I recently had the rather dubious privilege of debating with a feminist, and I believe that it needs to be addressed.  My position on feminism is that it is a flawed ideology full of misdirected rage which has done nothing but damage out society (economy and culture).

The Economy:

Part of the reason why it is impossible for most households to survive on one income is because of the feminist movement.  Traditionally most men in the US could support their own families, even factory workers and people in the service industry.  But today that is no longer the case. 

Doubling the amount of people in the work force inevitably leads to a decline in terms of real wages even if in terms of numbers the net take home pay for a married couple is greater.  Now two people are working but the spending power of the two incomes together still amounts to the same as one income did in the days before women worked.  So now, regardless of whether they want to or not, most women HAVE to work. 

I am certain that after reading this some feminist is going to say, “No, you’re wrong, two incomes mean twice as much money.  If I make $30,000 and he makes $30,000 then that means we are making $60,000 together and twice as much before as we would before the majority of women worked.”  Yes, it is true that you are bringing home twice as much currency (numerically speaking) but now it only goes half as far, and with more people in the workforce the amount and frequency of raises people get is probably reduced as well.  You don’t think that retailors will not mark up their prices to accomodate the increase in currency?

One thing that people on the people on the left in general do not realize is that currency by itself is meaningless.  The value of currency is determined by the amount of goods and services that it can be exchanged for.  When there is more currency than goods and services then the value of currency goes down, when there are more goods and services than currency then the value of the currency goes up.  This is the difference between real wages and net wages.  Real wages refers to the spending power of your money, while net wages refers to the numbers you bring home. 

I do not wish to sound pedantic and redundant but some people are difficult to reach.  So to sum it up, the more currency there is the less it is worth unless production rises to accomodate it.  Twice as much currency, but the same amount of goods and services, means the value of the money is cut in half.

Cultural Impact:

Feminism has done nothing to help the state of relations between men and women, or to strengthen the institution of family.  Part of the problem is that it is inherently antagonistic toward men, and misdirected.  Feminists presuppose that men in general are out to get the.  So when a woman has an attitude like that, it does not matter what a man does, or does not do, or what he says, because the default assumption is that he is some kind of villain with negative ulterior motives.  If he is nice it’s because he wants something, if he is rude or cruel it’s because that’s how men are.  If he opens a door it’s an implied insult because everyone knows women can open their own door.  If he does not open the door it’s because he is rude.  It is a lose lose scenario.

People who have that sort of attitude cannot be reasoned with.  It is the same attitude that many black people have about white people.  All that sort of attitude can do is breed further prejudice.  I am male and white, but I don’t wake up every day thinking “what can I do to mess with a black guy or a woman today?” plotting and scheming like Pinky and the Brain.  It is unrealistic to have those sorts of views, and no one can help what sort of race or gender they were born into.

Another serious flaw of feminism is that, like all movements associated with cultural Marxism, it attempts to either downplay or ignore inherent gender differences, teaching that gender differences are social constructions, and/or the product of oppression.  The truth is that that is utter bollox.  Men and women are not inherently the same.  To begin with, the anatomical differences are blatant.  Regardless of whether or not one is an Creationist or Evolutionist, anatomical differences are inextricably tied to functional differences.  Anatomy = function.  Birds have wings and feathers, which function to help them fly, while fish have scales and gills, which function to help them live in water.  Having different anatomy and different functions also means that there will be different instincts and psychological differences as well.

Here are some basic psychological differences between men and women.  Men draw their self esteem from their accomplishments (which is why it is psychologically devestating on a mass scale when a man is out of work).  Women generally draw their self esteem from horizontal relationships.  This is part of the reason why men were historically the bread winners, while women were the bread preparers.  Not just because men were physically stronger and more adept at hunting game and working fields (although that is also another major gender difference).  Men place greater importance on being respected while women place greater importance on being loved.  Men generally find it easier to detatch themselves from their emotions, but harder to ignore their sex drive.  Women tend to link sex drive with emotion.  The ability to detatch themsleves from their emotions is one reason why most societies in the world have been led by men.  Not because men are stronger, because most of the leaders are old. 

Feminism seriously undermines male-female relationships by abolishing the notion of unconditional respect.  Having unconditional respect is the greatest emotional need that a man has from a woman (I said emotional, not sexual).  Feminists think that if a man is not acting the way a woman wants him to, then he doesn’t deserve respect.  First of all, not all men do deserve respect, so if you (the feminist) cannot bring yourself to respect your man, then find another man.  If you cannot find any man suitable then the problem might be with you.  Without unconditional respect the relationship is going to be rocky at best, or the man might just put up with everything to a point and then leave whenever he has taken all he can take.  Unconditional respect means that even if you do not agree with something he says, you do not get adversarial, vindictive, or scornful.

Also, it is really not even necessary for women to be brutal in order to get what they want from men.  Show the man some respect and consideration.  In western countries men are abused so much by women that when a woman shows consideration and respect it’s shocking and unexpected, and really does go a long way.  When you act nice to anyone, then they are more likely to be kindly exposed toward you.  After all, one catches more flies with honey than vinager. 

