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I already know that i'll get responses from the most stupid humans in existence, pumping up America and making lots of outdated ignorant mongy references to England, despite the fact you'll reply in my language lol.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