new

Matt #fundie #sexist #conspiracy #racist younggospelminister.blogspot.com

[From "Trade Offs Of Women Working"]

When you sit and ponder what pushing women into the workforce has done for society, objectively, it really shows how silly we are[…]
-Well, it has created more opportunities for women. Almost endless opportunities[…]
-It has filled the workforce with a mixed gender field[…]
This has had mixed results. Some people meet their husband or wife at work, and some people encounter sexually abusive interactions. There are now endless court cases dealing with sexual complaints in the workforce, placing a massive burden on women, men, employers, the court system, bringing in the creation of HR and more. A massive bureaucratic burden has been increased on the workplace, and women often write articles about how hard it is to deal with sexism in the workplace[…]
The most common place adultery happens is in the workforce[…]so it has undermined countless marriages. Which offsets the benefits of people finding a spouse at work, sometimes they were even somebody else's spouse first

It also places wives under the authority of someone else outside the home that competes with the husband's authority[…]
-Women can earn far more than ever before[…]So they have far more money, but they are earning money doing things they did as wives[…]
-Because women have more money, everything costs more. Therefore this having more money is a double edged sword[…]
This causes women to delay having children to pursue a career, which means less children are born. So immigration is needed (some think so at least)[…]These people often come from cultures opposed to ours causing other issues as well[…]
In engineering there is a principle, that every increase in one area, comes with a trade off in another area[…]We have done this to society by driving women into the workforce. We have traded a lot, for little return, and we are wearing society down in the process

Matt #fundie #sexist younggospelminister.blogspot.com

[From "The Woman Problem"]

It is common to hear in Australia that the Liberal Party has a woman problem. Because women tend to vote more to the left, and the liberal party often has less women in positions of influence. Putting aside the fact that some of the other parties got the amount of women they have into prominent positions through quotas, I disagree the Liberal Party has a woman problem. Australia has a woman problem, because of problem women

Australian women in general (with very clear and godly exceptions) are haughty, proud and arrogant, and are unashamed about using their vote to allocate more resources to themselves, and to favour whichever political party will give this to them. Australian woman are much like the women of ancient Judah in its days before its decline[…]
The women of Judah had become haughty, proud and dominated their husbands. Isaiah put it this way,
@Isaiah 3:16

The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet[…]

In its declining years Judah had a woman problem. It was producing the wrong kind of women as well. This helped bring down theor nation[…]
The women of Judah were provoking great sin, but it was not without the permission of their men. Judah had a woman problem, because it had a man problem. Theee was a lack of leading men; strong, righteous and godly men.

Aussie men are very tolerant of their wives rejecting God's commands to be mothers, managing the home, etc. But ultimately, even rebellious women look to their men for their cues. Even the idolatrous women of Judah were just following their lead leas of their men. Which is why God judges the men with the women, and the society as a whole

The conservative parties don't have a woman problem. Australia has a haughty woman problem. And it's because Aussie men allow it

Matt #racist #wingnut #dunning-kruger younggospelminister.blogspot.com

[From "Liberty or Immigration"]

Machiavelli is most famous for his book The Prince[…]But his book Discourses on Livy is an incredibly insightful work[…]
Machiavelli observes in Discourses that Sparta was able to obtain and then maintain its liberty for centuries, eight centuries in fact, without any serious disturbances. This is a remarkable achievement[…]Most astute observers would note that the US Republic ended in all but name when the Northern States conquered the Confederate states in the late 1800's. And Australia reverted to a prison colony because of fears about a virus[…]
By maintaining their original population, their historical laws, and by not allowing strangers or foreigners (which includes other Greeks in this context) a foothold they were able to maintain a stable Spartan society for centuries. Spartans ruled Spartans, and because they had commonly agreed laws and customs, this rule was not resented

Indeed, Machiavelli notes the Spartan kings ensured their position, by defending their people[…]
Machiavelli notes that[…]Venice achieved the same kind of stability by granting all of its citizens who were there at its founding the right to participate in government, and by denying this right to foreigners[…]
Consistent with the biblical proscription on allowing foreigners to rule over your nation (Deut. 17:15). It is also consistent with the Biblical laws that forbid recent immigrants from having full rights of citizenship and immigrants from certain places from ever having them (Deut 23:3-8)[…]
It must be noted that in this chapter Machiavelli notes that Rome both allowed strangers to come in, and to have political power, over time, and this helped Rome burn brighter than either of these other republics. However, this also ensured that Rome would eventually be lost[…]
History and wise historians have noted that immigration is the death of both liberty and stability

Matt #elitist #fundie younggospelminister.blogspot.com

[From "Egalitarianism Exposed"]

This is a very important video. Because in this video, one of the most radical egalitarians I know actually admits that equality is not workable, possible or reasonable

Kyle is a passionate egalitarian atheist secularist, who is absolutely committed to egalitarianism in the West. Yet he has to admit its a non-workable philosophy

You have to understand equality is an anti-Christian force. It was the rhetoric of the secularists for well over a century because it was useful to batter against the anti-egalitarian strictly hierarchical Christian faith. And it worked. It worked so well many Christians now preach as if equality was their idea

But now that secularism reigns supreme in our culture egalitarianism is being redefined to suppress any competing philosophies, especially hierarchical religious philosophies. The goal was always the supremacy of the godless morality of the anti-Christ philosophy over Christendom and beyond. Now that the egalitarians are squarely in charge their rhetoric of equality is not as useful to them. They can now admit their desire for all competing ways of living to be diminished, if not suppressed

Kyle's argument is now common amongst secular leftists: "of course all cultures are not equal. Only our egalitarianism philosophy is the right kind of equal and all else must submit to it"

Watch the video. It's a remarkable admission

Matt #wingnut #fundie younggospelminister.blogspot.com

[From "Mea Culpa On Free Speech"]

I used to be a free speech absolutist, with qualifications of course – which begs the question doesn’t it? Qualifications like you cannot make a death threat[…]For virtually all other speech I believed there should be freedom for people to speak their conscience

My position on free speech was formed by a large dose of having grown up in secular Australia, a peaceful, stable and prosperous society
[…]
I took great delight in seeing first the Anabaptists[…]make the early case for freedom of conscience and expression. Especially considering this idea appeared to have done much good in the Western world
[…]
But then I sought to make this case on Vox Popoli[…]It was there that I heard the first truly persuasive argument against free speech: the case of Lady Chatterley’s Lover
[…]
Freedom of expression means freedom of expression, and this entails allowing things to be freely expressed that many Christians, and people of other faiths and even no faith, find reprehensive. Chatterly’s Lover is essentially porn in literary form
[…]
This case helped progressives do what they love doing best: transgressing boundaries[…]You could argue that this is the definitional pillar of progressivism
[…]
There are always blasphemy laws in any culture, even a libertine culture, where it is blasphemy to say, “That is immoral”, or “Maybe you should have self-control,” or, “Do you really need another cookie?”. We Christians and conservatives in the West fell into the trap of believing that neutrality could exist in a nation
[…]
So here is my mea culpa on free speech, I was wrong to ever defend it