Conversation about elites running the country. And the LGBT.

ME: I think we should look at the academic inbreeding that happens in the Supreme Court nominations. There's a lot of Harvard and Yale alumni.
PERSON: Yea, but there's even more networking that happens on lower level courts.
ME: Okay, well I just looked up a couple of Court of Appeals and a vast  majority aren't from the Ivies.
PERSON: Stop denying there's networking being done.
ME: I'm sorta not since networking happens in business, academia, entertainment, family stuff etc. I'm pointing to a specific job and you're pointing to some underground New World that's happening on the lower level federal courts.

Discussion goes into "regular" people getting into politics.

PERSON: It makes it harder for regular people getting into the elites of politics. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin (yuck).
ME: But Arnold was a celebrity before he was California's governor. What's up with Palin? Is she's the wrong type of Joe?
PERSON: Sarah Palin holds atrocious views on gay people and she's dumb as a brick wall! She is the wrong type of Joe and she's a joke!
ME: I'd be rich for every person under 35 saying X politician is horrid simply for the fact they do not support gay marriage or, even, fights back against its normalization. Rich. I'd also be rich for every person saying Palin is equally as dumb as GWB. Does it make it true? No. What's closer to the truth is that those who say such things have been listening to popular media and the MSM for far too long.
PERSON: #&@%
ME: Typical of your kind.

NOTE: When did the LGBT become the beloved dog of modernism? 

What non-Americans think of America's higher educational system.

When non-Americans comment on America's higher educational system these are the things that I've heard -

1. That their degree(s) cost 1/3 (or anything less than the amount the average America pays for a BA) of that of an American degree.

2. American graduate students are babied and that graduate students at say, Oxford, are treated with independence where a greater amount of maturity is expected.

3. If your degree isn't from the Ivy League, Stanford, University of Chicago or MIT it's crap.

These came from several Englishmen, an Australian and I believe some European from continental Europe. Of course, one of the Englishmen was the father of a Cambridge student and the Australian had a law degree, so go figure about the snot coming from their nose.

Axioms and math.

Militant atheist: "2 + 2 = 4" is not "absolute," but contingent on a set of axioms like ZFC. It's validity within such frameworks is absolute, though.

Militant's atheist political views are "very liberal" as he noted on his facebook page with this quote:

"I would describe myself as a communist, and I think most people I know would too. I am commonly asked why I behave as if the world around me were already (or were at least on its way to becoming) the world I wish it to be; to that I can only reply by pointing to this: "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi

Militant atheist graduate with an undergraduate degree in physics form Harvey Mudd College.

Dating and religion (or lack thereof).

Simply put: I will not date an atheist who says religion is a "fairy tale."

Reasons being:

1. At least for Christianity, it's not even a fairy tale in terms of what constitutes a fairy tale.
2. There's a certain amount of arrogance in someone who actually has the gall to to think, let alone say, such a thing.
3. It's rather childish. Ironic.
4. There's no intellectualism behind the insult.
5. There's a certain amount of insecurity as well. Again, ironic.

My heart sinks a little when I find the atheist is rather attractive as well.

Trump had denounced the white nationalist alt-right sect.

Now I don't think Trump has a good grasp on what the alt-right actually is and what it entails, the good and the bad.

Regardless, it's a good thing he has done this because ethno-nationalists like Richard Spencer, and all the anti-Semites have been given a clear message: thanks for the support, glad you voted for me, but we gotta cut the cord.

I'll admit, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the whole white identity thing, understanding their realization that America is being flooded with immigrants with academia and the media smiling quietly as it happens. After VP Biden said that whites being the minority is a good thing, seeing multiculturalism as a peak of progressiveness, I understand their feelings of betrayal. In some way The Left created the white nationalism sect of the alt-right.

With that said, Spencer totally fucked up when he included "Hail Trump!" As one youtube comment puts it - "Alt-right is over for a white identity group because of a bunch of stupid LARPing autistic retards doing the Nazi salute while the media is filming." The fact that the whole white identity branch is rather cringeworthy to begin with it never was going to pick up real steam anyways.

I just find it a little funny, this whole event. White nationalists like Spencer were so excited about Trump's election only to shoot themselves in the foot 13 days later.

"I guess Trump wasn't our guy after all....." one white nationalist puts it after learning about the President-Elect's dismissal of them. He never was.

Beware of the pro-LGBT non-prog.

For they sing the same tune of "being more accepted." Writer Liberty Wolf is a transgender who classifies himself as a classical liberal. He's a smart guy, but what I've seen from many LGBT non-progs who fall under any of the letters is that they support their own kind in terms of "rights."

Here's what Liberty Wolf wrote (emphasis my own) -

"I’ll admit that I have yet to watch the Bruce Jenner interview with Diane Sawyer that is making headlines today.  I am very burned out on trans issues and mostly I yawn when I hear of a news story.  Even so, I have to admit that apparently, we are making progress.   There’s no question that today it is easier and more acceptable to medically transition than it was when I began in 1989.   Certainly, people who change their sex and legal and social gender are still pariahs, on both the left and the right – but we are more accepted than we have ever been and certainly more visible.  Visibility erodes the mystery and a more informed public is less fearful and hopefully, in time, a little less confused.  It is still not an easy road for anyone and I don’t recommend it unless transition is really something that you must do.  Even so, if it is right for a person it is the best thing, and can save a person’s life and open up new vistas.  So, I am going to watch the Jenner interview.   The weight on Jenner’s head to say all the right things for all of us is enormous and no one can.   Each person is ultimately only representative of themselves although certainly each visible trans person often has many things in common with other trans people.  And also, many characteristics in common with other Americans or people all over the world.  That should be obvious but it isn’t always."

There is a similar mentality that is held with the LGBT non-progs that they share with the LGBT leftists: their acceptance just needs familiarity, visibility and time.

"Don't worry. Your wife will accept your Wednesday beatings as a sign love. All you have to do is keep it up and she'll eventually get use to it."

Liberty Wolf pleads his case here.

Blocking my posts.

Neo-neocon decided to block my posts on one of her articles concerning discussion of Stephen Bannan and the alt-right. I simply just posted my thoughts on the racist, white supremacist, white identity sect of the alt-right. Generalizing the alt-right as racist and anti-Semitic is unfair.

Neo-neocon is a smart lady, but she keeps pushing the belief that the alt-right is indeed racist. Other posters have noted that Breitbart.com has let the unsavory part of the alt-right to rule the comment box, which is true. She still thinks the alt-right is racist and anti-Semitic (neo-neocon is a secular, ethnic Jew). 

She probably thought my posts weren't adding anything to the discussion and, as she said in another article of hers, "I know you're trying to help" when I suggested to not care when she expressed worry for some of her close friends and family members deciding to move to Canada after Trump's historic election win. I think my comment greatly miffed her.

It's not like I felt she took my thoughts with any seriousness or respect in the first place. Then again I don't think most of the sites I visit and comment on see me as a person whose opinions should be taken seriously.

Such is politics and debate.  Such is life. As for this blog, I just write to get my thoughts out in order to make sense of what I'm experiencing. There's no doubt I annoyed the handful of visitors that I'm able to attract, probably making them think that their time here isn't worth spending.

UPDATE:

12.14.16 Another post of mine was published but later deleted by neo-neocon. I've come to the conclusion that my posts are only valid on certain non-political threads, say, like art or ballet. I suppose I'm not adding anything to her political posts hence their deletion.

I can smell a liberal a mile away.

Not really, but you get the idea.

