The boogey-man that is the alt-right.

A Catholic blogger Haley who runs the Catholic blog called Carrots for Michealmas posted her thoughts on the alt-ight this past October. I have some issues with it, and much more with the comments that followed. It was the typical normie talk when it came to politics, believing the media and normie politic chatter that white supremacy is a growing issue in America. Here's what she had to say.

The title of the post: "Why Catholics Should Be Aware of (and Denounce) the White Supremacist Ideology of the Alt-Right." Okay, not a bad start. I would agree with this. Haley saw a drawing by an artist named Jinjer Zilla that pictured a family - white one. But it wasn't the color of the family that made her feel uncomfortable. She writes -

The other day I was scrolling through Facebook when I saw an image of a family. The caption added by my Catholic Facebook friend was the beautiful quote by Pope St John Paul II “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” This particular quote communicates a beautiful Catholic view of family, but the image accompanying it immediately made me hesitate.

It was a drawing featuring a dad, pregnant mom, and young children with a banner stating: “This Is How We Save the West” I felt that something was off immediately.

“This Is How We Save the West….This isn’t usually the way a Catholic describes the blessing of large families and openness to life,” I thought to myself.  “Where have I heard that rhetoric before?” Something in the wording made me uneasy. What is meant by “the west?” Are we talking about Christian Culture as preserved in the Catholic Church? I knew in the pit of my stomach that this was not the case. This isn’t an image in support of big Catholic families, I realized, this is about white supremacy.

That's quite the jump. As a non-white I will say that I will agree with the initial meaning of Zilla's picture - families are a key in "saving" the West. I'll even say that saving the West is vitally important to the world. But given how any alt-right or any meme not championing multiculturalism is deemed as ethnocentric if not racist, Haley's senses understandable if not wrong. She searched for his twitter account and concluded -

It was steeped in the most vile alt-right rhetoric and the thread with the image I saw was a string of his followers applauding the “white baby challenge,” bemoaning the existence of minorities, and speaking fearfully of the rate at which Africans are procreating and what should be done about it.

 I've searched for his twitter too and it seems he does hold views that are not necessarily mainstream conservative e.g. post about Obama and his supposed birth in Kenya not Hawaii, but then again I'm not sure how the Catholic friend reposting the artist's picture supports the artist's other political stances. Zilla's website and twitter says he's a patriot, well, maybe the Catholic friend is one as well so their interests align.

Now I do think Haley misses the point the artist's and those reposting with concern of minority babies outnumbering whites. Haley shows pictures of replies citing birth rates of minorities but she ignores what this means demographically, culturally and politically. In fact, every single post in agreement with Haley does not mention anything about it; they just talk about loving our neighbor (true).

The problem with the image is not that it’s a depiction of a white family. Images that don’t include people of color are not somehow automatically racist. My family is white. Do I have to be suspicious of the photographs on our home’s walls of my family? Obviously not. A drawing of a white family featuring Pope St. John Paul II’s quote supporting passing our faith on to the next generation isn’t problematic. But THIS image was because of what the artist intended to communicate.

Church teaching on sexuality sometimes leads Catholic families to be bigger than contemporary cultural norms, but that’s not the same message at the heart of white nationalism that promotes large families in an effort to preserve the white race as a form of conquest. There’s a gigantic difference between the Catholic view of family and vocation and this image advertising for large white families to “save the West.”

Here’s an example of another image of a happy family with the text “Healthy Parents, Healthy Children.”

 Haley continues -

Certainly no one is against smiling families or wellness! But a closer look at the fine print reveals an exhortation to comply with sterilization laws to prevent non-ideal offspring. This is an image created with the intention to promote eugenics: large, healthy Aryan families are the goal. You probably knew right away that this is WWII Nazi propaganda and could discern its REAL message without even knowing what the text says.  We have the cultural context to recognize it for what it is. But the language used by the modern alt-right may not be as familiar–hence why the image of the white family saving the west may not immediately be a red flag.

Whoa whoa whoa! This is the same lazy thinking of those who said Trump was literally Hitler because they compared his style of rhetoric and with Hitler finding similarities, hence Trump is Hitler. I don't know what Zilla's thoughts are about abortion, its types and if he is Margaret Sanger sympathizer, but Haley just drove off the curve a bit here.

My Facebook friend certainly didn’t know that the image he posted was created to communicate a white supremacist message and took it down immediately when I explained the artists ideology–something he wanted nothing to do with.

 Phew! Right? Not really.

