The obnoxious over at Social Matter

Social Matter is one of my favorite sites, but sometimes it can be bogged down with history (some contributors are pagans and it shows; their writing, while interesting, is generally boring -- sometimes they appear to be try-hards when talking about ancient Western civilization) and sometimes gets too "I wish we were knights" and other shit like that.

Occasionally you get people in the comment box who rant and rant and ... Rant.  Take for example poster "'Reality' Doug." Notice that he calls Christian religions "Abrahamic religions," which, in my experience are people who are secularists. No Christian that I encounter calls their religion such. It's as if a homosexual who tries to pose as a straight says, "I'm a heterosexual." Those who are straight say, "I'm straight." There are two kinds of people who put their worldview in their handle: atheists and SJWs. Doug is most definitely the former. His post reads like a brick.

Then there's "G. Mayre" who's the quintessential bitter alt-right fellow.

This is partially why I'm not alt-right. In general they're way too bitter and I don't subscribe to the PUA game. I mean, what on earth do the likes of 'Reality' Doug and G. Mayre do when they try to talk to women?

"Hey, I know a lot about ancient Western civilization. I'm approaching my 40s. Single. Never had kids. I'm a MGTOW. I'm noble pagan."

Yea, that'll get the women in bed with them.

I think such people are losers despite them wearing their MGTOW badge on their arm sleeve. I'll say it: The alt-right are mostly losers and I'm not impressed with their weird fetish with ancient Western civilization. I don't think it ever made them money; I don't think they even have degrees in such a discipline.

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I shall pray.

I will admit, I'm not much of a prayer. It escapes my memory if my parents said to me, as I seen on television on more conservative tv shows, "Remember to say your prayers," as I got into bed. I pray during mass and try my best to find meaning and reverence in the words I speak, but outside of church? Disastrous. I just never got into the habit.

I bring prayer up because I just learned that a choir member of mine, right at this very moment, is having brain surgery because of a possible blood clot due to a mild concussion. She's an elderly, mid 70s I presume. She hit her head on the microwave door (the ones above the stove) and she was found in her bathroom today unconscious by her son. Her grown children were trying to call her but she wasn't answering, and she being a widow they worried. If all goes well, I and the others in her life will know whether or not her son got to her on time.

My heart is a little heavy, a little achy and tears are forming in my eyes as I write this. Maybe this could be the sign that my prayer habit is to finally come to existence. Either way, an unfortunate "wake up call" (no pun).

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, 

Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen. 

UPDATE as of March 7th: Just a few hours ago her children unplugged her from the machine. She was in coma due to the injury to the head (1/3) and was being monitored closely. The wake will be in a couple of days followed by a possible Saturday burial.

RIP Eleanor.

Wait ... I missed the memo.

When did the philosophy of award shows (including nominations) and casting/characters "needed to look the way the world looks"?

According to J.J. Abrahms not having a homosexual character is narrow-minded and that the recent Academy Awards was shameful because it wasn't inclusive enough.

["]It’s shameful,” he added. “We all need to do better to represent this world. It’s something that is important to me.”

"Top" 10 Things People Hate About the Catholic Church

I'm currently reading on why there seems to be tension between non-Catholics, mostly the Reformed Protestants, and Catholics. Now, it's usually on the part of the Protestant who gets a bit testy when Catholicism is in the discussion of faith. From my observation Catholics are similar to Americans who "likes everyone" yet "everyone" has "issues" with Americans. The tension is fairly interesting and exciting to read; it's as if Protestants feel like they got shafted from the religious limelight or something.

Here's is poster "Blake"'s "Top Ten" (with my commentary in below) -

10: Kiddy-fiddling. Okay, okay–I recognize that your religion is actually against this, that other religions have the same problem, and most of the “children” were actually teenagers (making the term “pedophilia” clinically inaccurate), but as you know, the cover-up has cost you a lot of goodwill.

Fair enough. But then how about public education on the elementary levels? How about the entertainment industry? Let's keep things in perspective.

9. Bullying political behavior around the world, basically in every country where Catholics dominate. (“The Inquisition, what a show…”)

The RCC a bully when it dominated? Please, tell me more. You gotta name more events besides one, especially the ever famous Inquisition in the 1100s. I sorta saw the Crusade card pop up.

8. Birth control. On many issues there is disagreement, even argument, but this one just leaves Protestants scratching their heads. (Cue Monty Python, “Every Sperm is Sacred”) And is it my imagination, or does the Church forbid oral sex as well? (“Open thou our lips…”)

Okay, just admit you just want to be slappin' skin and "gettin' it" without the possible natural "consequence" aka end result of bed gymnastics: a child. I will be honest I never saw this issue as a legit issue mainly because a child is the natural end result if sex is done honestly. Body and soul, right? As for oral sex, it's a grey area. I haven't anything forbidding fellatio. Sex is for procreation and bonding. Now one can argue that oral sex is the misuse of ones mouth and therefore equal to anal sex, but that confusing the anus with the vagina, or using the anus because your sex partner doesn't have a vagina.

7. Thomas Aquinas, whose theology has been the official Catholic ideology since the 19th century, despite general agreement among philosophers that he did not really succeed in proving the existence of God or the truth of Catholic doctrine in general.

I've read that Plato royally fucked up science without any papers or arguments on where he went wrong. I will take the rejection of Aquinas as the same prejudice as those who rejected Plato. Plus, who are these philosophers? Are they theologians as well? Are the modern day philosophers in academia? If you're aware, the health of philosophy - as a discipline - isn't strong today (as of 2016). There seems to be no consensus on anything (that's were continental philosophy and analytical philosophy receive demerits) and a vast majority in philosophy are atheists. Atheist turned believer (a Catholic), Ed Feser tries to explain it.

6. Do Buddhists go around proclaiming that they saw giant images of Buddha appear in the sky? ‘Nuff said.

A petty issue. I'm a millennial so I don't see this as an actually issue.

5. All that flamboyant frilly stuff. It’s ironic that they’re trying to kick the gays out, because if gays were to start their own religion, it would probably look a lot like Catholicism.

I have no idea where you got the idea that if homosexuals started their own religion with be similar to Catholicism. You're assuming that all of the apostles were homosexuals (Blake, are you implying about yourself?). There's a huge fallacy in the road, better not hit it. Oh wait, you already did ...