Personal Experience:

I see feminists talking about being a sexually liberated woman, but what that usually refers to is the freedom to fornicate and get abortions.  Well, the majority of men do not respect a woman who gives it up.  There is actually a double standard in our society, which considers it respectable for men to sleep around, but shameful for women to do so.  Women who think they are being liberated by dropping their pants all the time are actually just being used by men who are mainly interested in having an uncomitted snog.  No liberation there. 

As for abortion, being able to kill the baby in the womb does make it easier to fornicate again, but that does not justify the murder, and it has nothing to do with freedom.  What choice did the baby have?  None, and just because the government says it’s OK doesn’t mean that it is right.  The government used to say that slavery was OK.  The choice was made when the woman chose to spread her legs and have unprotected sex.  So now in addition to being a tool, the woman is also a murderer. 

I have also seen feminists talking about how they are proud of their femininity.  That is probably the most innacurate and ridiculous statement out of the whole bunch.  If that were so then they would not be interested in usurping traditional male roles and having short hair (but not all of them have short hair).  If anything they seem to be attacking their feminity.  It seems to me that their goal is to create a unisex society with a slight matriarchal leaning.

I once read an article for a sociology class back when I was attending GSU.  It was written by feminists, and they were complaining about how much they hate western men, how western men objectify and demean women, etc.  In the article they actually said that white women should abandon white men until they either change their attitudes or look elsewhere.  First of all, yes, men can objectify women based on looks, but women objectify men based on money.  Second, no men are more tolerant than western males (on average).  If they tried to get with a Saudi man or an Asian man and showered him with the same rancid bad attitude that they heap on white men things would go very badly for them.  But when I read that article my first reaction could be best verbalized as follows: Fine, go.  We (white males) don’t need you for anything. 

The price to pay for that sort of companionship is too high.  A few months ago my dad read me part of an article that said in the US men marrying foreign women was at an all time high.  I definitely believe that a major contributing factor to white decline is feminism.  When women don’t want to get married or have kids, then that cuts down the birthrate.  Indians and Asians are so numerous because they have always placed a high priority on family, and today they are largelt untouched by feminism.  The women have no objection to marriage, they see it as a permanent instition, and they see bearing children (and taking care of them) as part of their duty. 

Finally, I feel that the wrath and anger of feminism is misdirected.  In western countries women have the same legal protections as men, and the same level of freedom.  Some women are still mistreated here but so are men, and in any case they have legal recourse when that occurs.  Most of what I see the feminists doing in the US just looks petty and vindictive, and is clearly motivated by bitterness and feelings of inadequicy.  If feminists were really concerned with fighting male oppression then they would target places where it actually occurs.  Like, any Islamic country.  The best place to start would be Afghanistan, where unspeakable things occur on a daily basis.  So if you’re a feminist, there is a noble cause, get cracking.

Today I read an ABC News article (liberal media) about a “potential threat to Obama.”  According to the article this fellow, Oscar Ramiro Ortega was involved in a shooting in the Washington Mall, and later a bullet was found lodged in one of the windows of the White House.  So there is speculation that the bullet came from this fellow, and that he has it in for Obama. 

ABC News has learned authorities are increasingly concerned that a man sought in connection with a bizarre shooting incident on the Washington Mall last week may pose a threat to President Obama.

The Secret Service now suspects that a bullet fired in this incident may have hit the White House after a bullet round was found in a White House window, though the round had not yet been conclusively linked to the incident.  The round was stopped by ballistic glass behind the historic exterior glass, while an additional round has been found on the exterior of the White House.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/dc-shooting-suspect-could-threat-obama-police-020705229.html?ugccmt_success=NONJS_POST_SUCCESS#ugccmt-post-frm-container

If he poses a threat to Obama then it is the same threat he poses to anyone from his poorly aimed and probably random shooting.  But what disturbed me most was not the article itself, but the comments that liberals were leaving beneath it.  I therefore would like to set the record straight:

1. Conservatives do not want Obama to be shot or assassinated.  This might be hard for liberals to understand because many of them were hoping that GW Bush would suffer from an untimely demise.  Many even openly stated as much on the internet, some in debates with me, which is foolish and is also treason.  If a conservative said that they felt Obama should be shot you can bet the secret service and the liberal media would be all over that person, but it seems that during the Bush administration monitoring of the internet was considerably more lax in spite of fearful accusations to the contrary.

Shooting Obama would not help out the conservative cause or agenda in any way.  If he were shot by anyone other than a Muslim (which would never happen) then the liberal media and that hag Janet Napolitano would waste no time in blaming conservatives, and the Democrats would use this as an excuse to curtail liberties which we currently enjoy.  Also, it would be pointless because another left wing idiot would simply take his place, and, there would be more sympathy for the Democrats in the next election.