But I was perplexed. Do intelligent, faithful Catholics not know about the alt-right? I sent the image to a few Catholic friends and asked, “would you have known right away that there was something wrong with this image?” Some said yes, but many said no. It wouldn’t have even crossed their minds that the image was anything more than support for openness to life.

 So your friend is just guilty by association and somehow is being subtly brainwashed into #WhiteCulture.  I don't believe not knowing the artist is a #WhiteCulture type renders intelligent Catholics not knowing what the "tricks" of the alt-right. I have sure Haley knows no more about the alt-right than Ben Shapiro (who think the alt-right is mostly about white supremacy) and the MSM (who really have no clue what the alt-right is).

What’s tricky is that the terms get crossed. My friends probably interpreted “the west” as “western Christianity.” They weren’t aware that the people who created the image were selling an ideology about the superiority of white people–what the alt-right means by “the West.” 

No, "the West" means Western civilization and western culture. 

But aren’t those white supremacists people just a few crazies shooting their mouths off in the cesspool of Twitter? No. I think it’s very easy for your average white person to be unaware of the prevalence of white nationalism today in the insidious subculture of the alt-right. But, my friends, I’m telling you about it right now. If you’re not aware, it’s time to become aware. I’m begging you to hear me out with an open heart.

The alt-right is often dismissed out of hand as a small group of fringe extremists rather than a growing and terrifying ideology. The neo-Nazis marching with torchs are dismissed as just a few nutcases rather than representatives of a real movement. And it’s not just the neo-nazis, the alt-right has many defenders and is creeping into more mainstream demographics.

  This sounds like fear mongering which is the product of a unsound understanding of what the alt-right is and sad lack of perspective of all things socially political.

Being aware of the warped and disgusting ideology of contemporary white supremacy would help you know that this image wasn’t advocating for intact families, or even large families, it was advocating for white families which for white nationalism are the only families worth having around.  It’s the context of the ideologies currently gaining traction that should make us skeptical of the twisted alt-right rhetoric.

Look, I don't support the alt-right white nationalists but it's not a concern of mine. Your suspicions are your own fear acting up. 

A lot of this is hard to see and the rhetoric is so subtle that it’s easy to miss, hence the confused response many of my friends had to this image and how easily it was accepted as promoting something good. Isn’t that the way evil works? Taking something that’s good and warping and perverting it? It’s nuanced. No one’s coming out and saying, “Look we hate the Jews and people of color.” Even the Nazi propaganda image I shared is speaking in positives: “healthy families!” Who can argue with that? The alt-right is far more subtle and dependent on predominantly true statements and good things slowly twisted into something incredibly dangerous and damaging. I find the idea that this could seep into Catholic culture positively terrifying. 

This is some paranoia taking. 

One reason some people are perhaps susceptible to this imagery is that it wears the veneer of “tradition.” A fetishization of 1950s white culture espoused by the alt-right overlaps somewhat with perfectly innocuous or positive things: prioritizing family life, cooking at home, and other things that my rather traditional Catholic family also practices. A perfect example might be some of the social media celebrities of the “tradlife” movement. If you take a look at @apurposefulwife on Twitter, for example, you’ll see a woman’s feed lauding 50s fashion, carving pumpkins with your kids, enjoying being a stay-at-home mom and…..white supremacy.

So a handful that use #tradlife also support white supremacy. Oh dear. I searched for #tradlife on twitter and, yes, the mentioned twitter account is the one that mostly uses it but so do others who give no mention or signs of white supremacy.

Her feed seems mostly harmless and silly until you see the posts that reference “our people” and conclude with bizarre racial claims promoting white nationalism. You’d think she’s just some crazy woman on the internet, but she had over 30,000 rabid fans following her bizarre tweets.

 Rabid fans? So you call her followers "rabid" because you strongly disagree with her views. It's sorta like Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable because they don't follow the "enlightened" view. 30K is small compared to public figures who have millions of followers that hang onto their word. I'm on twitter and follow people who could be deemed racist by the left but it doesn't mean I agree with what they say.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with appreciating a 50s aesthetic. However, we must recognize that this time period was chosen as the ideal age for white nationalists for a reason. It was a period of strong economic growth in this country but also a time when minorities were not yet appearing in advertisements.

And it was the time when traditional value and concepts were more accepted and respected.

White supremacists want to sell you their movement and what better way than the ready-made, whites-only advertisements of the 50s? We have to be careful not to idolize a 50s aesthetic if it’s warping into a toxic ideology. (As well as acknowledge that the 50s was no golden age for many Americans.)