4. Exorcism. Come to think of it, Satanists and Catholicism would probably be a natural fit. (You know–all the robes and spooky music…?)

This beyond stupid. This list is getting more pathetic as I read.

3. The “sausage factory” for turning out saints: JP2 dies, they wait a bit, somebody claims to have been healed by ghost of JP2 (or however it goes), JP2 advances a notch.

Meh. 

2. Having a pope who is sort of infallible, or at least very authoritative. Liberals hate the conservative ones (which is all of the ones in recent memory), conservatives distrust a system in which some future leader can wave his hand and presto! women priests or whatever. It’s the religious version of having a dominatrix.

The Pope isn't "sort of" infallible. He's infallible on religious issues, which encompasses many things. As for comparing the Pope's authority to a dominatrix, well, that's stupid as well. I'm not even sure what that Blake is even aware of what the Pope's job is and why Catholics react the way they do. I don't believe the Pope, deep in some secluded chamber within the Vatican walls, has a torture chamber so he can practice BDSM on his most trusted cardinals or a random Italian boy. The reason why conservative, or traditionalists, do not like a liberal Pope because the RCC's doctrine does not uphold or gives reason for a female priests. The RCC isn't the Episcopalian Church. It's common sense, Blake.

1. Refusal to accept that you’re just one more denomination like everybody else.

Why should Catholics accept it? The RCC and Catholics acknowledge other denominations exist but so far non-Catholic denominations have not successfully refuted any of Church's teachings on why it's wrong, or "just like any other." The RCC is a religious "leader" in the way the USA is the "leader" of the free world. USA is not just like Canada, or England, or Sweden, or Norway, or Australia. It's the USA. And the RCC is the RCC.

New link added.

28 Sherman was added.

28 Sherman is the blog of Weimerica Weekly host, Ryan Landry. Landry is originally from the Northeast, Ivy graduate and transplant to the Midwest. He actually doesn't think he's in hell in this region of America. Good for him. I mean, it's not like the racist, backwards South, right?

Nevada Primary

Trump comes out on top.

My prediction is that Trump is the GOP nominee.

 Clinton is the DNC nominee.

Clinton wins the POTUS with 65% of the vote.

Where are your manners?

Seriously.

Veganism: The Cult?

Okay, to be clear I am not saying every vegan belongs to a cult or that veganism is a cult. I was watching a youtube video of a man who did a 30 day vegan challenge and ended with some positive results. Good for him. It's the comment section that made me think something was cult like.

Yep. Just decided to change to a vegan lifestyle this week. Mine actually started out of the ethical/environmental side of it. Never looking back. Glad to hear about how you benefited from being vegan for the month, and makes me more excited to keep pushing for progress in the gym! :) Good luck!
---
 I am glad you enjoyed your vegan experience! I am vegan and I appreciate your honesty on your journey If you're looking for movies to educate yourself on veganism more Earthlings, Conspiracy, Forks Over Knives, and Food Inc are all great! Also you should check out Dr. Greger AKA NutritionFacts.org here on youtube :)
 ---
 From "veganwhatnow" - Dude a step I the right direction! yey!!! You should check out "cowspiracy"!!!! OMG it is life changing!
---

Going vegan is where it is at! Glad to learn that you are joining the club, as I have felt both physically and mentally better since taking 'the plunge.' Although slow, I hope to see animal consumption go down and reduce the number of CAFOs in existence.

---

You saved probably hundreds of lives. You saved thousands of gallons of water. cut down on pollution. Check out Gary Yourofsky Best speech ever 2014. cowspiracy. and Earthlings. life changing videos.

---

omg i am SO happy right now <3>

---

Dude this is awesome news! I've only seen a few of your vids but I subbed when I saw you were doing the 30 day vegan challenge thing and I honestly didn't think you'd stick with it long term and was going to unsub as soon as you broke that news lol I do think if you try to eat vegan all the time except for challenges you will regret it, only because your body will have a bad reaction. But if it works for you and that's what you have a passion for then hell 95% vegan is better than most of the assholes who will give you shit for it! A plant based lifestyle doesn't have to be 100% vegan, just has to be majority plants! I am 100% vegan though (including all cleaners, soaps, detergents, clothing etc) and I definitely think it's the right thing for me. The energy is great and I've been making progress, and the protein is just a non issue that for some reason most omnivores do not understand!

---

I think its good your doing 90% vegan.I think if yur not ready to be 100% yet no point trying to force it.I remember been vegetarian and eating vegan four days a week and slowly built up like that.The first time I went veganthough I went overnight and after about 5-6 months I quit so from my experience I think its easier to build to it 100% and do some research.

---

So glad to hear you're at least 95% vegan! Much love! You should definitely watch cowspiracy, forks over knifes, food inc, and earthlings. :)) you should for sure educated you're self!

---

GREAT VIDEO AND CONGRATULATIONS!! people just need to try for themselves the good things of the vegan lifestyle!!

---

I got no hate for you Erik! Really think its great you tried out the other side and you see it can work / help the world and as well as other aspects of it such as for animals. If you can do 95% of the time thats better then nothing and honestly this was a massive step in different direction. Happy Healthy Vegan(check them out if you havent) did a video saying something along the lines of small steps make major differences and if thats all you can do for right now then thats great! Its been almost a year now for me of 100% in it and I will never go back! Its always great to have more chill like minded people joining the vegan life style. If it can help promote it and get others to see whats its all about then I fully support them! If anything else it shows not all vegans are crazy nut jobs like people make us out to be! I just love animals =P

---

 I totally support u on this

---

I really respect your decision because you're not letting so many people influence the life you want to live. Society is constantly pushing and pulling us to believe certain things and adopt certain lifestyles. We all deserve to choose how we want to live, and feel HAPPY with our decision!

---

I'm glad that you're so open minded to veganism!! I'm personally mostly vegan and entirely vegetarian, and I've also seen a huge positive impact in my life since making the change. If you're interested in knowing more about what happens in slaughterhouses and places of the sort, I highly recommend watching Earthlings; it's an incredibly touching movie, and I can guarantee you won't look at meat the same way afterwards

---

I'm Vegetarian. I was Vegan for about 3 years and then incorporated Dairy (Cheese, Yogurt). You are able to be more social that way. There is nothing wrong with people who eat meat if the animals are raised humanely, exercise daily and live a good happy life with a good diet. But now a days people consume disgusting amounts of meat and expose the poor animals to steroids and horrendous living conditions where they suffer daily. Don't support any fast food places and meat providers who contribute to the torture of animals. If you decide to eat meat make sure it's ORGANIC, GMO FREE AND HUMANELY RAISED.