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. I was on CAF earlier this morning and there was a thread about an Indianapolis 4 yr old shooting her mother and herself due to an unsecured firearm. Both are in stable condition. It's a horrific event nonetheless. But here's what the OP had to say -

Robert Sock: "When will people learn that having a gun in the house is a bad thing! Please pray for the girl and her mother."

and: " Guns scare me"

Those who are anti-gun tend to be largely scared of guns. Which side is filled with fear/phobia again?

He then says that anyone who keeps a gun due a break has mental problems: "Explore the statistics on this, what are the chances of somebody breaking into your home to do violence to you or your loved ones? Anybody who believes that the chances are great is a bit paranoid, perhaps even schizophrenic"

The poster has been like this for the entire time I stumbled upon his posts. There are others like him, but I'm not sure if he's being a troll or half-serious or actually serious. Either way he's an idiot.

The patheticness of red pillers.

"Given my understanding of female nature, I sometimes wish I was gay. Heterosexuality on the part of men is somewhat akin to biologically enforced slavery."

I get the feeling that the poster doesn't know what enforced slavery actually is. I also get the feeling that he has little luck with women or that he's incapable of being in a long term relationship.

This is the first time I heard someone entertain the idea of committing sodomy acts for the sake not being "tied" to the opposite sex. Who in their right mind would ever want that?

So you're a Cubs fans and from Chicago, huh? Me too.

I'm a Cubs fan. My maternal grandfather watched the Cubs and with the help of my college roommates my Cubs fandom blossomed.

I can't say I didn't mind the club's losing ways before the Ricketts bought them and the hiring of Epstein. It was baseball and and as long as I could be at Wrigley Field watching the Cubs it made the pain of supporting a losing team all the more bearable. Baseball was Americana as cheerleaders and cast irons. I wanted to experience Americana and I did.

Now, it's pretty interesting to learn that every other person expressing their joy of the Lovable Losers Winners winning the World Series is "from Chicago" and a "life long Cubs fan." Oh really? How very interesting.

The fandom of the Cubs is wide reaching but I can't help but question the authenticity of these out-of-the-woodwork fans. Take this video for instance, taped at Joe's Brewery in Urbana, Illinois, where many Illinois students were celebrating the Cubbies' win.

How many are actual Cubs fans? Do they even know that there's another MLB team in Chicago called the White Sox? Trivia: What does "full count" mean? And you're from Chicago? What neighborhood?

Anyways, this all sounds petty and part of it is, but damn, it never bothered me before but since it's full-out Cubbie blue in the past few days I now understand the annoyance.

What the f_ck did I just watch?

2016 World Series. Game 3. Cleveland Indians 1 - 0 Chicago Cubs.

When the Cubs offense, arguably one of the best in the entire league, makes Indians' pitcher Josh Tomlin look like a Cy Young candidate you know something's wrong.

Scott Adams "gets" the heart of Clinton supporters and, in general, The Left.

Scott Adams, illustrator of the beloved newspaper cartoon Dilbert, is a Trump supporter. He has observed anti-Trumps on The Left and he has drawn these conclusions about them.

"I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

. . . .

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion."

The Left hates bullies, with all the anti-bulling campaigns, with the obsession of "diversity & inclusion," with the accusations of almost every -ism known to man (they'll make more -isms up), yet in ironic fashion they have become bullies. They create their own indignation out of a vacuum because, well, I don't know why. It might be out of boredom or the human need to be part of something that makes their heart swell up with feels.

The Left loathes bullies, but when they get an inkling of power they become bullies. They will excuse their own behavior, saying such things are justified because "they're tired of all the [insert -ism(s)]."

You ask them for particular events in their life that caused them to be bitter and they'll instead give some cliche slavery, Native American genocide by the government, Vietnam and Iraq, some talk about empire building, the 1950s, LGBT homelessness and the AIDS epidemic answer. Did I miss anything?

"No, I mean direct instances. Like were you, a friend, or relative fired because he wasn't white or not straight?"

Nothing, for the most part.

This is why I really am suspicious of the "rape culture," the calls of racism in police departments, and the suppose LGBT plight. So far I'm not nearly convinced as The Left is. In their world, the sky isn't falling but SEXISM, RACISM AND LGBTPHOBIA!

"We have much work to do."
"We have a long way to go."

25 years later.

"We have much work to do."
"We have a long way to go."

Alt-right and fashion.

Ryan Landry, host of Weimerica Weekly over at Social Matter, recently talked about the decline of standard in men's dress. Many of the points he gives are basic "dress better" tips going around in the men's fashion circle which can be labeled as common sense.

This what I wrote in response -

"Gotta disagree with the (self-tied) bow ties.

Depending on your frame and how fit you are many off-the-rack suits will need to be tailored, so purchase blazers and suits that fit you the best and get them adjusted by a decent tailor. I do agree with less is more, both in flash and quantity.

You also don’t need to spend a lot on clothes that are form fitting (not tight like it’s glued to your skin). Places like Macy’s, JC Penny and J.Crew Factory carry pieces that are usually on sale and are at a price that won’t set you back.

Shoes can cost a penny (Alden, Brooks Brothers) but like above you can find decent shoes at a relatively affordable price at places like DSW. I think the only acceptable seams on a shoe are the cap toe and the wingtip. The seamless look is nice but again this is fashion and personal preference plays a big part in “dressing the part.”

Besides “dressing the part” men need to start working out. Build endurance. Build your strength. If you can participate in a 10K without dying then you’re on the right track. No need to go for a full-marathon. Just get your heart and lungs healthy.

Eat well without going full blown retard by becoming a vegetarian or vegan if you don’t have any digestion issues. Steak every now and then. Chicken that isn’t pumped with hormones. Fresh fish. Greens everyday as a side dish for a meal, be it lunch or dinner. Healthy fats and calories. Eating a pop tart won’t kill [you] once in a while.

So yes, “dress the part” but also take care of body that makes that silhouette."

I'd say this was a nice departure from the usual NRx talk. Conservatism, traditionalism, and dignity aren't initially seen as "sexy" or appealing. The Right has more sound ideas and are more decent than any modernist crap but their appearance on a materialist level leaves something to be desired. Appearance isn't necessarily everything but it helps if you dress "nice."

If conservatism has the ideas then it needs to let go of the baggy, boxy suit and ill-fitted dress shirts and move into a slim suit with a dress shirt whose collar isn't too big. Keep the ideas and concepts but change the look. Conservative women are ahead of the game when it comes to fashion, but conservative  men are sorely lacking in dress. You aren't a beta if you dress well, so dress well.

If there's a couple of men's fashion trends I'm rather annoyed by is the no-break pants and the variations of the "hipster" undercut (which Ryan alludes to in his talk) for hair styles. I like a slight break in my dress pants; no break as possible when it comes to chinos. I use to have the undercut but since it has become so ubiquitous I moved towards a more (Mad Men) traditional hairstyle.

Oh, and go to church every Sunday.

Mind, body and soul.

The insany hypocrisy of the pious modernists.

I think what Trump said 11 years ago on a Hollywood lot was disgusting. It's "guy talk" but nonetheless it was disgusting. I won't defend him and say that this is what men do when alone shooting the breeze therefore it's A-OKAY. It's not. But I will say that those who are offended and are on the left, saying he's a bastard and a sexist, are showing their selective bias and short-term memory.

Many Probably everyone in the entertainment industry loathes Trump. Europe hates him. Yet they love Roman Polanski and they consider it a career milestone to sign up for a Woody Allen film. Now, if you're an actor, or a producer, or director and you think he's a crude man then I'd agree. If you think he's so low, lower than what happens on set and what happens in front of the camera for the name of "art" then you're a hypocrite. The film & television sector makes Broadway appear tame.