See my statement above. Italicized my emphasis: speaking of "heard it before", I've heard this before from people who are prone to falling for the multicultural is grand rhetoric and who tend to be politically naive. No offense, Haley.

So if you love eating meatloaf as a family (hand raised), or covet Betty Draper’s wardrobe (hand raised again), be loud and proud about it! But be aware of how the alt-right is co-opting the rhetoric of traditionalism and worshipping the negative facets of 50s cultural mores (such as rampant racial inequality) that have no place in Catholic culture.

True. Finally you've said something that emotes reason.

Be skeptical of language that calls for the salvation of “western civilization.” Recognize that when these people are talking about saving “the West,” what they mean is preserving white power. We need to understand that when these people idolize large intact families, it’s not because they have really taken Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching to heart, it’s merely because big white families produce lots of white babies. And we must be aware in order to keep Catholic culture from becoming muddied with this toxic and dangerous anti-Gospel ideology in any way.

Given the birth rate in America is barely enough to sustain it in the next generation, as well as many European countries falling below replacement rates, I think the white supremacists have a very good point on having more babies in order to save the West, because let's face it, if there's one thing multiculturalism (the bad kind) has proven is that it has failed massively. If a given ideal ethnically diverse neighborhood has peace it's mostly likely because many members of the community have the safe values and are within the same economic bracket.

Equip yourself to know it right away and to reject any ideology that diminishes the dignity of each human being. When you hear someone talking about immigrants ask yourself is this is the same message the bishops are offering.

Depends on what they say. I'm  under no obligation to follow what the bishops say, especially if they support open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities. 

When you hear someone talk about “the west” ask yourself if they want to preserve the Book of Kells or if they want to perpetuate oppression toward people of color and the perverse gospel of eugenics.

 Better than the previous quote at least.

The same people urging white women not to abort their babies may be the same people pushing for sterilization of minorities, because it’s not the right to life that concerns them but the power of whites in the global sphere. Be aware and be wary.

 Where on earth do you even get this from?

After that very disheartening day that the white supremacist image crossed my path, I saw another image on Facebook. It was a beautiful image. A large family was gathered together praying the Rosary with that same quote from Pope Saint John Paul II. It was created by artist Rebecca Fuentes to represent her own interracial family. The juxtaposition was powerful.

 Oh puh-lease.

"Oh my, an interracial family! Isn't that just wonderful!"
"So what about an Asian family who prays around the rosary?"

May God grant that our brothers and sisters of every race and culture are cherished and given the dignity that God has endowed them with by making them in his own image. And let us not be taken in by lies that twist and pervert what is beautiful and true. The alt-right has no place in Catholic culture.

Given that Catholicism is pretty counterculture compared to embracing modern concepts and beliefs and actions, it's pretty alt-right to me.

Theodore Shoebat

Call him an extremist who doesn't represent the Christian world as a whole but he has some very, very decent points.

I remember stumbling upon his youtube channel a few years ago and now I can't find it. Apparently Right Wing Watch has interest in him - not because he's chopping off heads of non-straights, women who get abortions and atheists, but because he fits their bill of whacko Christian.

So you're basically an asshole.

On CAF, there's a poster who has this on this profile:

"An[d] I will always give you the last word in an arguement so that you can go about thinking that I actually care about whatever you think or say."

Actually it doesn't give that impression; it gives no impression at all.

I disagreed with an earlier post he wrote concerning the recent Texas church shooting. It went like this:

"Texas Church shooting had nothing to do with religion."

I said: "Apparently the shooter was an atheist and seemed to have a beef with Christians. Some say it was over a domestic quarrel with his ex-wife who, with her parents, attended church every so often. If was just over a domestic quarrel why shoot up a church?"

He replied: "K i’ll believe that when the 50 page manifesto about his " beef with christians " comes to light."

I continued: "I’m just speaking my mind and what I observe. No need to get snarky because you disagree."

He said: "im not being snarky, if anything I am being sarcastic, because it isn’t that far fetched and has been seen in the past where such criminals have had such manifestos. An[d] I have done the same; speaking my mind and what I have observed. If you don’t like it, that is fine, doesn’t bother me any."

If I reply back I'd be playing into his his game.

Two types of Christians that only have a half a brain.

1. The liberal Christian who think liberal theology is awesome.
2. The Christian who spouts off vague shit like "Christianity is about love" and then goes onto spout liberal talking points. When you say something that resembles conservatism they accuse you of making it political.