Creepy.

Sorta sounds like people are happy because he's "coming out." Sorta sounds like these people are welcoming him into some sort of cult lifestyle.

Want more? A physician by the name of Dr. Melissa Clouthier wrote a post criticizing veganism. The comment section was filled with vegan defenders.

Apparently a commentator thinks that Dr. Clouthier is a "right-wing nut." (Her posts do not believe what the "progressives" believe in, so I guess that's a fair label.)

How is it that a chiropractor, who is a right-wing nut, who believes that vaccines cause autism, who does not accept the scientific evidence for global warming, and who believes in a god can feel comfortable calling anyone else stupid? You might want to reconsider your intellectual place in the world, Melissa, because it is not as lofty as you believe it is.
Sincerely,
Heath D. Watts, PhD (Geochemistry)

If you enter Watt's name in google one of the first results is a link to "Atheist Universe."

There's an angry dad -

Stupid meat-eaters. "Where do you get your protein?" could have been another good title of this article. I've seen ignorance before so it's easy to recognize.

My 7 year old son is a vegan and he has no issues with protein. Maybe you're healthier than 10 year olds because by age 10, kids already show signs of heart disease due to consuming food with cholesterol

Andrew Neil wrote this -

It is shocking to me that a "physician" would post such incredibly anecdotal and ignorant comments.

 First, veganism is NOT a diet. It is a philosophy. Ergo, critiquing something that is NOT a diet and to point out the shortcomings of said diet is a logical fallacy.

Vegans eat everything omnivores eat with the exception of animal products. That leaves fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and grains. However, if you were to exclude many of these items and resorted to processed and junk foods, by way of example, one would indeed become unhealthy. But this does not a vegan diet make. If one eats a whole-foods, plant-based diet, which can absolutely be a wholesome, nutritionally rich diet, one can be very, very healthy. One could call either of these a "vegan diet" but it would be equally unfair to say that our unprecedented rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a result of an omnivorous diet. There are lots of omnivores who are health and unhealthy just like vegans. So just like omnivorous diets, one can eat healthy or unhealthy, it comes down to choice and educating oneself and being responsible

Furthermore, to suggest that eating meat and dairy is a biological imperative (i.e. it is required to be healthy) is not only false and unverifiable, it is downright irresponsible.

As a vegan of 8 years, and my wife for 25 years, we are the picture perfect of health. And my physician agrees. I have no B12 deficiency for example - 15% of the population is B12 deficient, yet vegans only account for 2% of the population, ergo there are a lot of omnivores who are B12 deficient too, it is often an absorption issue. I have no "protein deficiency", my skin, energy level and general wellness are fine. Every year I get a physical and have my doctor check all the major biomarkers - everything falls within the normal ranges. My physician has no objections to my vegan diet (he is not vegan btw). I also do not take any supplements. I am 5'-11" tall and weigh 180lbs and have a perfect BMI.

And for the record, I'm the rule not the exception. Dr. Clouthier, your blog and position shows an incredible cognitive bias.

Check out Andrew's blog. The last post he wrote was entitled "Why I Am a Vegan." I will conclude the man is also an atheist by the books he has listed in his bio.

I'm sensing some strange similarities here. Here's my question: are non-religious people who spend time earning a PH.d more likely to be a vegan? That would be an interesting survey to construct.

Honestly, veganism is backwards. Why do I say this? Our teeth. The irony.

Gnu's get their hurt out for their idol Hitchens.

Not Peter, but Christopher.

Bolland wrote a rather seething article when news of Christopher Hitchens died. A handful of atheists found the site and expressed their, er, sound minds to those that have stumbled upon the article years later. See below.

Zorro did the typical name calling. Meh.

HairyMary is to mock "Hail Mary." Not clever nor funny. The user can do better. The use goes on the usual "majority" card and then builds off off that that, though no evidence of God, that their is evidence that religious belief has created "hell on earth."

Henry Page, if you click on his handle, brings you to his twitter account where he lists that he is a single dad AND a single step-dad. Hoo boy. And that he's an atheist. His comment is the usual inference that the RCC is the most corrupt religious organization in the world.

Harvard, Yale students and alumni

Those that I have come across I have not been impressed by. The alumni that were twice my age were, at best, moderate yet squishy socially liberal hippies while the Yalies were, well, I'll just say Yale has great branding and brilliance is a faux attribute that they tout. So far the societal leaders Yale has produced or are in-training have no wings to fly, no arrow that points true north, and are rudderless being floating to fake Utopias.

An obervation about MGTOW who are #TrumpHumpers

They tend to be single, divorced or never married.

They don't plan on marrying.

They tend to be childless.

They aren't the type of bachelor that can pull a Walter Mitty where they go on crazy adventures.  Roosh isn't one despite being well-traveled.

Usually they're secular/non-religious.

They never wrestled a bear.

Some admit that hedonism is a valid goal in their life (at least they're honest).

In other words they're not complete losers, but have a good percent of loser in them  that you sorta feel sorry for them. The only thing keeping themselves from being a caricature is that they don't like "progressives." Good for them.

An observation about the Scalia haters.

Of the tweets that I've read, many are in journalism, editors of magazines focusing on social commentary or fashion, authors or comedians. All industries presented not just are liberal, but are so liberal that it's appropriate to call them part of The Left.

I'll bet those that shared their ill-thoughts about Scalia's death can't even name all (then) nine justices, let alone name the Chief Justice or the preceding judges.

Meet Sylvia Killingsworth.

The real secret to the patriarchy is that men are weak

— Silvia Killingsworth (@silviakillings) December 16, 2015

As you can see this tweet was created on December 15th. I suppose the holiday spirit was in well use in her life at that time.

Now if she's saying physically men are weak, I'd say that's blatantly false. Men in general are stronger than women. Mentally they're even smarter than women, but the saving grace is that there are more stupid men because of the intelligence bell curve being more spread out, as with women staying more-so in the middle of that bell curve.

I will say I find this tweet ironic because this statement is coming from a woman who holds a major position at one of the most respected magazines in America, coveted by her own political group - The Left and its liberal lackeys.