If you're a social prog and you think Trump is disgusting just remember that you're all for carpet munching and anal sex all while flying the rainbow flag of death and stagnation. Because wuv and "we're just humans falling in wuv." You're the one who says "Aw!" when two people of the same-sex enter a relationship.

You mock the so-called prudes for their supposed backwards view on sex and sexuality yet when you hear Trump's words you become nice and neat. You gently dab your napkin on the side of your mouth to remove any excess food as you use your indoor voices, talking about equality and empowerment while eating vegan dishes and drinking kale smoothies.

Yes, Trump's past reveals a man of extreme narcissism. But the left is all about narcissism while appealing to the "greater good." Save the whales. Save the global warming refugees. Save the starving kids in Africa. They should love Trump. But he actually appreciates America. So in his case it's "save America" but that's the wrong type of agenda. He's white. That's the wrong type of skin color. He got mega mega rich with business. The Left doesn't like business unless the business gives them money. Trump is running as a Republican - The Left's selective bias and short memory makes them froth at the mouth when the "r" would is mentioned.

If one is intellectually honest Trump should be somewhat liked by The Left, but he isn't. His agendas are wrong. He's a white man. He's a person who seems to genuinely like America. The left can't have that.

I may not be a full-on Trump supporter, but how people categorize his supporters is just plain hypocritcal and ignorant.

The irony.

Here are some quotes about Trump supporters -

"I'm not an American, but I assure you that people that vote for Trump don't have brains.
I would be ashamed if I voted for a "person" like him to lead my country and my people. De Niro is right, saying that he is a pig."

And people will vote for Clinton because they want the first woman president. That's some deep shit right there.

 "Trump supporters are truly low information voters"

 "America is entering dark times. Just yesterday a GOP office in North Carolina was firebombed. There was graffiti on the building that read "Nazi Republicans. Get out or else" (Honestly this whole attack seems sketchy. It's something a Trump supporter would do to make themselves look like the victim."

A response to the above quote -

"And they wonder why Hillary called them deplorable.
F-ck this noise. I'd love to see one of these c-nts try to intimidate me. And f-ck all this talk of "revolution" and killing Hillary. The worst part of this for me is these idiots don't see the utter hypocrisy in their words - they wanna call anyone unlike them criminals or degenerates, BUT THEY ARE COMPLETELY BLIND TO THEIR OWN SH-T. LIKE WHAT THE F-CK. ARE WE REALLY ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN WAR OVER THIS ONE BUMBLING IDIOT WHETHER HE WINS OR LOSES. IS THIS REALLY WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS BOILED DOWN TO??????"

 It's interesting how amazing the MSM can shape a voter block. The Clinton/Obama supporters are hip, sophisticated and intelligent. They're filled with empathy and are all for equality. Trump supporters? Dumb hicks from the sticks who are racists, xenophobic, and are bullies. It's the same tactic on how they portrayed Tea Party members.

In my experience and from what I've read and watched it's the opposite.

I know  I've explicitly expressed my disdain of Trump's GOP nom here but upon reflection the thoughts regarding his supporters I take back. I said those things because I was upset, though my thoughts on picking Trump as the GOP nom still remain roughly the same. Do I actually believe Trump supporters are "dumb flat-headed" folks? There probably are some but in general nope.

Another reason I expressed those unfair words is because I also think Trump will lose and as I stated in the linked page I don't want to see SJWs and damn leftists gloating. I saw the gloating when Romney lost and it left a very, very bad taste in my mouth. Now, if I thought Trump had a decent chance of winning, sure, I may have been a little more charitable with my remarks.

The typical Gnu.

Gnu: Religion is cancer don't separate it in extreme and moderate, cancer is cancer dude.
Someone: Oh really? Got anything that isn't a cliche because using that cliche is just sad on your part.
Gnu: If you want to defend irrational beliefs you got no leg to stand on, that's the real sadness here.
Someone: What's irrational about religious beliefs? Be specific. Take one from Islam, Christianity, Jewish culture, Buddhists ...

The annoying bits of the alt-right.

By Reader on Social Matter -

 “Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of First Things magazine, was a thoroughgoing Murrayite Catholic. A dyed in the wool conservative…”

Do you know anything about the history of American conservatism?

John Neuhaus was originally part of the Rockford Institute but left and, with a bunch of ((( neocon ))) funding, started First Things. First Things has always been a major neocon publication.

More recently, First Things has become even worse, often advocating for the Third World immigration invasion of the West.

But I guess that is not out of character for Catholics, since Pope Frankie also supports the Third World invasion of the West. Second to Jews, The Catholic Church more than any other religion advocates for the 3rd world invasion of the West.

To hell with these people. I was Catholic but left when I saw how anti-Western the Church has become. If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

. . . .

Here’s a NY Times piece on the Neuhaus/neocons vs paleocons dispute:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/16/us/magazine-dispute-reflects-rift-on-us-right.html

Eventually Neuhaus and the neocons went around to every major donor and asked them to stop funding paleocon publications. Neuhaus told them that the paleocons were all xenophobes / racists / anti-semites.

Just looked at First Things website again — hadn’t looked it in a while — and it is so cucked. I feel like I have an STD from even visiting the site.

There's that word again "cuck." I don't mind the word being used just that's been overused and by people like Reader who are more "shallow right" who treat their faith as if it's "just another institution" of the world. It's not. People have their reasons for "leaving" the Church but for the most part I have found them with  good dose ridiculousness.

More clues that Reader is more political than he is a faithful Catholic, if he ever was one and not just a "Catholic-because-my-dad-was-one" - "Pope Frankie." Yea, I think Pope Francis a poor leader, vague in his rhetoric, but one man does not make the Church and the Catholic Church's stance (#2 should go before #1, or at least have some sort of an amendment to #1) on immigration - on paper - is not entirely to my liking.

 I have faint memory of any controversial piece on First Things about immigration, but it seems like there's a variety of thoughts on the subject matter.

And, again, to highlight -

If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

I'm not entirely sure what he means by "jungle religion" but if it means the demise of the Catholic Church then I bet Reader will be one of those bitter people who are like ex-city dwellers that moved to a more suburban area and relish in the city's decay (they mostly complain about the taxes). Strange folks. The pathology is an interesting one.

Newsflash to Reader: The Catholic Church can't read your mind on more political issues that are outside its realm of expertise. Then again the Church might be off without the likes of you; you never wanted it succeed and do not think it's transcendent.

Even more telling the mention of Neuhaus was just a few paragraphs in the entire article, focusing on the man's liberalism. So-called Catholics like Reader tend to have the same stripe: cherry-picking a part and using it as a therapeutic session.

If it shows up on google with much hate, I might like it.

Phyllis Schlafly. Tomi Lahren.

The first met with absolute hate by The Left and the second becoming the female Glenn Beck thanks to viral videos.

When I type in Cenk Uygur I'm met with some respectable results - him meeting with Seth Myers and doing an "hilarious reenactment of his dinner with Bernie Sanders." This is a man who just recently had an outburst at the RNC convention.

The pathetic part is that, after Lahren criticized Colin Kapernick, SJWs or BLMs members managed to find her home address and threaten to attack her. Who does that? Extremists and fascists. They see a target on Lahren's back, easy prey, because she's opinionated and outspoken. Plus, with the power of social media the tactics of The Left can work their magic and slowly intimidate her.

