinochet?

In 1973 things got so economically bad in Chile the great General Augusto Pinochet (pbuh) decided he needed to seastead leftists into the pacific ocean. These actions prevented his nation from become a third world shithole, and subsequently became known as the great “Miracle of Chile”. His meeting with Milton Friedman and adoption of Chicago School Economic Theory improved the prosperity and economic conditions, and led to an improved quality of life for the people of Chile. All countries need a Pinochet.

Ideally, Pinochet's defense and security services should be privatized and provided via competing services within the free market.

A free society requires defense and enforcement of private property ownership, so that individuals can trade and live prosperously. Leftist ideology in its entirety is based upon envy which subsequently enables violating these basic human rights, as such they are a threat that needs to be defended against in order for society to optimally function freely. Statism was Pinochet's only "crime", although minarchists will argue defense is a valid role of the state. Ancap and miniarchist libertarians should support each other until we get to the point were police, military, and courts are all that is remaining of the state.

Augusto Pinochet's great deeds in this world caused him to transcended and evolve into an all powerful meme form, where he now serves Lord Kek in the afterlife.

Do you have to be an ancap to support physical removal?

No not at all. While there's a government (which will be the case for many lifetimes), its perfectly reasonable to be more sympathetic to any liberty or anti leftist politicians available who will provide the most free markets. Anarcho capitalism can be viewed as merely the end game or direction humanity needs to head into for the best outcomes for freedom. The new dogma for the right wing should be to seek positions of government and dismantle the state, and thus protect liberty by removing power from the left, which in turn brings back power to the people and to the invisible hand of the free market, where we are free to make our own choices.

What about the NAP (Non Aggression Principle)?

You can't defend yourself or private property (your liberty) without threats to defend, and a means to physically protect it if action is needed. When a violent mob of rabid commies threatens, attacks you or comes to steal your stuff, dogmatic moralist ideals and trying to explain the NAP to them won't get you very far. They don't even value freedom of speech for a start. Again, we are not pacifists! We must be capable to defend our liberty!

Why do you like Donald Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCvWx9Lusc

President Donald J Trump is like a great prophet who has enabled many people to finally see and realize the true nature of the left. He is the great triggerer and also one of the greatest internet shitposters of all time.

Anarcho Capitalists and libertarians need to be pragmatic if they are to have a respected voice and survive into the future. Sure Trump is not an ancap or perhaps even a libertarian, and we aren't realistically going to get an ancap president in our life time. So there's no problem in supporting his measures to cut and slash government as he (Trump) has stated he will. Don't forget under Hillary we would be almost silenced and pushed aside and labelled as crazy as they grew the government and took away freedoms. At least Trumps main audience support the majority of what we say, and the direction we want things to head towards. We now have a president who is a warrior for the private sector, aka the productive people of society who do the heavy lifting for all the parasites to leech off.

Why do you group leftists and liberals into the same group?

I'll stop identifying and grouping statism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, and socialism as being the same thing, when they stop confusing my money and private property as being theirs.

Pinochet-Heli-Tours, Reddit - r/Physical_Removal 17 Comments [2/24/2017 9:32:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 124772

It’s hardly a secret, even among the SWPL hypocrati, that IQ is important to individual life outcomes, (and, on a grander scale, to a nation’s civilizational supremacy), that it correlates to a host of happy behavioral traits, and that dysgenic mating trends threaten to “decivilize” the West if nothing is done to reverse them. Given these accepted premises, many well-meaning but marginally spergalicious bloggers argue for the glories of assortative mating, (though in point of fact many assortatively sorted couples are meeting based less on shared IQ or unspoken eugenic hopes than on simple segregated convenience). This post may then come as a surprise, advocating as it does for a marital boycott of overeducated women.