Killingsworth is the Managing Editor at The New Yorker and for someone who has some authority over a major, prestigious literary/politcal magazine she's awfully low on details. It's as if she's getting her talking points from Jezebel or The Huffington Post.

Apparently it's all well and good to express anti-men thoughts when employed by The New Yorker. If any editor of a major newspaper or literary outlet said that patriarchy was because women were weak they'd be publicly shamed and they'd be forced to offer an apology, if not be urged to resign. I don't believe editor-in-chief, David Remnick, said anything about her outright display of hatred for men.

This isn't the first time Killingsworth has expressed extraordinarily rude views. When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died she tweeted this -

It would be interesting to learn how much Killingsworth actually knows about Scalia besides whatever talking points she's heard through the grapevine. It's not if she's a law/political nerd and keeps tracks on what SCOTUS judges say, and I doubt she has read any of Scalia's books. I say this because the people who are broadcasting their psychopathic thoughts aren't even lawyers or professional activists, but just "political" in the sense that they're surface thinkers.

I would also not be surprised if her only exposure to Scalia was his dissent towards Obergefell v Hodges, where the faces of the four justices that dissented were put on paper, blown up and marched through a victory parade in the following days to show their supposed bigotry.

With people like Killingsworth I always wonder what drives to be bitter. I sense that it's partially due to her own work environment, publishing being a very liberal world, and maybe her own upbringing and most likely her university experience. Either way she's someone who I don't want to meet nor do I think she'll be a "catch" for any man simply for the fact her twitter makes her into some kind of pathological bitch.

CAF: The gift that keeps on giving.

Interacting with atheists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, socially liberal Catholics and non-denominational Christians makes my brain question why there is grey matter, all the while destroying my grey matter.

Can such people just say, "Who gives a shit? Well, only when ones feelings are hurt and when LGBT aren't given their way or if there's a lack of support." Too bad I can't tell them I stupid they are directly.

RIP Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia (March 11, 1936 - February 13, 2016) 

Associate Justice of the SCOTUS (September 26, 1986 – February 13, 2016)

Appointed by Ronald M. Reagan 

Preceded by William Rehnquist

Below are Scalia's Hearing Days in regards to his nomination, held on August 5 - 6, 1986.



Day 1 Part 2 -



Day 2 -

Gloating. It's what "the other" does.

As in The Left.

On Twitter,  Clarence Thomas (#ClarenceThomas) has been trending after the death of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia this evening. Why? He's been showing up on the "death lists" of leftist who are rejoicing over Scalia's passing. Why the animosity towards the man? He wasn't like Chief Justice Ginsburg, the most liberal Chief Justice.

Besides the making the "death lists," other liberals are mocking Thomas on how he's going to function since they believe that Scalia was the one influencing Thomas' rulings in the past 25 years.

After unabashedly supporting abortion (some supporting partial abortion up till delivery), same-sex "marriage," the great support of having children in one's 30s (for a woman) or not having children at all, it's hard not to say The Left is The Cult of Death. Add in many are irreligious or are atheists. Darkness indeed. But they got the rainbow freak flag flying high, though.

The Social Prog.

Marriage: Just a piece of paper. Okay, let's get a little "deeper." A commitment between two (or more) people out of love.

Sex: Skin slapping. Can mean love or just casual sex out of mere pleasure.

Baby: Goo. Clump of cells. Can be aborted even up until delivery if it threatens the mother's life.

But we have to really care about the starving kids in Africa, the refugees of global warming, the supposed wage inequality between men & women and the "rights" of the LGBT community.

There is nothing. Welcome to Progress.

In celebration of Fiorina suspending her presidential campaign, the editor of Think Progress - Jeff Legum - goes to social media to express his jubilation.

Carly Fiorina's campaign is dead and Planned Parenthood is alive

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) February 10, 2016

Fiorina, out of all the GOP candidates, was the most outspoken against Planned Parenthood. Due to this some think of her as a horrible person (see: reactions to Legum's tweet). 

Mark this as proof that Legum's upbringing and formal education has failed him; and that his own opinions show a psychology that needs some serious therapy.

Someone said, "Pro-abortion advocates are utter ghouls." I agree. These fuckers are ghouls.

Thanks feminism, you made men stupid.

And men who are already stupid, well, you just became more stupid. If ...

Men who are supporting women to be put into selective-service are bringing forth horrid, horrid arguments.

A good majority of the arguments that I've come across are balancing on one thing: anger towards feminism and their push for "equality." The argument goes like this -

Man: Why is it okay to send our boys overseas to get killed? Isn't it sexism to value one sex over another and think one sex is less capable?

That pretty much how it goes.

Well here's one thing, I'll go back in time actually during the colonial period, men were the fighters. I'll fast forward from that time period and go to WWII. Men were the fighters. They were the drafted ones. I'll creep forward to a more present time when the Gulf War happened where both men and women were sent overseas. At that time combat roles were all men. The USA didn't have a draft because they didn't need one. Women were mostly in supporting roles if they chose to join the military. Let's go back a little before the Gulf Wars and look at Vietnam. There was a draft and all the draftees were men. Most became infantry because that's what drafts are for: to fulfill infantry positions.

I don't think Man understands what the draft is actually for and what jobs, when the draft happens, are mostly for infantry. But Man is stupid and goes on to say, "But they can draft the women as nurses. In WWII that almost happened ... " I don't know if women were 'almost' drafted in WWII, but I do know there was an agenda to fill nursing roles by all the propaganda posters.  I don't believe there is a shortage in the nursing corps, so I having a huge influx of female nurses is pretty stupid. Man doesn't take into account that since women are allowed to be in combat roles that combat roles, if they were to register for the draft, would be open to them and that to exclude them from that MOS would defeat the logic of retard Ashton Carter and all the feminists.

When men support the drafting of women they fulfill the feminists Utopia because they support this bizarre notion of "equality" on horrid arguments. For whatever reason they're angry that "our boys" die. Welcome to war. All of a sudden you're for co-ed drafts. For what reason? "Because our boys die!" Okay, what if we send puppies? Men who support this are just as horrible as the feminists who really don't give a darn about the lives that are at stake, just that "equality" is accomplished. Men like Man are idiots for failing to recognize that they helping feminists win.