Free Education: America and Western Europe.

Money Grows on Trees

How America's college tuition costs, which started to rise in the 1980s, is a complex issue. I've come across many in Europe, specifically the Nordics, who boast that they have it rights: free college. Yet they can't seem to explain why it's "free." They also fail to acknowledge that despite it being "free", US higher education is, at least on the doctoral level, is seen as the epitome of research. A vast majority of the undergraduate level universities also are seen as tops when compared to their European counterparts. People flock to get into American doctoral programs which, depending on the field and ranking of the program, is funded with a living stipend. But this doctoral funding doesn't come out of the blue: many program's charge an arm and leg in their master's programs that acts as the funnel to zero tuition for doctoral students whose course of study tend to last for five years. The money has to come from somewhere. Besides, Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, St. Andrews and maybe even Trinity (Ireland) and Sorbonne (France), where do Spain, Portugal, Denmark's universities stack up against American universities for research? Not that well.

Yale
Harvard
Princeton
Cornell
UPenn
Columbia

Johns Hopkins
UChicago
Duke
Northwestern
Stanford
Notre Dame
MIT
Caltech

Berkeley
Wisconsin
Illinois
UNC-CH
Vanderbilt
Virginia
UCLA

There's probably more leading research universities I'm missing.

Americans Don't Save

One American posted a good point that public K-12 education in the US is practically free (so, yes, there is "free" education - paid for by every single taxpayer in their respective district). You only have to pay a yearly fee which isn't back breaking. With this in mind I also find that those who attended public schools throughout the K-12 levels have found themselves in insane debt just for their undergraduate degree. Unless there parents did not save the moment they were born, or at least when they turned 8 (a decade to save) or if their parents are working at poor paying jobs (less then 35K yearly) there's some serious financial irresponsibility.

If the parent makes 35K a year, starting when the child was born until he reaches the age of 17 that's 17 years of saving if that parent saves. Let's say that parent puts in 5K of that 35K yearly - that comes out to 85K once that child turns 17. Add in another parent who makes also 35K working as a waitress. That's a total of 70K yearly family income (pretax) if we don't factor in that yearly 5K savings. This second parent also adds in 5K yearly for 17 years, so that doubles that 85K to 170K. The then newborn child  later turns 17 years old and enters a Amherst College, one of the top liberal arts colleges in the States. The institutions yearly tuition for 2014/2015 was $47,720. You read that correctly; that's more than a newly minted MSW makes, about as much as a newbie finance worker from a target school (makes about 50K at E&Y as of 2016) and more than a newly hired elementary music teacher in suburban Illinois (40K). Over four years that tuition comes out to $190, 880.  That's $20, 880 in tuition debt. This isn't doesn't take into account debt for housing and food. Now, if the student was able to be accepted into Amherst I'm positive that the kid received some sort of scholarship to offset the remainder tuition debt given the family's income.

As I demonstrated there are ways to decrease debt significantly. If the student attends a state school then tuition could be even less, if not free.

But what was my experience? My father invested in a college program for our state called College Illinois for prepaid tuition. My mother was then a state hospital nurse which afforded my sibling and I half tuition off to any in-state public university. My family was middle class. I graduated debt free. I had a peer also graduate debt free because his father also invested in College Illinois.

There are ways to decrease tuition: save the moment your child is born (5K one year, 7K another, if you can afford it) and invest/or in your state pre-college tuition program if one is available. I was very fortunate that both of parents had ways to counter the sticker price of public universities. Remember: my parents still had to pay for my college, just that it wasn't near the full load and it wasn't during my time at university. It was all done before I entered.

Parents need financial literacy and need to be aware of the options that are available to them. Just like scholarships, the options are out there, it's just people don't look for them and ignorantly see that it's a no win situation. Put the hard work in now before it's too late, and if it's too late don't blame the system entirely.If you you know there's a storm coming, prepare for it the best way you can.

Getting banned from r/ShitRedditSays and r/trans.

For r/ShitRedditSays I violated this rule (bold: subreddits own emphasis):

"1. RULE X: SRS is a circlequeef and interrupting the circlequeef is an easy way to get banned. Do not say a comment is "not that bad". Do not defend linked comments. Do not play Devil's Advocate. Do not attempt to start a debate. This list is not exhaustive. You will not get a warning.

This is our space to vent amongst like-minded people. We will not tolerate rude interruptions. Also, you are not entitled to "explanations" just because you come across our sub."