IQ (and a woman’s educational level, insofar as the latter is an IQ proxy) is undoubtedly relevant if you’re interested in improving your future kids’ economic prospects, and likely getting more so thanks to increasing occupational cognitive demands, but it isn’t the alpha and omega of the good life. Myopic IQ fetishism notwithstanding, CH has spilled a fair amount of ASCII ink ridiculing equalists who despise the idea of an immutable general factor of intelligence and the consequent futility of public policy that fails to account for its reality. This is because the equalists are today those in power, and thus the most scrumptious targets for the Shiv Wielders.

Implicit or explicit support for assortative mating to boost a country’s “smart fraction” is arid frank & beans counting. Breeding Sorters say we are doomed if we don’t pair off high IQ partners in marriage to make high IQ babies. But there are more things in love and marriage, than are dreamt of in their social science laboratories. And there are more negatives to assortative mating than eugenicist whisperers are willing to admit.

There really is no point to marriage unless one wants children. Absent children, all the good things about marriage can be had in cohabiting relationships. This is even true of raising children if your blood is of Northern European stock, for whom the people of your motherlands demonstrate a facility at successful childrearing in non-marital cohabiting households. (Not to be confused with craptastic American-style single mom households, of which there are blessedly few in Scandinavian countries.)

So a major justification for marriage (and a reminder of the silliness of gay marriage) is that having children within a healthy functioning nuclear family environment benefits their development.

Right there is Problem Number One you’ll encounter if you marry an overeducated woman: She is likely to be far less fecund than less credentialed women. If you want at least the 2.1 kids necessary to replace you and your wife in the next generation, don’t marry a woman with a 4-year college degree and especially not a woman with a doctoral degree. You may as well line the spare bedroom with kitty litter.

Problem Number Two with overeducated women: Over the last 30 years, the happiness of women with graduate degrees has dropped faster than that of women with less than a high school education. (See Table 3, Panel E) The secular trend in happiness is down for women across all educational levels (which is not the case for men), but having more than a four year college degree accelerates the female unhappiness trends to rates above that for high school dropouts. Men are happier when their wives are happier, which means you should avoid marrying a credentialist status whore. And since there is scant evidence that children make you happier, it pays to find a woman who won’t exacerbate an already unhappy prognostication.

Keep in mind, too, that women get a lot unhappier with age than do men. So if you marry a spry 35-year-old post-doc she’s gonna be a real barrel of fun when she’s pushing 50.

Problem Number Three with overeducated women: Pairing them off with smart, accomplished men exacerbates social inequality. And not just because it amplifies white stratification by zip code; it also increases white stratification by IQ (and its attendant cultural fracturing). Society is best served when men with high IQs are free to inject their gifts into the wider world of women, instead of having all that gold-plated DNA locked up in the semi-barren wombs of Ivy Leaguers pushing social constructivism and infinity-wave feminist theory as a day job.

Problem Number Four with overeducated women: They’re sexually frigid. While sex surveys are more prone than any other type of survey to tempt respondents to lie, the results do offer a clue as to which way the tingles vibrate, and according to the data the tingles are practically buried dead underneath a mound of post-grad student loan debt.

For further confirmation of this nonsexular trend among superfluously credentialed women, see this screen capture of poll results on a message board for upper middle class married white women, most of whom probably have college degrees or better. The question asked is how many blowjobs do they give per month (presumably to their husbands). Since it is a private message board among women and not a publicly announced survey with social expectation bias built in, you can expect these responses to better reflect the reality of their marriages.

...

If you’re a man with a set of functioning gonads and not a sufferer of cerebral scalzi, you will want to avoid hitching yourself to an overeducated woman whose dusty muff and schoolmarmish mouth will open for business once every lunar cycle.

As CH is a cuntoisseur of the overeducated SWPL chick, some may wonder why the Lord of Lasciviousness would deign to game sexually frozen prey? Easily explained. First, a gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm. Second, pre-marriage, pre-kids SWPL chicks are ravenous in a way they never will be within the confines of the marital home, copulating with an alacrity that belies their furtive fear that their future husbands will be unable to arouse in them the same fervor. Third, one must accept that many overeducated women are sexless termagants because they are married to beta males; they’ve lost that lovin’ feeling, and only a suave rico will summon it back.