If you're pissed at the feminists who push for equality, backing up further insane "equality" metrics renders your backlash from feminism is pointless. Here's what you do: You don't support the drafting of women and debate that accepting women into combat roles was a horrid decision. It's like saying you're all for socialized healthcare because you're pissed at Obama, and you want all the people to suffer under a healthcare system you don't like in order to prove that it was a horrid plan.

One side is feminism calling for "equality." The other side is full of  idiots calling for the drafting of women because they're pissed "our boys" go to war but not "our women." Well, women do go to war, just not in conscription form (as of today). They voluntarily join the military and, if fates have it, deploy in a war zone.

The Sorting Hat & How Fanboyism Creates Children

Over at Castalia House, contributor Anthony has written about the much underrated and overlooked Hogwart's House, Hufflepuff. It's a really nice read, so check it out if you have the time.

His article inspired me to take the Sorting Hat "quiz," which placed me in Gryffindor. I later went to the wand portion of Pottermore to receive my wand. The wand that "chose" me after a series of questions was made of Acacia wood with a Phoenix feather core.

The Pottermore site, in late January, has been re-booted since its inception in 2011, with J.K. Rowling herself making the questions for the Sorting Hat. In the initial version of the sorting the questions weren't under her care and with this change the new version is seen as more legitimate.

When I took the quiz I was too preoccupied on answering the questions honestly, not trying to game the system in order to get into a particular house. I was too intrigued in the process to worry about whether or not I'd be a Slytherin or a Ravenclaw. Whatever house I was sorted into I would accept, even if it weren't my preference (if I had to choose I'd pick Hufflepuff).

Regarding the questions, I was met with some random ones that gave me no background, as in "heads or tails?" so I made up scenarios of what "heads" would be and what "tails" would be.  In this case I thought of "heads" to be the on the forefront, the popular one, the one that the public recognizes. The "tails" part I pictured as behind-the-scenes where the work was done in order for the "heads" to function. I picked "tails." That was my reasoning to that particular question.

I later learned that the reincarnation of the Sorting Hat "quiz" created some identity problems to those who already thought of themselves belonging to one house, or those that took the 2011 version and was sorted into another. There are debates that the quiz practices random selectivity while others say it's a decent mini-Meyer Briggs test. People who thought of themselves as Ravenclaws and were re-sorted into, say, Slytherin seem offended. Badgers turned into lions! Oh my!

I understand that people have grown attached to a particular house given how the books framed the identity of each, but these aren't teenagers or pre-teens having issues. Grown adults with full-time jobs paying taxes are putting on their frown face. Would I liked to have been sorted to Hufflepuff? Yes. When Gryffindor showed up I was surprised yet a little disappointed, but after a couple of minutes I accepted it and proceeded to get my wand, a far more interesting aspect of the two processes in my eyes. Over at Vox Day, this post summed it up well (quote within post) -

What Rowling really, really nailed is what magic would look like to a child. The nonsensical plots and world building largely result from this, and I think a lot of it was intentional. It was, after all, a series aimed at children. The hardcore love of the series from adults is a sign of a generation (or more than one, since it's huge with both Boomers and Millennials) that hasn't fully grown up.

To be clear, I say that as a fan of the series - but not a hardcore fan.

I attribute the recent "identity crisis" (and hours of discussion dedicated to it) as proof of this Peter Pan mentality.

As you read the virtues of each house, one should be honored to be accepted into either one despite initial wants. A reasonable mind would notice that even the average person would excel in any number of houses, not just one, since the virtues can overlap, and as people age and experience life the less dominant virtues can surface given their predicament. If it weren't for Rowling's simplistic division of "good vs bad" guys, Gryffindor vs Slytherin, the supporting cast of Ravenclaws and the emasculation of Hufflepuff this "identity crisis" would be less fervent.

Once we just focus on the virtues,we discover that each house is admirable. A well-balanced person would wear their house colors with pride even if they thought of themselves as a Hufflepuff who was sorted into Gryffindor.

Let me use these two houses as examples. Hufflepuff is said to value "hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play." That's all well and good. I already have some of these virtues and some I want to refine. Let's look at Gryffindor.  The house "values bravery, daring, nerve, and chivalry." I think that's amazing. I consider myself chivalrous and to some extent  brave. But daring and having nerves? Maybe. I ca see myself excelling in Gryffindor since I enjoy sports (Gryffindor is seen as the jock house). I think self-sacrifice is important, especially for one's country, so I can attribute that standard to a "Gryffindor-esque" quality.

How about Ravenclaw and Slytherin? I will say that I hold some of their virtues as well. My love of learning, for learning's sake, is within me. There are certain things I want to accomplish and resourcefulness is something I've grown to appreciate. A man who isn't resourceful is a stunted man in my eyes.

After all the "you can't define me/put me in a box" and the initial "no labels" movement it is telling -hypocritical mostly - on how people are passionate (as one writer puts it) to stay with a given house based on certain virtues, as if those virtues totally define you. And this is over fictionalized world-building. Have fun with it, learn about your given house. To agonize over it in the guise of "passion" is to further ignore reality and to demonstrate a lack of perspective.

It also makes me picture a child with his mother at a candy shop, holding her hand, with tears in eyes screaming, "No, I want that one! The big one! No! The red and blue one!" as he stomps his feet and points wildly. It's candy kid, calm down. Your mom's buying you a piece regardless. She doesn't have to, but she's doing it because she loves you. Or that if she doesn't you won't shut up.

I find the amount of heartache over being resorted a bit embarrassing. Being sorted into one house doesn't dictate or say you lack any virtue that another prides itself for. After all, if there's any spectrum within the human condition it's the spectrum of potential.

I believe I've written enough about the houses, so I'll pay my attention to my wand, which, as I said, was a far more interesting result than being put into Gryffindor. My wand, a wand made out of Acacia wood with a Phoenix core, 10" long and flexible sounds badass. According to the Pottermore wiki site,

A very unusual wand wood, which I have found creates tricky wands that often refuse to produce magic for any but their owner, and also withhold their best effects from all but those most gifted. This sensitivity renders them difficult to place, and I keep only a small stock for those witches or wizards of sufficient subtlety, for acacia is not suited to what is commonly known as 'bangs-and-smells' magic. When well-matched, an acacia wand matches any for power, though it is often underrated due to the peculiarity of its temperament.

Truly interesting. How about the Phoenix core?