2. With a name like Oscar Ramiro Ortega this guy is probably a Mexican, and quite possibly an illegal immigrant, not a conservative American.  Unless there is a new form of conservativism that advocates drug use and domestic violence along with fiscal responsibility and self ownership.  I don’t know how anyone could read an article about a character like that and associate him with the political right, unless they are deliberately trying to be as offensive as possible and do not truly believe the garbage that they spout. 

If anyone is to blame for this it is the liberals and their leaders themselves.  Why?  Because they are the ones who wish to flood our country with immigration from Mexico and have continually worked to overturn state laws to protect us from these sorts of people.  As more people pour in from Mexico incidents like this will increase.  Mexico is a violent and barbaric country, and when most of those people come here they bring their culture of drugs and violence with them.  The blame needs to go where blame is due.

I would like to say that I support Herman Cain in spite of all the attacks.  Honestly, when I saw that Herman Cain was planning on running for president I wondered how the liberal media, and the left in general, would handle him.  Now I see how they are handling him.  They wasted absolutely no time in attacking him.

The first attack that I saw was an accusation that his tax plans were borrowed from Sim City.  Rather than ask Herman Cain what the basis and logic was behind his tax plans they interviewed some of the people who developed Sim City and asked them if they considered their designs for the game to have valid real world applications.  To me this indicated that they were desparately grasping for straws, trying to find anything they could to smear the man.

The next thing I saw was the allegations of sexual harrassment.  Which of course the liberal media pounced on like a male model at a gay parade.  There is of course no real evidence of guilt, but that does not stop the liberal media from making lots of noise. 

The goal of the liberal media is twofold: 1) to make their own people look as good as possible and 2) to make conservatives look as bad as possible.

This is why we see unmitigated negative scrutiny of our own people, while liberal politicians and leaders get a free pass.  Everything Obama does is “historic” and “ground breaking,” and if he swats a fly on TV or takes his first step in the White House it’s a big deal.  But when it comes to conservatives, or at least Republicans, if someone maybe said something about them which could be used against them then it is all over the news.  A prime example of the double standard is the Obama invasion of Libya vs. the Bush invasion of Iraq.  Neither war was really necessary, and both wars are a huge waste of money, but for the Iraq War we heard nothing but condemnation and challenge, while for the Libya war we hear nothing but praise.

The way the libera media undermines conservatives and Republicans is by creating scandal.  They make a lot of noise to distract people from the actual issues involved, and they try to present conservatives as people with scandelous pasts.  They take quotes out of context, blow things out of proportion, and make things up when push comes to shove.  They cannot simply allow the debate, or the race, to be about the issues of government because in a contest of pure logic the Democrats would never win.

So why is the liberal media so scared over Cain?  They are even more scared of Kain than they are of Perry.  They are focusing on Cain and completey ignoring Romney and Perry.  Because, they don’t want Obama to have to run against a black man.  Obama being black (really half black) was a major selling point for him during the campaign (which is of course idiotic).  They were able to get a lot of people psyched up over having a black president, and for added impetus they tried to associate opposition of Obama with racism.  If Obama is running against Cain they won’t be able to do that. 

On the other hand, I have seen some liberals trying to argue that conservatives want Cain to prove that they aren’t racist, or to hide their racism.  I have news for all those idiotic liberals.  Conservatives in general are not nearly as obsessed with race, or proving that they aren’t racist as self hating white liberals.  Also, racist conservatives would never support Cain in the first place, and it’s idiotic to think that they would.  They don’t need Cain because Romney and Perry are still around.  I’m not saying that people who prefer Romney or Perry or racially motivated in their preference, I’m just saying that there are other options besides Cain. 

For me it was a toss up between Ron Paul and Herman Cain, but I ended up deciding that I like Cain better because I disagree with Ron Paul’s views on Israel and Islam. 

When I saw the title of the article “Battling for Gay Rights in Allah’s Name,” I couldn’t help but laugh. 

Like other aspiring reformers before her, Ani Zonneveld takes positions that make her unpopular with her religion’s spiritual leaders, in this case America’s Islamic elders.

Not only does she lead prayers — a task normally reserved for men — but she is an outspoken advocate for gay, bisexual and transgender Muslims. Later this year, she plans to officiate at the Islamic wedding of a lesbian couple, which is perfectly acceptable by her reading of the Quran.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44993807/ns/us_news-life/

So basically, it is an “Islamic” group started by a woman from Malaysia which is dedicated to social liberalism.  I don’t know what her title would be but she leads prayers and preaches sermons.  They are calling their group “Muslims for Progressive Values,” which means liberalism.  Which means of course that their “values” are just coming from themselves rather than the Koran, or whatever common pot it is that liberals all seem to draw their ideas from.  They are pro-gay and anti-violence.  They also typically do not wear hijabs.  They also welcome couples of mixed religion, or “interfaith marriages.”  They did have a debate within their community over whether or not Republicans should be allowed in their congregation.  Honestly, I don’t understand how that could occur as the majority of Muslims are Democrats anyways.