But, if you don’t have the skill to reintroduce overeducated women to their bygone libidos, it makes sense to find yourself a less educated woman with a naturally higher sex drive and/or less benumbing experience in the desiccating company of anhedonic beta males.

Problem Number Five with overeducated women: They’re uglier. Now I know what you’re thinking. IQ and beauty, according to the evidence compiled, correlate to a nontrivial degree. All else equal, if you date only women with above-average IQs, you are probably dating women with above-average looks as well. But the formula, at least anecdotally, appears to break down once you move into the ranks of women with much higher than average IQs or years of accumulated education. Trawl any lofty Ivy campus and you can’t help but notice how poorly the super smart women compare aesthetically to their earthier competition. State U girls have it in spades over H Bomb girls. If you are a man, this matters for your marital happiness and stability.

CH, Chateau Heartiste 4 Comments [2/24/2017 9:31:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 124771

Assortative mating is creating an Eloi-Morlock, or Elf-Orc, social stratification. People are forming credential-based blocs and seceding economically and socially if not yet politically. This cultural secession is reinforcing mutual ignorance, dampening mutual sympathies, and hollowing the natural fellow-feeling that is the bedrock foundation — the first principle — of any nation that wishes to carry forward in prosperity for the benefit of its posterity. Explosive diversity amplifies the stratification, and may have even been the fission reaction that set this immolation aflame and hardened hearts in its crucible of crisis.

The deadly chain of assortative mating must be broken for Western civilization to have a rebirth of greatness. The way to do this is the BoSSS system. BoSSS men will marry pretty secretaries or other occupationally “lowly” women instead of acquiescing to the hitch of convenience with multiple-degreed lawyercunts. The result of a generation of BoSSS is an end to the reign of meritocratic lovelessness, cognitive and geographic cocooning, and class-fueled hatred. An end to late-in-life spergs borne of the desiccated wombs of overeducated cougars. An end to the swarm of communications graduates with nothing to offer in a modern tech-centric economy. An end to… dare my heart speak it!… feminism and equalism as mass delusions rationalizing a world tearing apart.

There will be those who protest that BoSSS is dysgenic. But they operate under a misconception about how exactly women’s value in the mating market is calculated. A woman’s mate worth is not measured by her years toiling in grad school, or by her achievements, or by her ambition, or by her social connections or her business acumen. It is measured by her beauty, her femininity, and her compassion. The secretary with the blazing blue eyes, hourglass figure, and heart of gold is worth, in the abacus of men’s desire, more than a thousand meticulously credentialed globalist form factors. She is true beauty to the ascendent ugliness looming around her.

And she needn’t be dumb, either. Many sweet, charming “lower class” women are sharp as tacks, despite their mortal sin of having not willingly endured 52 years of academic mind meld to the equalist borg.

CH said it once, and says it again: It’s time to return to the old, true ways. To a courtship arena that paired established men with pretty young assistants full of adoration and admiration. It is the natural order of things, the divine prescription, when the starry-eyed lovely, already gazing in welcome submission, completes the act of her surrender to the powerful man above her. And in so doing, circles back to the wisdom of the ancients, and casts to the everlasting darkness the jackal harridans of the globo-femcunt credentialist collective.

I tell you now, break these assortative mating chains! Free! Free! Free at last! Thank God Almighty you are free at last to pursue love with a cute, worshipful underling and be a happy man again!

CH, Chateau Heartiste 8 Comments [2/24/2017 9:31:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 124770

"It's because of your opinions on women" Do you think our opinions are written on our face or what?

"It's because of your opinions on women"

Do you think our opinions are written on our face or what?

Racist people have black friends and can hide their racism for so long...

Misogynists can have feminists female friends too.

Mind to explain?

brainautopilot, /r/incels 9 Comments [2/24/2017 9:31:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124769

It should be punishable by death for women to have children above the age of 25

All of us that get shit out of rotting vaginas are fucked FOREVER, for something we had no control over.