So like-minded people only stroking each other's back - literally. As for my actions - I supported people dressing up as another culture other than their own. The thread was about someone taking issue of another saying that dressing up as a Mexican wasn't racist.

For  r/trans I didn't affirm their existence.

But what about the disdained r/The_Donald? If any subreddit is filled with intolerance it has to be that subreddit? Let's start at their discussion rules.

"No type of trolling will be tolerated on The_Donald. What is concern trolling?"

Okay - it's reasonable. The only part I don't agree that's listed within the "concern trolling" link was:

• "I'm a Trump supporter, but ... "

 If anything this should be voiced in the r/AskThe_Donald.

Let's look at another rules.

"Racism and Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. You have been warned."

 "Releasing, linking or requesting personal information is not allowed. (This includes surveys, polls & petitions)."

"This forum is for Trump supporters only. If you have questions about our president, our way of thinking or other discussion questions, post on r/AskThe_Donald, where we will gladly answer. This forum is NOT for that."

This is an excellent way to (A) control the flow of traffic and discussion and (B) redirect discussion that doesn't deal with adulation or support to another linked subreddit that does. I believe this is absolutely fine.

"To appeal a ban, make a general suggestion, or voice a concern, message the Moderators here. This includes asking for a particular thread to be stickied."

 "Outside of this Subreddit, and Reddit in general, we ask you not to behave in such a way that would reflect poorly on us."

Wow.  r/The_Donald not only directs diverting comments to the correct place, but also articulates that such comments are welcomed - in the right place. Not only that but it wants its members to act as upstanding citizens if they venture outside the subreddit.

Now let's return to  r/ShitRedditSays. The subreddit's further rules are laid out, but I'll point the ones that are full of shit.

"HOW TO POST

1. Only submit horrible comments that have been upvoted above a net score of +20. If a thread has multiple shitty comments, feel free to compile them in an effortpost.

Too bad we can't debate about this.

2. Focus on the large, mainstream subreddits. Low-hanging fruit from obvious hate groups, circlejerks, troll subreddits, and the like can be submitted to the weekly low-hanging fruit megathread located at the top of the sub.

"Hate groups" were defined by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

5. Don't link to threads you're involved in, or to shit you just disagree with

Why not?

6. Don't submit questions or "discussions" about feminism, social justice, etc. Check the sidebar for appropriate discussion subs in the Fempire.

The "Fempire" is just a link to other subreddits that dealt with all things concerned by SJW's.

But what's even more startling (though not really) is the heading for SRS:

"Free speech is a disease and we are the cure."

Others have noticed what I've noticed. On a site whose article about SRS is now deleted it said -

"a subreddit on reddit inhabited by social justice warriors, white knights and trannies. On /r/ShitRedditSays one can see retards singling out reddit posts and being offended about absolutely everything on the internet."

But the Daily Dot thinks SRS is heretical hero that the internet needs.

"Among Reddit’s more than 100,000 communities, SRS is an anomaly. Officially, it’s a place to mock casual misogyny and other forms of hate speech on the site. Since launching in Sep. 2010, it’s ballooned to nearly 14,000 readers.

It’s also spun off a network of 30 subreddits members call the “Shevil Fempire”—a nod to its members’ feminist leanings. (Reddit’s “men’s rights” groups are a frequent target of their ire.)

Feminism isn’t the only cause SRS upholds. The group is a Newtonian response to the Internet’s nasty side, an opposite and equal reaction to the sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia that bubbles up from the Web’s pseudonymous sublayers.

Opponents accuse it of being a massive, sophisticated troll brigade that takes giddy pleasure in firebombing other communities and then watching them burn. (Trolling is a broad term used online to describe pretty much any behavior intended to provoke a reaction.)"

It goes on.

 "Crush the redditors

“CRUSH THE REDDITORS WITH YOUR DILDZ,” read a faux propaganda poster formerly posted on SRS’s eponymous main forum, r/ShitRedditSays.

“Dildz,” or dildos, are the kind of weapon that people who hate men who hate women imagine misogynists imagine feminists wielding. Yes, the satirical cultural critique runs to Inception levels on SRS.

That over-the-top rhetoric is typical for SRSers. That’s why some call the group Reddit’s thought police.

The tone is played up ad nauseam at r/ShitRedditSays. There members track and discuss the worst of Reddit: the racist, the homophobic, the transphobic, and the just generally nasty.

There’s an ideological bent to the mockery: These are progressives spitting verbal hellfire at their retrograde foes."