So yes, I think I like Phyllis Schafly and Tomi Lahren. I just placed a hold on Schafly's A Choice Not An Echo at my local library. I think Lahren, though not as sharp in her critique as Lauren Southern, is a great asset to conservatives. Yes, even the conservakins have a place in fighting modernity. And she's mightily attractive as well -

So if The Left celebrates a death, I'll look into it. If The Left hates a certain political pundit (O' Reilly, Kelly, Beck, Levin, Lahren), I might give them a listen.

If The Left hates them they're doing something right (no pun).

Tradition? What's that?

Person A: I think it's crap that the NCAA removed that university's mascot on the grounds of "racism." It'll only be time before other sports traditions are scrapped.

Person B: Look, I understand the bitterness of some fans. The traditions that are still there have no connections to the mascot, so I think they'll stay. What you're doing is an appeal to emotions and has a smell of NCAA conspiracy theory. It's silly.

Person A: How does a slippery slope equates to a conspiracy theory?

Person B: It's over. I've moved on, and IMO the rest of our fanbase ought to do the same.

Person A: So what you're saying that an image, once an integral part of this university's public image, scrapped, and the future students should just not give a damn? What if, one day, the songs used by the marching band that have taken some heat due to its loose connection to the now band mascot are banned? Now what?

Person B: Like the mascot, they should get over it.

Person A: I get it. You're the type that really doesn't give a damn about tradition. How's the shitty block letter of the university in replace of the mascot's face? It's looks like crap. You're the kind that will be totally fine with corporate take over and when new "traditions" are started, you'll be there saying it's 'just as good' as the old ones.

Person B: It's just a silly tradition.

Person A: No, it's not a "silly" tradition. Tradition gives character. It gives life. 

New link added.

Campus Reform.

Weddings.

I have some opinions that will be considered bizarre if not stupid. So be it.

1. When a bride asks for advice to deal with a friend being upset for not being in the bridal party, many, if not all responses, will say if she were a true friend she'd get over it and should be be honored to be invited as a guest to the ceremony.

My answer: You're not royalty and what if you get divorced? I've been to weddings. Was I honored to be there? No.

2. The whole "it's MY day" to "it's MY wedding."

My answer: Yes, it's your wedding, but what if you get divorced? Where's God in this? You sound like a damn spoiled bitch. "It's all about MEEeeEEEE!"

3. SIL/BIL as bridemaid/groomsman.

My answer: A rather stupid "rule."

It could be just me but I find it very strange how Americans (and I'm an American) approach and view weddings.

As I grow older I find myself rejecting the whole wedding industry complex. If I ever do get married I don't want a bachelor's party. I want the ceremony to focus on my bride, me and God. I don't want it held outside, or at some resort, or Vegas, or a court house. I want the ceremony to be in a Catholic church. No ifs not buts. I want it to be damn simple. I don't want speeches at the reception, at least on my side. Head table? Is this fucking Hogwarts with Professor Dumbledore? I don't want a flock of groomsmen - maybe just a best man. And the honeymoon? Okay, I'll take the honeymoon.

American soccer fans.

There are many things I admire about my fellow American soccer fans. There are many things I do not like about them as well.

One thing that I don't like is them obsessing over whether a player should play in the Premier League or the Championship, the latter being the second tier of the English soccer/football system. My thinking goes like this -

If the player is a starter in any Premier League team then that's fine. If he isn't and finds himself on the bench more than a season then it's better to move to a club that gets you playing time in order to develop, even if that means going to the Championship.

The Championship is a fun league to fun and it's hard to get promoted from due to there being 40+ games. If it helps, many notable players and managers like the second tier of the English system because they see it as more "pure." Take that as you will. Nonetheless the little brother of the top flight has its fans and it's well-deserved. 

Americans' holding of the mentality of "top flight or nothing" is like a parent obsessing over whether or not his kid will be accepted into a top ranked university. It's understandable but at times it can get very irritating.

If the player is a Championship caliber player, playing in the top half of the table, then so be it. It's better than being an MLS starter and not getting on the national team.

Another thing I don't like their protectiveness over American players. I simply don't give a crap if an American player is trashed if their play is crap. What I don't like is American players being hated simply because they're American when they play overseas or if they're used as a scapegoat for a poor season (see: Brad Guzan when he was at Aston Villa). I'll defend a player if someone says he's shit when he's not, and I'll be nice about as well, not defensive.

There are other things I do not like, but those are for another day if I feel compelled to rant about them.

Note: MLS is slowly getting better; I'm a support of the league.

They need to be the victim.

The LGBT can't really point fingers at Christians for killing them. That's Muslim extremists. They can't really logically form an argument that blames Reagan for AIDs since that was their own doing. They can't really blame bigots for hate crimes because a vast majority of them have been proven false.

What can they do now? Claim homelessness. But homelessness by parents who "kick them out" because they're part of the LGBT community. Now, I know some teenagers are kicked out, but it's not even to a point where Obama has to make a speech about it like he did with the fuckery that is transgenderism. Just say the LGBT are being kicked out of their homes at this very moment (sorta like the urgency for people to believe that 1 out 4 woman are raped on campuses) because of narrow-minded, hateful parents. They can't prove it entirely and you can't really disprove That's the beauty of it. The LGBT advocates of the modern age thrive on accusations and guilt and grey areas. Isn't that ironic?

"How can you not believe bisexual kids are being kicked to the curb by their old-fashioned parents? There are statistics to show that a good chuck of homeless kids are part of the LGBT community."
"Sure, I'll partially buy into that. But how accurate of these stories anyways? What I've noticed when an LGBT person buys into the 'ma parents hate me for me' they adopt a heavy victimhood mentality and over night they become like any other LGBT 'ma love is good as yours!' type."
"Well we can't be certain but it does happen!"

Please fuck off Mr. Coastal.

I understand attending a specialized university would bring its own unique experiences. A university based on the teaching of Catholicism would be one element. Add the fact that its location is in middle America. After reading a the review of Franciscan University this came particular review raised these issues -

"I attended Franciscan University in the early 2000's and had a good experience. I made good friends and learned a lot about my faith and about myself.

It was a culture shock at first. I'm from New York City and most of the kids were from small towns. A lot of kids were home schooled which was something I hadn't even heard of before I went there. NYC is a diverse place and I grew up experiencing many different cultures and ideas, but there weren't a lot of kids like the ones I met at Franciscan. It is not a very diverse place in terms of race or even ideas. The school is extremely conservative. If that's what you're into, then you'll love it. I'm happy I went there. I have good memories. I also now have an insight into the upside down thinking that most of middle America has."

The demographics probably has changed since the early 2000s. Even then, I found it a little patronizing and hypocritical of this poster to conclude what he did. Not universities are created equal and most universities have a liberal bent - institutions like Franciscan University not withstanding.

There have been countless stories, documents and recorded, of conservative students on liberal campuses on the coasts being ostracized, blackballed and mocked by their fellow students and even professors. This is not to say that whatever lack of diverse ideas is be defended, but it helps to put things in perspective. If I attend a university similar to Franciscan University I won't be expecting NYU or UCLA type of diversity in race or ideas. The institution attracts a certain type of student as do the MITs and the Warren Wilsons of the world. I'm not sure what he was expecting at the university.

How does spending four years in Steubenville, Ohio, population of approximately 18.5K, give insight on "most of middle America"? Not only that but the ideas the poster was exposed to he considers "upside down thinking" though he gave no examples of what ideas came as a culture shock to make him think so. No offense to the city and the university but they don't speak for other states.