Contrary to the stereotypes Islam is not truly anti-gay.  Certainly not in the same sense that Judaism and Christianity are.  Since the time of Muhammad man-boy sodomy has been considered acceptable, and is somehow not categorized by them as true homosexuality.  Man-boy sodomy is very common in Afghanistan, where it is referred to as Bachi Baz, which I believe translates to “boy player.”  It is also quite common in Iran among the religious leaders in the Islamic schools. 

Throughout much of the Middle East it smolders just beneath the surface, especially among the more orthodox Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.  They think the female form is dirty and must be hidden completely from sight, and every place one goes in Saudi Arabia looks like a gay bar because there are no women in sight.  The shopping mall is a perpetual sausage fest. 

But I digress, I think the best way to describe this “liberal Islam” movement is to think of it as a new Unitarian Church with a Middle Eastern flavor to it.  Since Unitarianism already exists I don’t see why they felt the need to start this movement, but perhaps they wished to retain an Islamic identity for cultural reasons rather than spiritual.

Many people will read that article and think that the spread of liberalism into Islam is a bad thing, but I believe it is a good thing.  If Islam becomes as thouroughly infected with western liberalism as western culture has become, then it will remove a major security threat.  A thoroughly liberalized form of Islam will be about as dangerous as a wolf with no teeth who has also been castrated.  Not only is such a creature incapable of causing physical harm (unless he decides to dry-hump small yappers), but he is also no longer part of the breeding population, and he is certainly not going to be leading any packs.

Deep in their bleeding hearts the majority of liberals are nature worshippers, regardless of what religious affiliation they might claim for a sense of cultural identity.  They think that humanity is a threat to “mother earth”/Gaia, which gave them life and gives life to all things.  After all, people pollute, and deforest, and kill dolphins, whales, and pandas, so the human population needs to be reduced.  Just ask Captain Planet, he’s a hero.  He’s going to take pollution down to zero.

So to sum it up, if Islam become liberalized then not only will they cease to terrorize the civilized world, but they will also breed a good deal less, and may embark on the same road towards extinction as the majority of white people have.

To make a long story short, I graduated back in 2005 with a degree which was fairly useless by itself, but at the time the economy was such that I was still able to get a decent, albeit less than ideal, job.  After being there for about two years and due in part to pressure from an X-girlfriend I decided to go back to school and get a degree that would allow me to get a better job in the same field.  So I went back to a school which was SUPPOSED to be reputable, and graduated with a 4.0 average (which really isn’t much to boast on because I didn’t have to take a math class that time through), and three years later I am still looking for work.

I do have “work,” but it only pays $10/hour, for less than 40 hours a week, and is not in my field and has little opportunity for advancment.  So I don’t know what to do.  I have been looking for work for three years and rather than getting closer to my goals I have only drifted further away from them.  Things have gone from bad to worse.

Part of the problem is that the longer one is out of their field the harder it is to get back in, because people in hiring look at the gap in employment and think that there is something severely wrong.  A condition which is only exasperated by how many employers are requiring a minimum amount of experience.  “3 to 4 years of experience wanted.”  How is one supposed to have experience coming right out of school?  If you don’t get hired through an internship then there is not much hope of getting hired at all.  It’s ridiculous.

I can apply for a job, and never hear back from them, except perhaps after the position is filled.  Which typically only occurs when an automated system is in place to notify applicants when a position has been filled.  Calls are screened, emails are ignored, and there are no walk-ins or appointments. 

People in hiring positions are just being arbitrary because they can be.  Partly due to the economic downturn which has flooded the market, but also due to a certain amount of power tripping.  For most people it is impossible to be in a position of authority without power tripping, at least a little. 

Also, just because someone has 3 to 4 years of experience, or even 20, does not automatically make them better than someone who is freshly graduated.  You could have someone with 20 years of experience who has very little talent, and is doing what they do because it is all that they can do.  They may have just slipped by with a minimalistic performance and then got downsized because they had less value to their previous employer than other employees.  In that cases like that anyone who hires such a person is just a facilitator of that sort of behavior. 

Things have gotten really ridiculous, and hopeless. 

I wish to comment on the madness that is occuring in England right now.  The London riots of 2011 are a perfect example of what happens when the left wing gets it’s way over an extended period of time.  Left wing politicians in England have allowed massive immigration from the 3rd world (mostly the Islamic world and Africa) in an attempt to fundamentally change England, or the UK.  In any case, they succeeded.  The unmitigated 3rd world immigration combined with the welfare state they established has created a monstor.  In general welfare is a bad idea because of the economic drain it causes as well as the long term social issues associated with having a permanent underclass.  I believe that there is a two fold reason why the left does this:

1. Because they wish to have a permanent underclass which they can depend on for votes.

2. Because they hate western civilization, capitalism, Christianity, and white people.  When it comes to the 4th item there is a certain amount of self hatred involved.  Which is why we see idiotic things like people marching through black communities wearing chains and wearing signs saying “we’re sorry.”