You see, the "progressives" are fighting battle with the haters and bigots of the world! Their tactics are justified. Can you spell echo chamber of bitterness (makes the MRA's look like reasonable guys.)

An atheist is still an atheist.

You will know a non-prog's an atheist when that person comments on morality and ethics. It's just the tone - you can smell it like alcohol on ones breath. To the left, someone who doesn't support homosexuality is equal to a racist. An atheist, regardless of their political bent, will equate you to a bible believer (pejoratively) if you do not support that morality, like humans, is being perfected by evolution.

Even if leftism looses its power, atheists on the right are the new leftists. 

Faux equality is king. Darwin is king. Both are false gods.

The dark side of Social Matter

Social Matter, in my mind, provides fine neo-reactionary (NRX) commentary on modernism. But sometimes There are flashes of darkness that bother me.

Just recently, Myth of the 20th Century, one of the site's podcasts was talking about the thoughts' of Theodore John Kacyznsk, otherwise known as the Unabomber, on the progress and growth of technology, how pervasive it is, and how this progress is somewhat of an illusion. As technology advances, there are many negative effects of it. The podcast tries to give credit where credit is due and I mostly agree with their sentiments. It's just that some comments in the comment section were, at the very least, disturbing.

Poster AJM writes:

"If Ted hadn’t done what he did nobody would be reading or talking about his work. He is the author of one of the most advertised political manifestos there ever was. He was reaching out to people that desire radical destruction of the system. He wasn’t reaching out to people that would be turned off by his tactics.

You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs — historical heroes nearly every last one of them are killers. The only difference between him and them is that he is not venerated."

Apparently the Unabomber was some sort of "freedom fighter" in this person's mind, sort of like a how leftists view ISIS as "freedom fighters", though the sane call them terrorists (and the Unabomber even admitted that he was causing terrorism in order to change "the system").

Other incidents were a whiff of admiration of Nazism, the targeting of Jews as the main players of modernism and my own brushes of unsavory manners against a fogey who was a white nationalist.

You just gave ammo to modernism.

Poster Melkite over at fisheaters just gets miffed when people are critical of same-sex pairings raising kids. Why? I remember him saying he has same-sex attraction. Must we be so damn sensitive to the homos and the bis? 

I posted a pic of a young boy showing his "adoption cake." He was all smiles. I was glad for him - anything better than being in foster care or an orphanage. But he was adopted by two guys. No they are not brothers - they're "lovers." I wrote that at least the boy now has a warm bed, food and clean water. Melkite wrote, "And, at least he didn't get adopted out to a heterosexual couple that would abuse or neglect him.  Not having both a mother and a father is not ideal, but it's also not the worst thing in the world."

Are you kidding me? How do you know that this seemingly "perfect" gay couple won't? (Not saying that they will.) 

"Well at least he's in a loving home!"
"Yea, well thank goodness he wasn't adopt by a hetero couple who tames anacondas!"

I bring in that gay couples raising a child is not ideal. Melkite brings up the very worst of the hetero couple.

This exchange reminds me of a political cartoon I (thought I saved) saw a few years back which depicted two guys hugging each each other, one crying, because their adoption papers were denied while the other half of the cartoon showed a hetero couple, the father fat wearing a wife beater staring cruelly at the new child, the mother drinking, the house filthy with a cross shown on the wall. The gay couple's house? Clean; the two were dressed in button downs and sweaters. No cross to be seen. Oh the dichotomy.

USMNT fails to qualify for 2018 World Cup.

2-1 Trinidad & Tobago. Disappointing. On paper it was a very winnable game. They only needed to draw to be qualified as well.

There are many theories on why it happened, both relating to the overall soccer culture found within the US and the staff and team that went to Trinidad & Tobago. Here are my thoughts.

1. There was no passion from most of the players.
2. There was no leadership from any veteran players.
3. Bruce Arena didn't push the right buttons this time.
4. It has little to do with MLS being seen as a retirement league for the aging foreign players.
5. It has little to do with the MLS being a closed league versus a pro/reg league.
6. It has little to do with the saturation of sports that kids are exposed to when they're young
7. It has little to do with the lack of inner city kids playing the sport due to their poverty.
8. It has much more to do with the soccer development pyramid.
9. It has little to do with lack of fan passion.
10. MLB, NBA and the NFL aren't stealing players away.
11. The anti-Americanism has surfaced, full head, once again from foreigners commenting on this event.

If anyone has disagreements, especially with #s 4-10, leave a comment and explain why. 