If anything, this is the failure of critical thinking of the coastal "enlightened" (well I'm from NYC where it's so diverse!) to think that because he spent 36 months in middle America they have a sound understanding of the region. Let's visit Midwestern liberal arts colleges: Kenyon, Beloit, or Oberlin. Would spending 36 months at either college be a fair amount to say one can objectively judge middle America? Maybe. It depends on what they studied, who they interacted with, and what they did within their studies. If we just

It's clear to see this poster's thinking - homogeneous student body, high percent of home schoolers, conservative, Catholic, and middle America equates to backwards thinking. I suppose all that consumption of diverse cultures and ideas in NYC didn't produce a truly enlightened person he thinks he is.

Catholic Answers: World News Forum

Poster A: Voting is a right. ID laws are unconstitutional.
Poster B: Well I need a driver's license to drive ...
Poster A: Driving isn't a right, but voting is.
Poster C: If the 5th Circuit says voting is a right we should listen to them.

Poster D: I believe in global warming. The earth is in serious danger. Hopefully we can fix this before it gets worse.
Poster E: How is it going to be fixed? By massive gov't regulations and high taxes?
Poster D: If that what it takes then so be it.

Privilege.

When met with people who say you have such-and-such privilege when referring to your race, sex or sexual orientation say, candidly, "Go fuck yourself."

When people say the LGBT face persecution, say, "In America? In the past. Now? Not so much. But hey, the Muslim extremist are coming after you. But if you think you got it bad Christians were persecuted in droves in the Middle East in the past few years and national newspapers didn't give a shit."

When a bisexual who is married to a straight says a part of her is "invisible" because not everyone knows she's a bisexual say, "Okay ... Do you want privacy or do you want recognition? Make up your damn mind. Oh wait, you want society to support same-sex mirage just in case you want to marry a woman. Make sure you tell your husband that in case you want to leave him for a woman. I mean, you sound like an elderly with breathing problem who needs accommodations when flying. Or worse, a vegetarian or vegan."

When people say women are met with sexism say, "Look, I got standards. If the woman is taking birth control I'll wonder why. Most likely it isn't for medical reasons which the pill so happens to bestow on the woman. It's probably because she wants to have sex without the consequence aka baby. And if you got a sizeable chest and it shows it'll be hard for me to keep my eyes above your collar bone. Just sayin'."

When people say that voter ID laws create barriers and infringe on the poor and minority "rights" say, "The perceived hardships of obtaining the documents to get an ID is bullshit. If poor takes three buses and walks 1 mile to work then I'm sure he can also find the means to gather the documents to obtain an ID."

When people say the dark pigment of their skin makes them targets of cops say, "Well, if your demographic didn't cause so much shit in residential neighborhoods you wouldn't be profiled. Look at Asians. Sure, some cheat on standardized tests, but damn, they have perfect attendance. You should probably take a page out of their book."

When people say you're privileged because of the amount of money in your bank account say, "You're right. And I like it that way."

No entertainment for you! Because LGBT.

Adam Silver, commissioner of the NBA, has stated he will move the 2016 NBA All-Star game, originally to be played in North Carolina, due the state's HB2 bill.

The language used to express the infringement of "rights" is amusing.

"Since March, when North Carolina enacted HB2 and the issue of legal protections for the LGBT community in Charlotte became prominent, the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets have been working diligently to foster constructive dialogue and try to effect positive change," the league said. "We have been guided in these discussions by the long-standing core values of our league. These include not only diversity, inclusion, fairness and respect for others but also the willingness to listen and consider opposing points of view.

Legal protections? How about protection of females and young girls? "Positive" change just means bend over and let transgenders use whatever bathroom they want. And what are these "long-standing core values" of the NBA? There aren't any. Silver is just talking out of his ass because being "inclusive" towards transgenders is the new "it" thing. This is despite the fact that there hasn't been a massive boycott or petition to move the event due to North Carolina's bill. People would have attended the game, probably in no lesser amount than before, if the game was still using the state as its location. This all is virtue signaling.

I'm rather confident that Silver did not read the bill nor did he factor in the concept of a man using a man's restroom and a woman using a woman's restroom. This decision was political based on shallow points.

After Obergerfell v Hodges, talks about Captain America, Spider-Man, and Po Dameron being gay, creation of the first same-sex cartoon pairing, the suing of numerous businesses not catering to same-sex mirages, the LGB fervor have moved on to T. I guarantee you the "willingness to listen and consider opposing  of view" will happen, but the decision was already made: make an example of those who oppose the LGBT - by suing, stripping away their entertainment, and by national and international ridicule and mockery. There's little doubt that UK news outlets have already splashed this story on their front page, because Americans are so gosh darn bigoted!

Fuck these groups.

Namely because I find them to be self-righteous and smug bastards. These groups I find are just disrespectful bastards who are vindictive. If they want to fuck tradition because they're wallowing in their bitterness because EVERY FACET OF SOCIETY HASN'T ACCEPTED ME then I say fuck the world they want to build because I know it's going to be shit.

1. Gnus
2. immensely insecure LGBT people
3. SJWs (college students, third wave feminists, liberal professors)
4. anti-theists
5. people who accuse everyone for being a "cuck"
6. black people who are hypothetically on the plantation

Honorable goes to No Country types and moderates.

For numerous reasons I'm starting to lose patience with the LGBT community and their supporters. Why do they get the star treatment?

Christians are the original SJW and are plagiarists.

According to atheists.

Let's say conservative were the "original SJWs." I'd rather have the conservative over the leftist SJW.

And apparently liberals make more sense than conservatives. Okay, on what issue?

Poster "kr00m" is a self-proclaimed moderate. I'll say outright he's a fucking moron. I've read his posts and if he said anything right is that the word "cuck" is the buzzword for the alt-right as racist is for the leftist. In being a good moderate he tries to use buzzwords used against the SJWs towards conservatives, like "safe spaces" and tries to use "triggered" against those who even show an ounce of irritation towards his bullshit. In other words he's a passive-aggressive piece of shit. I wonder if he uses "triggered" when he gets into an argument at a bar.

According to kr00m the world's values, everything humans see as values, were all established before Christianity and that Christianity is simply just passing secular values that built Western civilization as its own. Those damn plagiarizing bastards!

Veganism is a cult.

You can peruse youtube for five minutes and learn a lot about this particular eating lifestyle. Here's what's being discovered over and over again.

1. China Study
2. Cowspiracy
3. animals are sentient
4. lots of congratulations when body builders go vegan
5. Cowspiracy (did I already mention this?)
6. A number of vegans have "vegan" somewhere in their handle, like "Vegan Chris" or, *ironically, even have a title of an anti-meat eating documentary like Earthlings as their online identity.
7. Appeal to science and scientific research (sounds familiar, like modern day atheists ... )
8. Meat eaters are "corpse eating" people. I didn't know that I was living in a Dawn of the Dead reality. 

 Let's try not to be so predictable.

Lady Luna had to mention the Mother Gaia could be saved and starvation would be cured if we only let the animals live. LET THE SENTIENT ANIMALS LIVE!

The only people that went, or tried, the vegan route that I know have been mostly women. The exception was one guy who had a Masters in Sociology (what's with this field, seriously?). These women tried/went the vegan route either in their teens or early twenties. The only cool vegan I know is a young woman who was raised as a vegan. "It's just what we did," she said. The rest? It seems like they're latching onto something or have been convinced that not eating meat is some sort of deep level of awareness and enlightenment.