Fucking selfish bitches.

(Emphasis in original)

Zen_Overlord, /r/incels 15 Comments [2/24/2017 9:31:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124767



Anti-Trump leftist on fire to prove their disdain for the new President throwing law and order to the side and destroying private party.

A.F. Branco , comicallyincorrect.com 7 Comments [2/24/2017 9:31:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 124766

Suggestion to the English word academy, change the name of women/females to hoochie

Plural would be hoochie groupie.

This is a final suggestion, it makes perfect sense.

SUPHAMSULU, /r/incels 10 Comments [2/24/2017 9:30:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124765

I used to have respect for ladies, but now I take it all back

I refuse to recognize females as human any more, we should open up breeding farms and let them exit it once they hit 18, this is beyond IMAGINABLE how a woman has denied me so hard as today, basically she lives a couple of miles from where I do. (We have never talked) So as a birthday surprise I thought I should visit her and declare my love for her.

7 PM I have waited for around 20 minutes in my car to go out and knock on the door. Alright, the time is now 7:30. I go out and knock on her door, an elderly man opens and asks me who I am, i tell him I am one of her friends and he invites me in, now all her family has gathered and a couple of her female friends. I see her coming down after a couple of minutes. ( I was cramming food into myself at this point.) She looks around and at me with confusion. I give her a smile and continue eating. After around 5-10 minutes she says something to her parents in a foreign language and they start looking at me, I pretend not to notice anything. They get up and tell me to come talk with them and their daughter, I go into the other room and they ask me who I am, I explain to them that I have followed their female around and I thought she was very cute so I thought I should come to her birthday party and declare my love for her, which I do. Her father gets INSTANTLY very angry and tells me to leave their house RIGHT NOW. I look in the girl that I like and I can see that she is a bit confused, I tell her, come on, I am a great guy, you can't do this to me, she says nothing and her father LITERALLY pushes me out of his house.

If you ever wonder why I hate women then this is one of the many reasons that they have sunk my pride to ABSOLUTE low levels.

SUPHAMSULU, /r/incels 12 Comments [2/24/2017 9:30:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124762

Why do women want a stoic, emotionless rock?

This is one of the things about women that pisses me off a lot. Why do they want men to be these stoic, unmovable rocks who are all strong and masculine and there for her when she's sad and all (but without bending, of course), but when the man is feeling down about whatever, maybe to the point of tears, even, do women feel nothing but disgust that her man is a human fucking being? Who has feelings just like her? Why can't she be there for him to provide emotional support when he needs it? Why does weakness make him less attractive to her? Why can't she be a shoulder to cry on? It basically seems like that women want to be loved while not giving any love back. This is why men kill themselves more than women.

IFA_MTBL, /r/incels 12 Comments [2/24/2017 9:30:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124761

Females use the "entitled" meme to justify slutting around with Chad.

Females on this forum always come on and say that incels are not entitled to sex but give it easily and freely to Chad. Females will never admit that that they are superficial and whores for Chad. Since they say that they are not superficial they have to come up with some sort of excuse why they don't bang Normans as easily and why they don't give anything to incels at all. The pathetic excuse they give to incels is that "you are not entitled to sex", this in their mind is virtuous justification.

Incels are meant to swallow this god awful pathetic excuse and just watch asshole Chads pump and dump willy nilly and tolerate females yelling at you for daring to question why Chad gets everything. When a female berates you for being "entitled" when you question them about whoring with Chad, tell them to cut the bullshit and just admit that they are sluts for Chad.

kazcovic, /r/incels 17 Comments [2/24/2017 9:30:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 124759

The other extreme is less obvious. Any people that allows large scale migration of capable foreigners will become dominated by them.
Look at the Chinese squeezing natives out in Australia, Canada and the Philipines.


1100001100, Reddit 5 Comments [2/24/2017 9:30:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 4