RSS

Supplicating to rebellion

Time to jettison any notions of complementarianism, in favour of Biblical patriarchy.

Dalrock

Solomon challenged my definition of the word complementarian in the last post:

Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”

I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.

Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps

This isn’t true.  Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess. John Piper and Wayne Grudem explained this back in 1991 in the preface to their seminal book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.  Piper and Grudem explain that their purpose is to push back against the evangelical feminists arguing that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women.  However, they are largely sympathetic to the feminist…

View original post 996 more words

 
23 Comments

Posted by on January 30, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Norwegian State Television ridicules “Refugees Welcome” Crowd as being blindly “tolerant”

(Hat tip.)

 

Michael Caine tells black actors to ‘be patient’ and wait for Oscar nominations

Exactly!

Sir Michael Caine said black actors should not be nominated just to add diversity as he weighed in on the Oscars race row.

[…]

He said: “There’s loads of black actors. In the end you can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You can’t say ‘I’m going to vote for him, he’s not very good, but he’s black, I’ll vote for him’.”

[…]

He continued: “You have to give a good performance and I’m sure people have. I saw Idris Elba (in Beasts Of No Nation)… I thought he was wonderful.”

Or, make a movie about a gay black transsexual disabled Muslim slave woman, and it’ll be a shoe-in! ;)

 

The feminist line on Europe-imported rapists

I certainly wouldn’t help her.

Make your bed; lie in it, bitch.

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

feministsonrapefugees

When they want to stone her to death for being a whore (existing), nobody help.

View original post

 

Father Knows Best: Mid-January Curmudgeon Edition

JMSmith: January is the Curmudgeonly Month; When Tolerance is a Painted Strumpet; Duffers and Fanatics; A Bishop Bears False Witness

Free Northerner: Nationalism; Alt-right Ethics

The Society of Phineas: Old Fashioned Grace

Idaho Royalist: Civilization From Chaos: Russia (Epilogue)

Carnivore’s Cave: The World War II Mini Christmas Truce

Andy Nowicki: “THE BIG SHORT”: REVELATION OF THE METHOD?

Social Extinction: Smart for the sake of being smart can only be accomplished smartly by imbeciles…or, a blogger’s impression of Star Wars and its racial hoopla.

Adventures In Keeping House: Modesty And Social Cohesion; The Reasons For Divorce

PA: “Welcome to Hell, Stray Lambs”

Throne, Altar, Liberty: Contra Spiritum Saeculi; The Stench of Cologne; What Good Did He Do?

Oz Conservative: Well, at least he’s honest about it

Pat Buchanan: Will Mideast Allies Drag Us Into War?; Why Is North Korea Our Problem?; What Bernie & The Donald Portend; US, Iran Step Back From the Brink

Dark Brightness: Be not nice; What will happen to our Anglican Brothers?; Chase perfection, not the memes of this age. [Eph 4]; Christ used a whip on the corrupt and apostate. [John 2]

Citadel Foundations: Some Hard Truths on Santa Claus

ReactionaryThought: Calais

memoirandremains: Huldufolk: A Secular Age looks rather old pagan

Fenster: Notes on “The Revenant”; Wither Colleges?

Hawaiian Libertarian: HawaiianBioDiversity

The 96th Thesis: Past Time to Rethink Multiculturalism; Wheaton was Right: a Followup

Gavin McInnes: Propaganda Pop Culture: From Cuckmercials to ‘Star Wars’; The Plight of the Modern Rebel

Steve Sailer: Forecasting a Million Muslim Mob; The White Death; White People Keep Offending by Achieving

Fred Reed: The Inevitability of Eugenics: A Race of Self-Designing Tinker Toys

 
8 Comments

Posted by on January 18, 2016 in Linklove

 

One reason ostensibly pro-life Republican presidents haven’t been able to do anything about abortion

(In addition to the fact that the party establishment is solidly pro-abortion, that is.)