In any case, what happened in England is that the government has cut the budget for welfare, so thousands of lazy people with an entitlement mentality are rioting.  They demand that the government give them money because… they exist.  So to make sure the government gives them money, they are destroying shops, businesses, cars, etc., because when one is mad at the government for making cuts due to an economic downturn the logical thing to do is do as much damage as possible to the sectors of society which actually generate wealth and serve as the government’s source of revenue (through taxes). 

Parliament will return to duty on Thursday, as the political fallout from the rampage takes hold. The crisis is a major test for Cameron’s Conservative-led coalition government, which includes Liberal Democrats who had long suspected its program of harsh budget restraints could provoke popular dissent.

In London, groups of young people rampaged for a third straight night, setting buildings, vehicles and garbage dumps alight, looting stores and pelting police officers with bottles and fireworks into the wee hours of Tuesday. The spreading disorder was an unwelcome warning of the possibility of violence during London’s 2012 Summer Olympics, less than a year away.

So basically what we have is a horde of angry idiots who know nothing about economics, and who think that they have a right to other people’s money just because they exist.  As much as the liberal media is trying to portray the right as being composed as terrorists, the true menace to society lies mostly in their own camp.  This is how it has always been and how it always will be. 

Violence in London first broke out late Saturday in the low-income, multiethnic northern district of Tottenham, where protesters demonstrated against the fatal police shooting of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old father of four who was gunned down in disputed circumstances Thursday.

The article declined to specify what exactly they meant by “multiethnic” but given that this is England, it is probably safe to assume that we are dealing with people of Islamic Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and black African origin.  Also there are the pictures:

Look at this Islamic fool, probably of Pakistani origin.  He is probably texting his friends on which ice cream shop to pillage and burn next.  Maybe even in the name of Allah the merciful.

This guy here is probably Middle Eastern.  He’s probably trying to look chill since there are cops everywhere now.

I just have this to say to all these violent immigrants from Islamic countries and sub-Saharan Africa:  You people are not English.  You are not the people who built England or the UK.  Either you, or your parents moved there because your own country was a crap heap with limited opportunities, or because you just wanted to destroy something that someone else built.  It is the English people who made England a good country, and anyone else who moves there is a guest in their house.  When you are a guest in someone’s house there are basic rules of etiquette and consideration that you follow.  You don’t barge in, break their stuff, light fires, and demand that they give you a regular paycheck just because you exist.  If you act like that then your host has every right to demand that you leave, and then use whatever force necessary to expedite your departure when you don’t.  There is a difference between a guest and an invader.  A guest only takes what he is given, and only makes positive contributions to his new environment.  An invader takes whatever he wants and trashes his new environment.  A host has responsbilites to guests, but not to invaders.  Invaders can be put down or forced out.

Now, if I were in charge of the situation in England here is what I would do:

1. I would bring in the military to stop the riots, and authorize them to use whatever force is necessary to do so.

2. I would deport as many of the survivors as possible.

3. I would completely slash welfare payments and use the tax revenue which normally goes to welfare to repair the damage caused by the riots.  Welfare is a privilige not a right, and in the countries where these people come from there is usually no welfare system in place.  In most of the world laziness does not pay off.  You either work or you starve, and this policy of just handing out money from the public treasury to lazy people is something that the western world can no longer afford.  It is killing our economy, and now it is literally killing us.

4. I would review and modify the immigration policies.  I would completely eliminate all Islamic immigration.  Moslems have no business being in civilized western countries, or eastern countries for that matter.  No business being in civilized countries period. 

The reason that Islamic countries are dismal hell holes is because of the culture, which is Islam.  When they move to other countries they bring their culture right along with them and have lots of children.  Moslems have no interest in becoming like Europeans, or Indians, or Asians, but they are thoroughly willing to drag our countries down to the level of the garbage heaps they escaped from.  They come to our countries, riot, blow stuff up, kill people, and then act like we owe them something.  If we owe them anything at all then it’s another Crusade, and that’s it.  Also, there is no reason why Moslems should be immigrating out to other countries.  After all, giving alms for the poor is one of the essential pillars of their religion.  Many of them do it, and some of their countries rake in a good deal of money from oil revenues.  It’s just that they would rather invest the money in terrorism, and then send their poor to us, maybe as an advance force for a pending invasion. 

Now as for the sub-saharan/black African immigration, that a somewhat different issue.  At the very least it should be made as difficult for them to immigrate to Europe as it is for a white person to immigrate to a black African country.   Based on what I have seen, black minorities in Europe get wellfare, white minorities in black countries get killed and raped. I think when it comes to international politics and immigration there is no reason why a government should give special consideration to group which does not reciprocate that consideration.  Close the doors to immigration from sub-Saharan Africa except for the highly educated, who are unlikely to be a burden on society since they can provide for themselves.  If anyone wants to cry racism over that then let them.  It’s not about racism it’s about balance and common sense.

In any case, as a general policy any group of immigrants which come to a country and act as a net drain rather than a net producer needs to be blocked.