This is the rarest core type. Phoenix feathers are capable of the greatest range of magic, though they may take longer than either unicorn or dragon cores to reveal this. They show the most initiative, sometimes acting of their own accord, a quality that many witches and wizards dislike.

Phoenix feather wands are always the pickiest when it comes to potential owners, for the creature from which they are taken is one of the most independent and detached in the world. These wands are the hardest to tame and to personali[s]e, and their allegiance is usually hard won.

On my wand length and flexibility -

Many wandmakers simply match the wand length to the size of the witch or wizard who will use it, but this is a crude measure, and fails to take into account many other, important considerations. In my experience, longer wands might suit taller wizards, but they tend to be drawn to bigger personalities, and those of a more spacious and dramatic style of magic. Neater wands favour more elegant and refined spell-casting. However, no single aspect of wand composition should be considered in isolation of all the others, and the type of wood, the core and the flexibility may either counterbalance or enhance the attributes of the wand’s length.

Most wands will be in the range of between nine and fourteen inches. While I have sold extremely short wands (eight inches and under) and very long wands (over fifteen inches), these are exceptionally rare. In the latter case, a physical peculiarity demanded the excessive wand length. However, abnormally short wands usually select those in whose character something is lacking, rather than because they are physically undersized (many small witches and wizards are chosen by longer wands).

Wand flexibility or rigidity denotes the degree of adaptability and willingness to change possessed by the wand-and-owner pair - although, again, this factor ought not to be considered separately from the wand wood, core and length, nor of the owner’s life experience and style of magic, all of which will combine to make the wand in question unique.

On numerous tumblr wand analysis sites, they deem anything within 9-10" as a lack of confidence or character. If people have issues with being sorted in the wrong house I find this metric lazy; it's the bigger offense. (Ideally I would've preferred my wand to be between 11-12".) I also find it a little counter-intuitive. If you lack self-esteem and you get a short wand that corresponds to that mental weakness, that wouldn't actually help the situation. And if you had a lot of confidence - and turn out to be a somewhat overrated wizard - that 11"+ would be a misnomer.

Besides that qualm I'm rather pleased with my wand. A rare wood that only answers to its master, needs subtlety to function, paired with a Phoenix core - an interesting combination. As with the flexibility, meh. The description made sense until it pulled the "ya know, it all kinda depends on where the person is coming from ... " card. In other words it's hot air. It goes one way, then another, then it says it's both.

With all that said, I shall hunt for a handmade Gryffindor scarf, for the weather outside calls for it.

Note: J.K. Rowling was sorted into Hufflepuff despite her thinking that if anyone was a Gryffindor it would be her. Now, that seems like entitlement. Slytherin, anyone?

The stupidity of The Right (or non-progs) concerning "equality."

 Rated PG-13 for crude language.

This is about conscription of women.

There is a faction within The Right that are cheering on the drafting of women. Why?

"Let the feminists get what they deserve!"

Well, by that reasoning you should also support women in combat roles under "equal opportunity." You should also acknowledge that there are no major differences between a man and woman. You should also burrow away any tenderness you have towards a woman because they are just human beings - nothing special. Feed 'em to the wolves. In fact, you should stop caring about almost everything.

I know there are some who have been in the military and see this as a good thing. It's equal opportunity in their eyes and they are all for women wanting to serve their country. Of course there's the story of a mother and daughter who wanted to sign up for the selective service. First, this mother and daughter are egotistical assholes. If the daughter truly wanted to serve she should've joined the military straight out of high school or join ROTC in college. Second, who the fuck is pissed that they can't join the selective service? Is this for real? And to those who have served or are currently serving who support such a thing: you're dabbling in the moronic corner. The dunce hat is a few feet away from you. It's white and shaped like a cone. It says "DUNCE" on it.

There are those that act like women are being held back from serving their country; they aren't. They can serve in any branch and in any component. Before December 2015, all of the jobs were open to women save for infantry and SFs. There was no long petition from women wanting to tryout for the Rangers, SEALs, PJs or the Green Berets. As always, there will be those in active duty who support women in combat roles saying things like "It's not about ones sex or gender. It's about their willingness to serve and their character." You're right. And I bet you also support the laughable reality that is same-sex "marriage." There are idiot servicemen, so beware of them when asking about "equality" since they too are not immune to stupidity. They will then tell a story of a some rare female unicorn that can take on a 6'3 11B. Sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we have are people who The Left crave for: idiots. They need people who don't think things through to in order prevail. 

Personally, the thought of knowing that women are going to be conscripted is sickening. It's true, I view women differently than men. Men fought in the lines of WWII and the survivors of that war said they would never want others to experience what they did. Yet if WWIII breaks out, or if a woman in the combat role is deployed, such a wish is shattered. It's one thing to let men go off to war and fight in the front-lines, getting ripped about by shrapnel and bullets. It's another thing to out women in that exact same position.

Fools who support drafting women will say, "What if there's a Red Dawn?" So now you treat that prospect with respect? People mocked those who stood up for the 2nd Amendment. "Look there's not gonna be a Red Dawn you fools ... You don't all those guns." Now, when met with "woman power" the Red Dawn scenario is taken seriously. Fuck you. Even if there was a Red Dawn that's what our volunteer military is far. 1% of the population, those of age, are in the military, be it active or part-time. Now all of a sudden serving in the military is real fucking important. (Sorta like how marriage was all of a sudden important when same-sex "marriage" was being pushed.) That's what the National Guard is for. That's what the 2nd Amendment is far (but the leftists wants that taken away).

This isn't me thinking women are helpless, fragile beings.  This is me thinking women are innately different than men, both emotionally, mentally and physically, and that seeing a woman ripped apart by an RPG is a rather sickening reality. War is already sickening, why make it more so? Some will say, "Are boys lives less valuable to the nation?" Yes and no. Males were meant for war, if need be. Conscription was mainly to fill combat roles. You will have the idiots who try to say, "Well they can make a clause saying that women can be exemplified from combat roles." Bullshit. That's you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Infantry is special - that's where most of the Medal of Honor are given, mainly for the direct reality facing the opposition. Infantry is "the classic" MOS branch. Without it the military wouldn't be "the military." That's where Dick Winters gained his legendary status alongside E Company. That's where Captain William Swenson showed his compassion for his fellow wounded soldier. I sense that the hard-line feminists and the fools want in on this as well. They want to see the a female infantry Medal of Honor recipient.