*I say it's ironic because after watching a video of a body builder saying she'll be going vegan forever I clicked on the video's description to be met with a list of ten documentaries that she recommends on helping one go vegan - Earthlings was listed, and as I clicked on another video talking about veganism one of the poster in the comment section handle was "Watch Earthlings."

EDIT: Wall-E and Interstellar will one day become real in their minds because of how humans treat Mother Gaia causing anthropological global warming by coal usage and the mass slaughter of animals (cows, pigs, fish, chicken) for human consumption.

They got ya beat, LGBTQASOPNMZ

Nice, France - Bastille Day. July 14, 2016. Currently there's a report saying 80 are dead and 202 wounded.

People just celebrating France's sovereignty, something bigger than who they get AIDS from and who they plan to buy children with.

New link added.

The War for Christendom.

AC Milan vs FC Bayern

I just purchased my tickets and I'm rather excited for the game.

Which team am I rooting for? AC Milan, of course.

EDIT: (7.29.16)

FC Bayern 3(3), AC Milan 3(5) - penalty

The weather near Lake Michigan was humid. It was a bad day to wear jeans and within five mintues of walking to find food before the game I my back was sweating as if I was in a sauna. As I walked towards Shake Shack I saw various soccer jerseys, ranging from Bayern Munich, Milan, USMNT, a couple of Bundesliga teams, LA Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Arsenal to Manchester United.

The walk towards Soldier Field was even worse, but once inside the stadium the climate dropped significantly. The stadium wasn't packed, just filling out near 40K people, but for an international soccer match in the US it's a good showing.

A vast majority of those who  came for either team were Bayern fans - practically 1 out of 10 were Milan fans as one Milan supporter put it. That was fine with me.

For whatever reason Bayern has a huge following in Chicago. Maybe it's because many in Chicago have German blood in them. Maybe they have family in Munich. Who knows. Whatever the reason, the fact that some woman dressed up as a German Beer Girl made my night (besides being the minority Milan fan surrounded by Bayern fans when the shootout came to an end). Honestly, it was funny, sexy, and a little strange.

Overall it was good game. Milan needs to strengthen their midfield and add some attacking power. I believe the team can finish in the top five since they already have the players to do it. Of course, the roster can be better (especially the reserves). It is what it is. Winter transfer will be crucial.

Besides a Milan win the city of Chicago, the city had much going on. Lollapalooza was starting the next day, so workers were putting any last minute barriers, and Cubs won over the White Sox later that night. As I boarded the train home I saw a sprinkling of Cubs and Sox apparel.

And yes, women who wear sundresses with high heels in the city at night look damn amazing. Don't stop what you're doing. Just don't walk on cobble stone.

#fucktheleft

This little hashtag got some lefty real irritated. The lefty then accuses me of supporting the 'hardcore' right and immediately follows by spewing condescending remarks towards hillbillies (it's always "the hicks" that receive the hate).

To be honest, I'm glad I got someone pissed off. They deserve it.

#fucktheleft

EDIT: Here's what the noble "moderate" said to me -

"Progress would be achieving something, succeeding at a goal, making a point that works.

Additionally, there are many different degrees of cuntery, and you can't lump people together as left or right.

You can be left and be a prick, you can be right and be a prick.

Thinking people shouldn't be punished be punished for having abortions is not uniquely a leftist position.

Most of the people in the video were not left, they were regressive left and emotionally unstable, just like the emotionally unstable right wing hicks that were interviewed.

The gay guy got called a faggot by a 'brave' right wing soldier doing his right wing duty, passing by him while he was getting interviewed in this video, that is a far right opinion, it's also the action of a cunt.

The guy was gay, and that's all you need to discount his point, but his points were logical and rational.

Not regressive left positions, but common fucking sense.

I said, quite clearly, that having a problem with the left doesn't mean the hard right is correct.

Perhaps it's an American problem, you flick the switch from regressive lefty to far right cunt, and have no way to continue your life without joining one club or another."

 Here's his initial response before I confronted him -

"fuck the left, i'll stand on the hard right #Americanlogic  

Punish people for having abortions. 

Assault rifles for all. 

Keep all foreigners out, we are the best, hell yeh, fire your assault rifles in the air, then wave them around like you just dont care, then fuck your sister.

The left are regressive and these lefties are not smart, with the exception of the gay guy who you can only hate because he looks 'faggy' lol. 

Women do have the right to decide, and you DO need statistics to prove a point based on statistics!!!! 

The right are the hick yokel yankee doodle cunts shouting draped in American flags who will vote for someone just so they get a bigger gun to shoot. 

I already know that i'll get responses from the most stupid humans in existence, pumping up America and making lots of outdated ignorant mongy references to England, despite the fact you'll reply in my language lol. 

Let's have ya Trumpees"

 

The Boogeyman of hedonists: The Religious Right

I'm a millennial and when the left (which includes social progressive libertarians) throw the 1950s, Bronze Age or Authoritarian Right card out I tend to become suspicious of their own reasoning and immediately my brain puts up red flags that tells me I'm probably dealing with a full-blown idiot.

When Gavin McInnes kissed Milo Yiannopoulos in Orlando to stand against radical Islam, some took offense to it. Both men didn't enjoy the kiss, but it was to show that two people of the same sex in America can freely kiss each other in public without fear of being fined, jailed, physically assaulted or killed, that is up until the horrific Orlando massacre.

I don't consider myself a social progressive - I do not supporting LGBT "rights" which include same-sex 'marriage' and adoption, or the normalization of their own sexual orientation, but I saw where "the kiss" was going and what its point was. For the most the part those that expressed their discomfort were relatively mild about their rejection of homosexuality. Those that did not like this opposing view showed contempt to what they perceived as the Authoritarian Right rearing its 1990s head around the corner, to which I suspect is a similar deep seeded hatred that fueled actual racists back in the Civil Rights Era. Let's see the contempt on youtube -

Playing Pro-Choice For A Day.

The case for abortion is rather simplistic when you put on the modern ball cap. It's all based on bodily autonomy, that no one but the female can ultimately choose to either have the baby or abort it.

The same line of reasoning goes for artificial birth control where the avoidance of pregnancy is the main concern with the avoidance of STD's a distant second. All of this is under the slogan of a woman's "'right" and "choice." This later transitions into women's "healthcare." By not supporting "choice" you're upholding institutional sexism, so the narrative goes.

I'll take this premise further - much further. What if, and I believe it's been advancing already, that one can learn about their future child's mental and physical health before it is fully formed int he woman's uterus. What if the child is non-straight  -say the child will grow up to be a bisexual or a homosexual, that is if certain prenatal environments are found to support the "born that way" narrative, and if the parents do not want their child to be "born that way," wouldn't that be reasons enough to abort? The suicide rate for non-straights are higher than straights. Or what if the child will be born with certain physical deformities or conditions like ectrodactyly (claw/cleft hand) or Down Syndrome? Sound grounds for abortion?

If the field of medicine can turn into Gattaca, where the parents can find out the potential illnesses, disorder and deformities their child is prone to then all the better, right? We can construct a fetus with the very best qualities of the parents. A below average boy, without genetic manipulation, might be met with a less bright future than if the parents would turn to genetic manipulation to produce an average boy with a possible brighter future. 

To oppose the abortion of the LGBT would be just moralizing, afterall, it is the woman's body and under the concept of body autonomy her sovereignty reigns supreme. It's her choice. Same with any other reason a woman wants to abort the "goo." It would be one step to save the earth from over population. To save the earth from harmful carbon gases.