EDIT: You can't make this stuff up. This hits on my #11. One discussion went that the pay to play system is proof of greedy capitalism, locking out a lot of potential talent, which is parallel to America's healthcare system where you have to pay to receive care. The people involved all agreed that this is why America's soccer system fails - or at least why USMST lost to T&T - it's because of greed. Evil capitalism. Unlike in countries like Trinidad & Tobago where healthcare is free (though it needs much work it's on the right path, said a Trinidadian) and since Trinidad & Tobago has no pay to play it's proof that all is right in such countries, hence the USMNT losing.

My thoughts on the movement to replace Columbus Day with Indegenious Day.

It's utter bullshit. Look, without Columbus Western Civilization wouldn't be what it is. He's a major player. Native Americans? Hate to say it but they're a damn unsophisticated group. Seriously, what the fuck have they given the world in terms of inventions, literature and culture? My parents' ethnic tribe can be found all over the world yet Native Americans are mostly found in the US. They haven't moved.

Removing monuments and pushing to rename holidays because the person commemorated had ties to slavery or genocide is some puritanical "holy" pathology.

As a child of immigrants and as a non-white, those who push and support this movement are basically fulfilling the old "my child came back for Thanksgiving break and refused to celebrate it because of the killings of the indigenous people" archetype. If the powers that be decide to change it the Native Americas are still an unsophisticated group of low-achievers. It does nothing to get them out of poverty.


#ChiefIlliniwek
#ChiefWahoo
#Blackhawks
#Redskins

Leah Libresco's data is questioned because she's religious.

A few days ago atheist turned Christian turned Catholic, Leah Libresco, wrote an opinion piece about gun control after the Las Vegas Shooting massacre. She confessed she was a gun control advocate but after looking at the data is now questioning her position. Leah concludes that gun control may not be the answer.

Now this has somewhat triggered people who support gun control if not an outright ban. In her piece she gives data supporting her new stance. One can refute her data and her conclusions, but some chose a different route. Some are looking elsewhere and that elsewhere is Leah's religious conversion. It's been a very common card to pull among secularists/non-believers/humanists/atheists (whatever you call them nowadays) to run down an opposing party's credentials or aesthetics. Here's that rundown:

1. Is the person fat?
2. Did the person graduate from a tier-1 university?
3. Is the person religious?
4. Does the person have well-fitting clothes?
5. Is that person white?
6. Is that person a man?

Now Leah is not fat. She graduated from Yale at the undergraduate level. I don't believe she's fashionable but she is religious. Religious. She's ethnically Jewish and she's a female.

But being a graduate of Yale and a former atheist won't get her off the hook though. There are those who see her religious conversion as a detriment to clear thinking. See below.

I believe the thinking goes if Leah was still an non-believer she would've supported gun control or bans. This is how the atheistic world measures their counterparts. If you believe in one form of hokus pokus then you're susceptible to believe in another.

Atheists should just have a banner saying: "If you're a Christian your thoughts may not be taken seriously even if your written or oral arguments do not mention your faith."

The left and the secular world will find something that they don't like about you in order to dismiss you.

When Richard Spencer showed up on national media he took some leftists by surprise because he didn't fit what the left thinks of a white supremacist: though white, he was well-dressed and well-spoken.

When Ryan T. Anderson was the hot topic among the same-sex "marriage" MSM chatter some couldn't dismiss him outright. One opposer acknowledged Anderson's fine academic credentials with nodding to his public speaking abilities, saying, and I paraphrase, "Though you may have stellar degrees .... ".

Same thing with Ted Cruz when he was slaying leftists. Cruz is a non-white, Ivy League graduate and attorney. But they did go after his kids where one political cartoonist portrayed them monkeys being "pulled" by their father.

Though not having a first-rate academic CV, the left was a bit confused by Marco Rubio. He's Cuban but is well-spoken and not fat. His suits are decent fitting.

Leftists and secularists will judge you on these things because it's what they want for their kids or what they are themselves. DC, NYC, Chicago, LA etc., if you can fit in aesthetically, as well as CV-wise, in those cities then the humanists are left scratching their heads. "How can a well-dressed, well-spoken and well-educated person be a hold stances that go against the current leftist beliefs let alone be religious?"

You know, being on the "right side of history" and a being "Bright" - all that good stuff.

Askthebigot moves in new direction + new link.