Women, as the late General Robert H. Barrow said, give life, not take it (unless you count abortion). I am not willing to dismiss tradition and the status quo for this type of "progress." It's not progress. It's devolution. A nation who conscripts there females is a nation who has lost their moral compass, the true north, for "equality." Equality, like diversity, is utter bullshit when practiced the modern way.

I can go all conspiracy and say that it was all planned, that shrinking the military and slowly eroding the 2nd Amendment was to allow women into combat roles and to justify the drafting of women. If the citizens of the US don't have guns and are helpless to defend themselves then send in Wonder Woman! See, the allowing of women into combat roles works! See, conscripting women works - now we have enough military personnel AND these women are "being all they can be"!

Back to reality.

As Jude Eden points out there are military careerists who want the promotion, who want to be known as "that person who helped usher in 'progress.'" There are generals who deny that it's about quotas and political correctness, but about access - to build a future that was once denied (sound familiar? See: Chief Justice Anthony's Obergefell v Hodges approval), forgetting that their bases of "access" is political correctness.

When foolish men run the country (Obama, Chief Justice Anthony) you get a shitty society. When you have foolish men who are in charge of the military (Carter, Mabus, Neller) you help destroy the greatest military force on the planet. And all under the guise of "progress" and (not "equality") but "equal opportunity." There's a slight change in words, but the shift is important because it frames a demographic that's propped up as a victim and if we allowed such changes we'd be a better nation for it. Or they say.

Ashton Carter's order to allow women in combat roles under "equal opportunity" will be a decision that will be bemoaned (silently by those with a sane mind) in future decades. General Neller's call to open the draft to women will be looked upon as a careerist move. It has nothing to do with making the nation's military force stronger or more efficient. If WWII did not need women on the front-lines let alone conscripted why now? There is no need. There are only needs that are fabricated.

Equality, the usage of it in the modern sense, must be relegated to dustbins of history, only to be acknowledged of what not to do.

Priorities are a strange thing.

When there is an active agenda to make the US military smaller, there is an active agenda to push women into combat roles and into selective service aka the draft/conscription.

You would think that such a vital institution with such a vital cause would be the last place to have social experiments or to pathetically use the line "equal opportunity," and if major changes were to be made it would come slowly with much debate, discussion and small vetted experiments to assure honest conclusions.

These changes have come to the marriage & family as well.

Yet there is no active change for "equality," to combine differences, in say professional sports like the NFL, NHL or the NBA. There are no serious discussions in the near future to combine Best Actor and Best Actress as one category - Best Performance in a Film - for the Oscars and other industry awards. None. There is no serious push to combine women's MMA division with men. These institutions and mediums of entertainment are untouched and yet they are the least important to what makes society function. Shouldn't they be the ones to be subject of unfettered social experimentation? They aren't. Why is that?

Changes have occurred in occupations that deal with life and death. Firemen. Police force. The military. The have come to institutions that deal with child rearing. Any backlash is deemed sexist or in the name of bigotry. Proponents hide under the ever feel-good, so-called enlightened concept of equal opportunity.

Something is up and all of it is being done in the name of "progress."

Why change one of the most lethal institution? Why subject women, as late General Robert H. Barrow once said, to death?

This past January, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus ordered that the Marine Corps to do away with separate training grounds for women and men Marines, both in boot camp and Officer Training School, in order make them co-ed. But sleeping and shower quarters are to remain single sex. Hmmm.

Mabus served two years in the Navy in the 1970s. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law.

US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, is a Yale graduate and received his doctorate from Oxford University in the sciences. He has never served in the military.

Between these two, there is a total of 128 years being on this planet (Mabus, 67; Carter 61). There is only two years total of military experience between each. Both have been appointed by Obama. Both are Democrats.

Chicago Archdiocese: Low priest numbers, possible church closings. And NCR.

The third largest Catholic archdiocese in the USA (after LA & NYC) is facing possible closings of multiple churches due to a lack of priests and building dilapidations reported by the Chicago Tribune. This is horrid news and I cannot but feel that the multiple closings are inevitable, as what happened to the NYC Archdiocese a few years ago. I will pray that some will be saved and that young men will be inspired to enter the vocation of priesthood. If there's a calling for employment and need, this is one area that really needs it. (Do you clergy show up as a national statistic as jobs?)

Now, I want to concentrate on the link. The link brings you to the National Catholic Reporter, not known as an orthodox or traditional Catholic news site. The mentality of the commentators in the comment box further proves that heretics are within the Church and if the patriarchy of the Church would just embrace "progress" the Church's health, the numbers of vocations and membership would increase, creating a more modern atmosphere and reflecting the makeup of America both in plurality, skin color and sexual orientation. This sounds mightily familiar.

Poster "AP" commented on the lack of diversity and supposed exclusion of almost every group that that Episcopalians

And most of us are moving toward progress and away from the past. Visioning church as: "inclusive and harmonious, respecting and appreciating diversity in all its forms as an asset in worship and community life" is a great theory. Means nothing until laity, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, all stand up for said diversity and insist on equal value in our church for women, LGBTQ, married priests, children, and people of color. Heartbreaking to lose what we had because the Catholic church cannot move into the new century.

Yea, how are the sects and congregations that put "social justice" and inclusion as their rallying cry look like? Not good. The US Episcopalian Church is in much worse shape, priest wise and membership wise. So go fuck yourself you may want to re-think that, AP.

Another poster, "Patricksday," said a lot of stuff but showed his true face near the end -

And when we heal our Hearts and Minds that have been damaged by misguided information from the Celibates of the Catholic Church we have the power and freedom to find healthy ways to connect with God and Jesus that do not torture us and reject us. The Catholic Church management believes God makes junk and its up to them to make us "perfect" as they view it. God who Loved us so much to craft us each uniquely to bring Joy, Peace, Laughter and Happiness to a dark world, the Church would rather have us be lowly down trotten victims, attending morbid boring repetitive services, with people who cant even extend the sign of Peace with each other, because of the lack of Joy the Catholic Faith seems to bring to their lives. The Catholic Bishops who find joy lost in the past that no longer exists for the majority of Humanity are bringing this tired old relic down by them self and are doing a fine job of it, Jesus would be proud! We will have Peace on Earth and Humanity is coming together to make that happen, sadly the Roman Catholic Church is not leading the way, its lost in the past that no longer exists. Pope Francis has made an effort, but all the people put in place by John Paul and Benedict had their own back to basics plan with Nuns in full habit, couture gowns, gloves hats, slippers and arrogance one would expect. Thankfully that plan serves the smaller fanatical Catholic Church that is being formed in limited locations[.]