What if my future wife and I decide that we want our children to have what we would consider "the best" qualities of each of us? We'd want grandchildren as well so we'd opt for a straight only child. Any "goo" that is reported to be LGBT would be axed. Some parents might not care or think it's wonderful, but this non of their business. We'll conduct the process and attribute the attributes the way we see fit. What if the "goo" shows signs of retardation? Axe the living shit out of it. I don't need the heartbreak and stress of that. What if the child ends being rather slow in academics? Possible grounds being axed because my wife and I want a child that can pull in a B average, at the very least. 

So from not wanting to have a baby due to not wanting to experience child labor to having the time & resources to raise that child, or just not wanting a child because motherhood is not what they want, I think it's reasonable to not want the "goo" because, if the days of Gattaca ever come, the woman who wants a child made to her own liking she has the right to axe any "goo" that doesn't meer her standard. The child that is brought into the world is costumed and therefor more wanted. Seems fair enough. After all, it's a woman's body. 

Now that would be true progress. The reason to practice "choice" just became more interesting and fascinating. If we are trying to perfect made made institituions, say the economy, then this would be one giant step for mankind to customize our progeny before they even take their first breath. 

Yes, pro-choice, indeed.

The Idiot Parade

of leftists is just as bad as the Gay Pride Parade.

Like clock work we got a couple of ACLU lawyers saying that terrorist attack on the gay Florida night club was stoked by "200 anti-gay laws" and The View host Kristine Haines said that conservative religious politicians should keep their religion "in their homes" and "out of politics" where they can impress it upon people.

How did Haines make an act of terrorism into "them Christian folks"? Well, she's on The View so that might explain her aptitude of just going with any modern day talking point.

Hate crimes against Muslims have risen 3x says Hillary Clinton! Interesting. Though anecdotal, my parents live near a community called "Little Palestine" and local news have not reported any crimes against the Muslim immigrants in the area. This area is nestled between "Little Poland" and blue collared neighborhoods whose residents are old-school white Americans. After all these years, as Little Palestine grew, there has been peace amongst the old and new residents. Something tells me the MSM and Mrs. Clinton are just making shit up as they go.

New link(s) added.

Joffre the Giant.

It's the Christian version of Art of Manliness in little bits. He likes beer. As I do. He likes sports, like rugby. As I do. He smokes a pipe. Like I want to someday. He homeschools his kids and has reasonable views on marriage. I like that.

EDIT: Citadel Foundations was also added. The blog is run by a man named "Mark Citadel." He's British and has some very thoughtful ideas on American politics. I found out about him over at Social Matter given that he sometimes comments there.

Fatness & Vegans.

Buzzfeed released a video helping those who can't lose weight. In it it states that diet & exercise may be overrated actions. It uses the common "today, scientists are saying past findings are debunked" tactic (even though it has worked for millions of people).

Why would Buzzfeed do this? It's not as difficult to understand if you're aware of the modern day liberal mindset, which Buzzfeed is staffed with. Over the past couple of years the "body positive" movement has gained ground, saying that promoting thinness is both psychological and physically damaging (but women in ground combat is totally A-OKAY and totally healthy in the long run) to those who do not fit this "mold." It puts unrealistic expectations on the chubby people of the world, making sure it plugs in the "spectrum" of body makeups (like the spectrum of sexual orientations ... this is all too familiar).

Do you think diet & exercise are ways to a thinner, more healthier you? Maybe, but maybe not. After all there's a social movement focusing on "body positive" going on and we can't make those in this social movement feel stigmatized, can we? Of course not.

The modern liberal mind contradicts itself in order to not make others feel bad. Their obsession towards a more inclusive and diverse world has been disastrous.

But that's not all. This video also attracted large swaths of vegans (how, I don't know; my guess is that Buzzfeed has a large vegan following, which makes sense since the channel is popular with millennials and those under 35).

And if veganism doesn't work, well, you're just not doing it right. Sorta like diet and exercise? If you object to it then you're not educated, because if you were you'd be jumping on that bandwagon like a fat guy seeing a bean burrito with extra sour cream. Hallelujah! If only we were as enlightened and not ignorant as vegans!

A Worldly Obsession.

I was perusing through the James Scholar Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and found this little bit -

To be eligible for the LAS Honors Program, students must be accepted at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Based on that application, the top 12 percent of incoming freshmen are invited to be a part of the program (the invitation will come via email as LAS Honors holds sustainability as a core value).

The university's so adamant about letting potential students know that they're fully on-board with loving & respecting the earth that they have to clarify why notifications arrvial via email.

(If I were in charge I'd just opt for email because it saves money. But that's just me.)

The program's values expand on this -

"As an LAS James Scholar, you will be empowered to find your place as a global citizen and a global steward. You will learn about core values of Sustainability and its importance to the environment, the economy, and the people of your community, your country, and the broader world."

 Why? The message continues -

"LAS James Scholars always want to know more and to have a positive impact."

Now, this is awfully amusing because the whole global warming fiasco is entrenched in the minds of the administration at universities nationwide. I remember "Go Green" placards on the window sills of faculty members as I walked around my alma mater's campus library.

The culture of academia is so concerned that departmental honors colleges need to make it part of their mission. (Sorry starving African babies, you got beaten by Mother Gaia.) Of course, it's all about social engineering. Make the bright kids care about it so they can influence their own peers, their families, and maybe attain jobs that carry out the "global citizen" and "global steward" parts. It's the clever way of carrying out "social justice." Gather the kids who are seen as future leaders and mold their values to further secular causes.

I'm surprised they didn't add in "inclusion, diversity, and open-mindedness" in their mission statement.

The government will protect its own.

When tapes showed Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, defenders of the organization either said the tapes had selective editing or that it was fake.

When tapes showed ACORN aiding in setting up a brothel, the defenders of the organization said the tapes had selective editing.

In both cases each organization was found "innocent."

Oddly enough, even after the bankruptcy of ACORN no more than  year later after the tapes were released, why wasn't James O' Keefe charged with a serious lawsuit? After all, if O' Keefe took down an organization based on false premises and edited tapes, he'd be thrown into jail for quite some time, right? Surely, if his tapes were indeed a misinterpretation of what transpired how come no one from the organization filed a lawsuit against him (he was charged and had to pay a $125K for distortion at one Californian ACORN branch)?

When I searched "ACORN voter fraud" it barely registered any relevant hits. A few conservative and small-time online news sites were tracked, but zero from CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ, WashPO, AP etc. A HuffPo article showed up, but that was in a rebuttal to ACORN's fall. It's as if any shred of evidence pointing that ACORN was guilty was carefully omitted from searches, but anything that lead to its innocence was available (after some light digging).

Something smells "edited."

Both of those who lead the undercover projects were later met with legal issues. James O' Keefe of the ACORN controversy was charged with distortion (125K fine) and David Daleiden of the Planned Parenthood videos was met with an indictment of false ID presentation.

As for the organizations, Planned Parenthood was grilled in front of Congress but was found innocent. That strangely sounds familiar: Hillary Clinton being grilled in front of Congress for highly sensitive emails but walked away 'clean.'

Sites like wikepedia, rationalwiki and conservapeida all have pages dedicated to each incident and each article sounds like it was edited by leftists. Wikipedia had the least slime, but the last two was just a pathetic presentation of the controversies.

But bakers, pizza owners, and florists? Guilty as charged. For what? For practicing "discrimination" against same-sex pairings. And by gosh, the "evidence" was damning.

Andy. The homo rights advocate who's so deep in his own anal cavity.

LGBT activists and, in general, social "progressives" tend to show up on specific articles (marijuana, LGBT "rights"). On Malcolm the Cynic's site, a poster named "Andy" appeared on an article dealing with same-sex "marriage" back in July of 2015.