I will now post the full text of the article for reference purposes:

I want to deal with two main questions: Is it hard to be sexually pure and is it wrong for someone who is sexually pure to reject someone who is sexually impure if all other factors check out. I am addressing this issue again because many times people have told me that I must choose between physical attractiveness and sexual purity. Choose BETWEEN? Are you serious? “What’s more important to you looks or purity/morality/personality?” The unspoken corollary being that I cannot have both. To me that question has about as much meaning as if an Islamic terrorist came up to me and said “Would you like me to start chopping your head off from the right or the left?” Of course I am going to be looking for a third option. What difference would it make if he chopped off my head from the right or left? Either way I would lose out on that deal. I would fight the terrorist of course, unless I was tied up in a chair, in which case I don’t really care which side he starts from but I’m still going to be thinking about fighting. But getting back to the issue at hand, I am good looking and sexually pure, and I have friends which are like that as well.

So when people make that statement are they saying that it’s not fair to expect the same out of women? Is it that women can’t keep pure when propositioned because they have weaker minds or is it weaker morals? Those are just the implications of that statement, not necessarily my personal beliefs. Although over time it was a commonly held belief that women give in more easily. That belief was behind the invention of the chastity belt in medieval Europe, and it was probably also what fueled some of the Islamic laws about a man’s testimony counting for more than a woman’s in court. There is no option for crying rape in Islam. That having been said, it is now time to address the main underlying questions about sexual purity.

1) Is it hard to be sexually pure?

It’s not hard, but it may not be as much fun in the short term. It is impossible to miss something that one has never had. It is understandable to desire sex, but without having direct experience there can be no knowledge of what it is truly like, and certainly no basis for having an addiction. Usually the people who talk the loudest about not being able to resist sex are the ones who have already done it. Just as people who talk about how they “need a drink” are typically people with prior experience with alcohol.

“There is just SO much pressure!” Really? What is the source of this pressure? Is it peer pressure coming from your friends? If so then it’s time to find some new friends. Most people who end up with addictions acquire them by listening to stupid friends. If the pressure is coming from the boyfriend himself then it’s time to find a new boyfriend. If he is pressuring you for sex then he is no good anyways. If he was good he would offer you marriage not sex. Most men just want to have sex, and once they get it then they have what they want from the woman. The entertainment industry and liberals in general are trying to say “wait for true love” or “the right one” or whatever, but if a man truly loves a woman he will offer marriage. If he is pressuring for sex then the sexual encounter is probably the apex of his goals and intentions, which has nothing whatsoever to do with love. Then, once you have sex and break up later you have lost something you can never get back, and the “true love” argument is going to be nothing. The very best one can hope for is to come out of that situation looking like an idiot.

Sometimes people who live immoral lifestyles accuse people who are sexually pure of having some other type of immorality or issue, like homosexuality or the lack of a sex drive. Neither is really the case. It’s just that the intellect is stronger than the libido. To be fair I have thought about just throwing it out in times of deep depression and having sex. But I don’t do it because 1) I don’t want to cross a line which cannot be uncrossed. 2) I don’t want to open the door for addiction to get into my life. 3) I don’t want to limit the quality of women I have access too because I would rather have a good married life than a pointless sexual one.

So there you have it.

2) Is it wrong to reject people for being sexually impure if all other factors check out?

I would say that is absolutely fine for a person who is sexually pure to reject someone who is not simply because they are not. First of all, if all other factors are equal then those people are not bringing the same thing to the table. One person has crossed a line that the other has not, and the person who has not crossed the line is not by any means obligated to overlook the other persons condition. If they are willing to overlook the other persons condition then that’s fine, it is a personal choice, but if they are not willing to overlook it then that is still completely fair and there is no basis for complaint.

Also, anyone who is sexually pure runs a risk of contracting STD’s if they marriage someone who has had a sexual encounter before. They don’t know what kind of diseases the other person has and it is completely understandable if they don’t want to take a risk with that.

Sometimes people will say, “Oh well God forgives so why can’t you?” But this is obfuscation, it is not issue of forgiveness it’s an issue of balance. What the sexually impure person has done is between them and God, but if they want to get into a relationship with someone else in the future it is also between them and that person. They did not wrong the other person so forgiveness isn’t required in that situation. According to the Bible God forgives pretty much everything if people ask and then their behavior, but that doesn’t change the earthly consequences that must follow certain actions.

For example, suppose you have sex in front of the customer service desk in a grocery store. If you get caught then you will be charged as a sex offender. After that is done it will show up in any criminal background checks, which will prevent you from being able to work at certain places. That is a consequence of the action you took. Maybe God can forgive you but for the rest of your time on earth you are going to have a criminal record. Similarly when one has sex and then seeks to get into a different relationship there are going to be people who will decline such a person on that basis. It is perfectly fair and just for them to do so. It is not about revenge or unforgiveness, it’s about balance and self preservation.

Finally, to any women out there who have boyfriends pressuring them for sex, dump him and find a new one. He is no good, and if you stoop to his level then you will be permanently compromised and probably end up losing him anyways. If you are good looking and sexually pure then don’t blow it, because right now you have the pick of pretty much anyone you want.