Blah blah blah spirituality blah blah blah look a squirrel blah blah blah archaic traditions & rules blah blah blah Jebus blah blah blah dressing in full habits is for the small group of fanatics.

Hmmm. I believe that the full habit orders are actually increasing, slowly, while the orders who embrace modern dress are not seeing such growth. In fact, seeing nuns in full habit have inspired young women to consider cloistered life as a serious possibility.

Rare opportunity to purchase American made items.

Something I have noticed but didn't think much of is the items being made to promote POTUS candidates are being made in America.

 I haven't visited each candidate's store (and not every candidate has a POTUS site), but I do know that the official Donald Trump hat is made in America as well as Hillary Clinton's items. Marco Rubio has a "Wake up, America!" cup that is the most neutral item in self-promotion amongst all the items I've seen in any store. Bernie Sanders lets potential buyers know that his own merchandise is specifically union-made.

Hillary + 6 coin tosses

Hillary Clinton won six coin tosses to win Iowa's primary. In order to win every coin toss in six tries the chances are one in 64, or 1.56%.

In Chicago the dead vote, so the (D)'s know how to rig the voting process in order to gain their W.

With Bernie Sanders he's promising free college education. Now if that includes graduate school on the master's level then my vote goes to ... Ted Cruz.

Hollywood Reporter's #OscarsSoWhite Edition

Just yesterday I was banned from The Hollywood Reporter.

I was commenting on one of Scott Feinberg's articles about the recent diversity movement happening within AMPAS, and movies & tv in general. It turns out, when responding to another person, if you write "It's Scott. This is Scott we're talking here. Scott," it will issue a ban from the site. Now, I'm a little disappointed because I wanted to comment on other articles that had headlines that were straight out ridiculous in regards to #OscarsSoWhite.

#OscarsSoWhite: Why Black Films Have to Be About MLK and White Movies Can Be About a Mop Inventor (the picture is offensive)

#OscarsSoWhite: Academy Chiefs Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Drama That Led to Historic Change (Exclusive) with tagline "We Could Not Be Silent." Can you feel how serious this issue is?

Working in Hollywood When You're Not White: Three Players Reveal All with the tagline "Is Hollywood Racist? America is Racist."

Oscars' Diversity Dilemma: A Mathematical Solution to Parity in Voting played the "old, white male" voting demographic as one major reason why the nominations tend to be white. I predicted it here.

There's much to be said about these articles.

I don't know if my comment, mentioned above, was the reason I was banned since I checked my comment history, and discovered that that was the only one on HR that was removed. Whatever Scott read into my comment apparently he took it as an insult. I assume that he thought I was implying he's racist (another poster said his lack of coverage of the supposed lack of diversity in Hollywood was concerning, to which he listed links to his articles talking about it). If so, he's wrong.

I also find it amusing because it shows that movie journalists, if white, take issue of themselves being accused of racism but not the industry that creates their income. They're the non-racists ones. The producers and the suits? Racists. They  think of themselves as the white knights, the light house watching over the passing ships that sheds light into the distance to guide them. That's my guess into the minds of people like Scott Feinberg.

#SAGWinnersSoBlack

No lie.

I'm not sure when votes were cast for the SAG awards (nominations were announced late last year), but it's awfully strange that after the uproar of the 2016 Oscar votes for the acting lineup being "too white," complaining that institutional racism and lack of diversity was a serious issue, that this happened.

Every category a black actor was nominated for a singular performance was won by a black actor. This was present in five categories:

1. Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (Idris Elba)

2. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series (Uzo Aduba)

3. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series (Viola Davis)
4. Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries (Idris Elba)
5. Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries (Queen Latifah)

I would guess this was a makeup for the all-white winner lineup come Oscar night. Save for Best Actor, Actress and Supporting Actress, only Best Supporting Actor at the SAG Awards had a black actor nominated.

The only category that did win with an almost all black cast was Straight Outta Compton and Beast of No Nation for Outstanding Cast Performance in a Motion Picture. That win went to Spotlight.

#OscarsSoWhite was mostly targeted for the lack of dark skin pigment in the acting categories, so it makes sense to have the actors who aren't white sweep in the categories voted by their fellow peers if we go by modern liberal logic. The apologizing has begun and looking at the winners I can't help but think "You probably won because of the uproar." Without the uproar I bet it would not have been a sweep.

Similar to the administration at Yale and Mizzou, the complaints were heard. The demands were set. The demands were met. The children are getting what they want. And the children feel smug and (somewhat) satisfied. Academia and entertainment - two industries that are dominated by modern liberals, showing how "justice" is done.

And to take advantage of the "mostly black" theme, let's look at the 2016 NBA All-Star roster. It's not "mostly black," it's all black if we don't count old white guy Gregg Popovich. Where's the uproar from the white players? Last year's roster was "diverse," both in race and in nationality.

I would guess if next years All-Star roster is all black maybe April Reign, the woman who started #OscarsSoWhite, would be filled with indignation and start a new hashtag -- #NBAAll-StarSoBlack. It would be the second year in a row if such a thing were to happen, so I hope Reign is paying attention.

American Thinker: Hijacked or Editors actively Humping Trump

As I write this, on February 1, 2016, about every article published on this date questioning Donald Trump's merit and winning chances as the GOP nominee has been met with a "HTTP 404" message. 404 is basically an unknown link destination. Every article either neutral to Trump or in favor can be reached. I have the evidence.

Ed Lasky's "Trump screws everyone but himself."

And it goes on with other like-minded articles printed on February 1st.

All of these are met with the same 404 message.

Douglas Schwartz' "Trump Listens" is reachable. Bruce Walker's article is fine. Peggy Ryan, who has written mostly about supporting Trump (whose first AT article was about amnesty back in November 2014), "Trump or Cruz: Who Is the winning Quarterback?" works. Marie M. Kane's article entitled "Trump and the American Identity" is a valid link.

Other articles criticizing Hillary or any international affair is also a 404 victim. (Foreign policy not being Trump's forte.)