Their pro-abortion wives:

As Ronald Reagan prepared to deliver the 1987 State of the Union address, his wife, Nancy, reportedly told his advisers, “I don’t give a damn about the pro-lifers,” and demanded that any mention of abortion be removed from the speech. Nancy, who rarely intervened in political matters, got her way, and the speech focused on international affairs, education, and ongoing congressional wrangling over the budget process.

President Reagan, of course, was a vocal abortion opponent; indeed, he was probably the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. But Nancy supported abortion. Although she mostly kept mum in public while first lady, she has since said on several occasions that while she is personally pro-life, “I believe in a woman’s choice.” She has also been an outspoken proponent of embryonic stem cell research.

[…]

It would be refreshing to have a Republican presidential nominee—and a president—whose spouse holds deeply pro-life views. Both George H.W. Bush’s wife, Barbara, and George W. Bush’s wife, Laura, support abortion, although they mostly kept their views to themselves during their husbands’ presidencies.

One exception occurred when President George H.W. Bush ran for reelection in 1992. That year, Republicans had written a very strong pro-life platform that Barbara Bush undercut, telling the media she thought the issue had no place in the platform.

She said abortion was “a personal thing” and that “the personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions.” Barbara’s comments came at a bad time for her husband, who was having trouble retaining conservative support then.

Laura Bush stayed silent about abortion during her husband’s presidency. But many suspected she disagreed with her husband’s pro-life views. This was later confirmed in her memoir, “Spoken From the Heart,” in which she wrote, “While cherishing life, I have always believed that abortion is a private decision, and there, no one can walk in anyone else’s shoes.”

And so, hen-pecked, ostensibly ‘pro-life’ presidents have followed their wives’ lead, and done nothing substantive to end abortion while in office, just lip-service, nothing more, really…

The same is true of various Republican candidates in recent years:

Similarly, in 2008, Cindy McCain told Katie Couric that while she is pro-life she supports exceptions for rape and incest and didn’t believe Roe v Wade should be overturned.

1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, was known as a pro-life senator. But she supported federal funding of abortion in certain cases and said abortion should not be a litmus test for judicial appointments.

Then there’s the last prospective Republican first lady, Ann Romney. Alhough pro-life, she seemed uncomfortable talking about the dignity of human life. There were also questions about her having donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994, back when Mitt himself supported abortion.

Now, the author of the piece, Gary Bauer (former presidential candidate, well-known so-con and Zionist lobbyist), is excited because the wives of Rubio and Cruz are pro-lifers. I guess that is indeed a pleasant change. But knowing how pro-choice the party establishment is, and how Republicans have done squat to change things when they’ve had both the presidency and the House, I doubt that will matter much, assuming that either Rubio or Cruz even win the nomination.

Anyway, getting back to the presidents whose wives disagreed fundamentally with them on the issue, does anyone honestly believe that any contemporary American president whose wife is pro-abortion is going to be able to stand up to her and enact measures she would disagree with? None these days have the balls to do so.

 

The Chinese are now embracing Western sexual mores (or lack thereof, to be more accurate)…

Alas…

China’s love hotel boom shows nation’s changing attitudes to sex

Hundreds of short-stay rooms are opening as entrepreneurs see opportunities with shift in sexual mores

[…]

China has witnessed not just an economic revolution but a sexual one, too, since the deeply conservative days of Chairman Mao came to an end with his death in 1976.

A Peking University study released this week showed Chinese were getting married later, losing their virginity earlier and having more affairs than in previous decades.

In 1989 just 15% of Chinese had engaged in sex before marriage, according to state media. Today more than 70% have.

China has also become the world’s largest sex toy producer, with one visionary entrepreneur building a multi-million dollar dildo empire since Beijing’s first sex shop opened in the 1990s.

[…]

Zheng Li, the hotel’s 50-year-old head of room service, said she would be untroubled if she caught her 25-year-old son sneaking into a room with a lover.

“I would be happy that they had chosen this kind of romance,” she said with a grin. “Society is changing. People are increasingly able to accept such things.”

{Sigh}

But hey, on the bright side: now that the Chinese are having more pre-marital sex, if the West is any indication, their birthrate is sure to go down. ;)

 
 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 393 other followers