All right, first off, I have to say that I find it really ironic and hypocritical how evolutionists and liberals continually accuse myself, and other conservatives and Christians of being anti-science or anti-progress. To be honest, I don’t really feel that my intelligence can be insulted by someone who seriously thinks they are descended from a rock, but what I do find exasperating is having to address the same attacks over and over again. Of course the reason liberals call us anti-science is because they have inexorably associated “science” with atheism in their minds. Atheism is a world view based on philosophical suppositions and pre-suppositions, while science deals with empirical studies and bears fruits, and by fruit I mean innovations. The two are not mutually inclusive. I find it disgusting how liberals can have the gall to call themselves “progressive” when they have nothing whatsoever to do with progress. For a liberal to call his/herself progressive is as thoroughly an oxymoron as it would have been if Hitler called himself anti-racist. Of course the way they do it is by redefining progress to include things like confusing people’s gender identity and shutting down scientific programs in favor of socialist programs. One of the cheapest ways to reassure oneself is to redefine words, and liberals love to redefine words away from their basic dictionary definitions.

I have conclusive proof that liberals are anti-science, and there is no way they can deny it. The liberals current mascot has ruined our space program, and I have not seen nor heard one liberal voice mutter a single complaint. Why? Because aside from having unquestioning solidarity with their leadership they also have a different set of priorities from patriotic conservatives. They don’t really want progress, they want to drag our country down into the mud and keep it there. They oppose spending money on useful things like military tech and space exploration, which benefit everyone, in favor of useless things which mire down the economy and create a permanent underclass.

Here is the entire article followed by my commentary:

NASA sheds employees as shuttle program winds down

Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110306/sc_ac/8005676_as_the_space_shuttle_ends_nasa_begins_to_shed_employees;_ylt=AiMgtVkL7yYaMXChg1yWIeRpEcF_;_ylu=X3oDMTRqdWFyM3VuBGFzc2V0A2FjLzIwMTEwMzA2LzgwMDU2NzZfYXNfdGhlX3NwYWNlX3NodXR0bGVfZW5kc19uYXNhX2JlZ2luc190b19zaGVkX2VtcGxveWVlcwRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDNgRwb3MDNgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA25hc2FzaGVkc2VtcA–

To be honest and fair the space shuttle program was becoming rather archaic, but the truly disturbing aspect is that Obama cancelled the program which was to replace it. So instead of going forwards we go backwards because of the whims of an incompetent dolt who never should have been elected, but also thanks to all the people stupid enough to vote for him. One commenter left an insightful post:

“We need our space-program lets cut Obama-Care instead …We need to develop space-ships to explore our solar-system and look for energy resources to replace oil …Big oil is almost over we using it all up 30 years from now $400 a barrel oil”

That’s right, space exploration and colonization represents a wide array of ancillary innovations which will improve the average persons life, but in addition the potential for new energy sources exists, achieving energy independence, more efficient means of production, new locations for production, new raw materials, and an outlet for potential overpopulation pressures. The Obamacare, welfare, and the majority of social programs serve only to buy votes and make more people dependent upon the government… in order to secure more votes. So if any liberal tries to say “why do we need a space program?” I am going to turn right back around and say “why do we need welfare?” It’s also worth noting that liberals generally oppose domestic drilling of oil, maybe they just really like the Wahabbis, but even with domestic drilling the oil is going to eventually run out.

The US is no longer going to be a major world leader in terms of technology, the Democrats have set us on a course of irrevocable decline with their burdensome social programs, disastrous immigration policies, and scrapping of valuable scientific programs. In the future the US will become increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. As for the “glimmer of silver lining” the author mentions, I say don’t count on it. The fact is the government will never allow a space program to exist which it does not have absolute control over, and the private sector is crumbling into oblivion in the US.

Some additional comments from other readers, my comments will be interspersed:

The NASA space program is laying-off engineers and scientists so Obama can hire lawyers and political cronies with his new prescribed mission, – making muslims feel good about their contribution to America’s space program. Two years wasted while OBozo runs the circus … you can’t make a Ring-Master out of one of the clowns … only two more years to go, to Nov. 2012 !!

True, true, but one cannot expect things to get much better just because he is gone, much of the damage he has done is irrevocable.

Obama is very bitter about NASA. He terminated funding for the shuttle replacement, the Orion, for which they’ve already built the capsule. He feels that NASA is “white folk showin’ off superiority in brain power”. Blacks feel that NASA rockets are almost phallic symbols of white superiority of intellect. The money has been diverted this year to inner city social programs by the Democrats.

Although stated in a somewhat racist fashion, I would not at all be surprised if that were truly one of his motivations. Jealousy was part of what motivated Hitler to take action against the Jews, and one of the other commenters mentioned how NASA needed to go because it only admitted white people. However, I disagree about white people being superior. I definitely feel that the white race is past it’s prime with the low birthrates and the festering blight of political correctness. The future definitely belongs to Asians and Indians, while white people will just become a largely irrelevant minority with no accomplishments to speak of outside of providing entertainment for others.