In an earlier post to another,  "Andy" wrote this -

"Regarding adoption here, well, I don´t actually have to assume that children “are supposed to be getting everything out of those families that traditional families get”, and I would support adoption rights for gay couples even if there would be rock solid evidence that those children are not doing as well on average as children raised in traditional families – because the question here wrt adoption isn´t “traditional family” or “non-traditional family” but rather “some family” or “no family”."

Yea, that's right. Even if evidence, peer-reviewed academic journals, and the like showed that kids raised in same-sex households fared lesser than kids raised in opposite sex households he'd still vote for same-sex adoption "rights." He wants that "right" for the homosexuals gosh darn it!

He reappeared in November due to yours truly, GRA, posted about him. I'll just say that our dialogue was a fruitless discussion.

Andy, about a year later showed up on another article dealing with homosexuality, with the article entitled "Anal v Bestiality."  He outright knew where it was going, so he engaged. Most likely Andy either subscribes to Malcolm's site or he keeps an eye out for articles talking about anything homosexual.

On same-sex acts being compared to bestiality. 

"That is really interesting. As someone who thinks there is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with gay sex per se, I’m not outraged by your opinion at all and am similarly surprised that people who *agree* with you on the moral status of gay sex are outraged by the comparison."

Andy thinks in cliches. He was expecting social conservative people to not be outraged, despite millennials who are social conservatives are more prone to support being "non-judgmental" and "non-extremist." They want to be liked and not to be seen as "that kind of Christian."

As for not being outraged - it's the "I heard it before. What else you got?" mentality. No doubt Andy thinks it's a bogus comparison and therefore dismisses it. After all, he notes "there is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with gay sex per se." He has entrenched in his mind, soul, and heart that same-sex acts are A-OKAY. Why? Probably because Andy himself is exploring the anal cavity himself (not as a proctologist).

I don't have any evidence or peer-reviewed articles, but if I were put in charge I'd point to the LGBT being anal (no pun) about articles being critical of their "rights" as a characteristic of a mental disorder. I've seen a pattern with the Andies of the world: track down any article that's critical, though thoughtful and caring (see: Ask the Bigot), and comment and /or flood their comment section with a defensive if not condescending tone (something about not hurting anyone and love is love and other stuff).

Most likely you're an atheist on youtube if ...

You list the fallacies.

Take for example "Fallacies on rampant display here include but are not limited to: ad hominem, false binary, and false analogy."

I swear, there's probably a sticky on atheist forums entitled "Know Thy Fallacies!"

Catholics are an interesting bunch.

Catholics who support socialism.
Catholics who think the 'free market' is mean and evil.
Catholics who think that other Catholics put too much emphasis on marriage and the nuclear family.
Catholics who are "no country" types.

Why are they Catholic again? This is good, though. It shows that there's diversity in thought among Catholics.

It's too bad those that want socialism (let me guess, you work a shitty job and you don't have any real marketable skills) want a system that has been proven wrong time and again. But, but, but the 'free market' is killing us! Killing. You read that correctly.

Those who think the Church and other Catholics put too much emphasis on the married nuclear family can just leave. Seriously. I'm not the "move to another country what don't ya" type, but the RCC needs people who believe in the married nuclear family with every fiber in their being, not lukewarm types who are better of at some Episcopalian church.

As for the "no country" types, well, I heard through the grapevine that Interstellar was going to happen - the space habitat that is, not the dust storms. I'm kidding. NASA hasn't yet released an official statement.

New blog.

The Conservative Social Worker.

Currently in class.

I'm sitting in class and we're talking about Reagonomics, among other things.

Some responses -

"Terminated block grants can only hurt welfare recipients."
"Ah, good old 'trickle-down' effects."
"Still not working."
"In my former profession I worked in human resources. The goal was to hire low-income workers and the corporation benefited from it, the workers never saw the benefits."

Well, what benefits do you want them to see? What exactly do you mean by 'never saw the benefits'? A promotion? Higher pay? More vacation days with paid leave?

The professor goes on talking about PRWORA

"Clinton sorta ended welfare. AFDC was discontinued and was turned into TANF."

So what we called welfare just changed names ... Welfare still exists; it never was 'cured.'

 

The never ending road to "nowhere."

It always makes me chuckle when people say "we got a long way to go" when talking about social issues, say, campus rape culture or civil rights. It's usually those that believe that 1 out of 4 women are raped on any college campus. It's usually those that, for whatever reason, think LGBT's are a legit victim group.

In the Boston Globe there's an article concerning campus rape. Campus rape is horrid, but I'm skeptical of these surveys. They always end in destroying traditions (Harvard final's club) and always point to fingers at greek life. Take this comment

"On a recent flight I watched the old WWI movie, "A Farewell to Arms", made in 1932. I was appalled to see that what was called a "romance" started when the main character stalked and harassed a nurse. When she rejected his advances, he kept touching her and insisting, until she finally slapped him. And then he kept on, and eventually she "gave in." This was date rape, characterized as a classic romance. I would say things are improving these days, but obviously there is still a long way to go."

Christian Hoff Sommers further expands on why she thinks surveys and studies depicting campus rape as frequent as opening a book are wrong. The danger to not believing the surveys are people who are taken aback who say, "Well, that one survey had interviews with the sample. Are you daring to question the responses of the women who were interviewed?" Yes.

Rape is a horrid crime, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt the organizations being blamed for rape (fraternities, all-male final's clubs) and look with an equally stern eye to the women and administrators who accuse. UVA turned out to be a false story. The Duke lacrosse story also was deemed highly inaccurate. 

Besides comments totally buying into the survey there were the usual comments dismissing conservatives.

"Gee, I missed that policy message. Where did you find that ? Glen Beck, Limpbag? O'Really? Faux News?"

The only people who bring up such people and network in that way are leftists. I remember watching an interview with the Harry Potter trio where each actor needed to say a word with an American accent, with Daniel Radcliffe receiving "Glenn Beck" in a card. He immediately responded that he didn't want to. I found this strange and rather presumptuous. This was in 2010. Radcliffe was 18 at the time; I was rather liberal when I saw the video but even I didn't have an issue with Glenn Beck being on the card. Without fail the man's an atheist and supports LGBT rights as if the LGBT in either the UK or US were being thrown off of buildings. There's no doubt Radcliffe believes what comes out of BBC and there's no doubt that those he admires have influenced his beliefs.

But back to "the never ending road." SJW's see injustice everywhere. They step out of their room and look out the window and they see injustice. Harvard, the most well-known academic brand, is not immune to "righting the wrongs." Students of the university's law school have successfully petitioned to change the program's seal. Why? Because it has sheaves of wheat which reminds people of slavery.

I do see where the sheaves of wheat is controversial, but I ultimately am not compelled to be angered over it. Yes, Isaac Royal Jr., the land benefactor of Harvard Law School, was a slave owner. So what. Hypothetically, if Royal's house was built by slaves and was put on the shield instead would indignation be present? I'd say no. But because sheaves of wheat are usually associated with slaves in America it's "inconsistent with the values of both the university and the law school." (I could not find Harvard Law "values.")

This isn't the only incident where Harvard was desperate to shed of any connotation of slavery or racism. Recently it has been decided to remove the title of "master" for faculty positions heading the university's residential houses, and instead have renamed them "faculty dean." The damn title, "master," in this case wasn't even slave related, but one of authority and respect towards the undergraduates.

So how many more miles do we have to go?