While Obama spends billions funding our enemy countries, paying for abortions, paying for obamacare, and other foolish programs, it is ironic that he trashes one of the most rewarding programs in the history of science. “Hopey Changey” logic, I guess.

Because the liberals want to turn the US into a 3rd world hellhole.

NASA is one few Gov projects worth preserving because it promotes science, technology, and perhaps one day the colonization and exploration of space, but now that is dead at least for America. We will be defeated by China, India, Russia, and what next North Korea. I am ashamed. Please American citzens don’t let this happen to us.

I am also ashamed, but at this point there is nothing we can do to stop it and no way we can turn it around.

We do need to reduce the size of Government. The problem with this cut is that it is one more step toward Obama’s plan of turning us into a third world country. You libs may like the socialist model but I don’t want my country any more socialist than it already is. The model as it exists simply doesn’t work.

The question was always “Gee can how the europeans afford universal healthcare, early retirements and 6-8 weeks of vacations? Well…now we know they can’t.

Yes, there are many useless programs they could have cut if saving money were truly the goal.

I’m going to reveal something about my personal life.  I bank with Wachovia.  Actually, it is now Wells Fargo because WF bought out Wachovia.  So what happens when I go to deposit my pitiful meager paycheck from my dead end menial labor job?  They have changed things up.  The first thing I noticed was the new decor, which I thought was in poor taste but I don’t really care because I don’t have to work there all day.  The second thing I noticed was that instead of waiting for two or three minutes in line I now have to wait about ten minutes.  Not only did they add more convolutions to the process of deposition, withdraws, etc., but they also reduced the amount of tellers working there.  So now they have two people working there, and one of them has to work the counter and the drivethrough window simultaneously.  So more steps in the process plus fewer people to work the process means that the entire experience takes a good deal longer.  I was so irritated that I almost left without depositing my relatively worthless paycheck.  I might consider banking somewhere else just because the quality of their service offended me so. 

Lately I have been asking myself what the point is in working my puny dead end jobs.  Neither one of them pays well or has any opportunity for advancement.  I may as well be on a street corner shaking a can for all it’s worth.  I really hate the way things are right now, and the Democraps are only making them worse.  On the one hand, I’m starting to wonder if maybe the liberals might not be right about there being a surplus population.  If I can’t get a job with two degrees and an IQ of 135 then that tells me that I’m extra because there is no social niche for me to occupy.  The niches are already taken and there about about five other guys standing around trying to get into any given spot.  I want to get married and have a house and start a family but I can’t because I’m not making enough money to even move out of my parents house.  So my entire life is on hold, and in the meantime it’s not going anywhere. 

I saw a Yahoo news article where Yahoo was trying to say that the majority of Americans were now in favor of “gay marriage” based on some surveys, including one that they conducted themselves.  So since their “survey” was still active I decided to vote.  The way the question was worded was “are you in favor of equal marriage rights (or marriage equality, can’t remember for certain)” for gays and lesbians.  “EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS.”  The way the question was worded was such that the majority of people who see it are going to click yes before they fully comprehend what the people asking the question really mean.  What dishonest agenda based yellow journalism!  I don’t understand why the majority of the media has to be so reprobate and perverse.  Even I with my above average intellect almost clicked “yes,” but I stopped to think about what they really meant before I fully pressed my finger down.  Governments do not create rights, “gay marriage” isn’t real marriage regardless of what the government says, and no one is stopping queers from either being gay or getting into a real marriage like everyone else.  They just want to use government to brow beat their ideological opponents so that they can feel some justification or absolution for their perverse behavior.  The liberals in government just want all the gay legislation as a means of curtailing freedom of speech and censoring the religious right.  The whole issue is the biggest farce in American history.

As to what most Americans think about “gay marriage” as a concept, the fact that every time it comes up for a referendum vote it is always voted against is rather telling.  Of course the left only cares about consensus when the consensus lines up with their desires.  If it doesn’t then they get a judge to circumvent the democratic process.  One of the surveys yahoo mentioned supposedly asked if people felt that the “legalization” of “gay marriage” was inevitable.  According to the article (no links or documentation were provided for any of the surveys other than the one yahoo was conducting) the majority of respondants believed that it was.  Now that much I can believe, because the leftist judges keep overturning the referendum votes for legally enacted legislation.  It may be that most people are starting to realize that their votes don’t count because they can be overturned by a judge.  I think that formal Federal recognition of “gay marriage” would be one of the worst things ever and would precipitate a new wave of persecution against Christians and conservatives.  However, I imagine that Moslems won’t be affected by it because Moslems are the sweet little baby of the left which needs to be coddled even if it’s holding a rocket launcher pointed at someone’s head. 

I think that the liberal media needs to watch out because people are wising up to them and they are losing their ability to influence public opinion.  Pretty soon their business might start to suffer as people will pay less attention to them, and they will lose some of their sponsorship.