Katy Faust's site, askthebigot, is adopting a new angle on advocating for real  marriage and for children who were raised in a same-sex household. She gathers their stories to show what a same-sex parent household cannot give a child: a household with two, loving parents of the opposite sex. Check it out.

NOTE: Those who do not see the nuclear family as, well, nuclear say that you technically only need one good, loving parent to succeed - even better if it's two people of the same sex in a relationship raising you. It's too bad that (A) common sense and (B) solid social science studies have shown that kids being raised in a two parent opposite sex household fair better than both. Of course there are exceptions since I personally know a handful of my peers that were brought up in single parent households that are married or soon will be and  have career success, but here's the thing: they all expressed disappointment in their parents' splitting and had their grandparents fill in where the missing parent would be.

To add to this there is a belief that has rolled out of the mouths that despise the nuclear family, which is good because the cat is somewhat out of the bag: that a father isn't necessary (hello third wave feminism). Does the feminist have the audacity, or even the feminist mom who has a husband, turn to the fathers or their husband and say they're truly optional, and then turn to their kid(s) and say that their father can be nullified by (A) just her own love and (B) a person of the opposite sex acting as "mom #2"? I bet not.

Adam4d gives us a good one.

Penis and tits.

Okay, I got your attention. Warning: this is probably my crudest post. Just sayin'. This is something I don't want my parents to read, but hey, sometimes you gotta tell it like it is.

When women, not all, say that men are shallow and that all they care about when measuring a woman's worth, whether or not they want to have a sexual relationship with the, is based on how big a woman's chest is. This might be true for some men. But in reality men, once you get down to it, really aren't that superficial when it comes to dating at least. There are probably more men who date women that have no bigger than B-cups. There are plenty of known actresses who aren't blessed with sizeable breasts; I bet many men would like to date them. You go to any American major city, say NYC to LA to DC. I will bet that there are more men dating women who are have small breasts than there are men dating those who are busty. It's also a numbers game: there are more women who don't fall into the busty category, say the more large side of C-cup.

When the clothes come off for "happy hour" men don't wish damn I wish your tits were big as that one actress from Mad Men. No. They're thinking fuck yea I'm gettin' some! Truth be told breasts, once the friction starts, aren't treated the same as a vagina. A vagina is a vagina (transgender "women" do not count, sorry but not sorry), let's me honest. Same with breasts. As Al Pacino's character says in Scent of a Woman, "Tits. Hoo-ah! Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right out at ya, like secret searchlights. Mmm." Men are simple creatures when it comes to sex.

Women, if you're worried that you aren't attractive, or if you're unhappy that your breasts aren't "big", you're just putting more angst into your psyche that isn't needed. When it comes down to it men (I) don't really care.

But what's the equivalent to breast size for men? Penis size. This is pretty straight forward and I'm not sure why no one, that I've come across when reading about modern dating, has touched upon this. Like breast size for women, penis size can really make a man question is worth. Let's face it: too big can hurt a woman; too small the women is embarrassed for you. If anyone knows anything about sex is that a woman's g-spot is the clincher. You hit that right she'll be melting with aid of stimulus of the clitoris.

When she pulls down your pants and is met with a little pecker she might think What? In today's dating landscape I hope you have a lot of money to keep her from leaving; if she's considered a seven or above there will be men who want to date her. Like bank accounts, a man's penis size is another form of it. Unlike breasts, a penis plays a large part in a woman's sexual pleasure and a man's self-esteem. When a woman takes off her shirt, whether she's flat chested or not, it's a sight to behold because a woman's body is innately beautiful. When a man pulls down his pants a woman is thinking I wonder how big it is -- OMG that's one good lookin' dick.

Once you get down to it the breasts may be small but they're breasts and any guy without some messed up psyche will be happy with 'em. The penis, on the other hand, can make a girl embarrassed when she talks sex with her girlfriends at Sunday brunch in DC. Simply put, the penis is linked to sexual pleasure than breasts ever were since breasts, for a male, are seen for sexual arousal. Yes, men may goggle as a busty woman but that doesn't mean he'll leave his B-cup girlfriend for her. If anything, men may leave their significant other for "prettier" types.

A woman can break up with a guy for many reasons - not tall enough, penis too small; if the penis is too big at least it's big, not making six figures, doesn't have elite academic pedigree, doesn't make a living as a lawyer, actor, doctor or youtuber etc. As a guy the pressure is on us. In some ways it's a good thing: you're forced to stay in shape and to be learned; you're forced to not be a pansy and find ways to provide for your family or girl.

So again, ladies, if you're upset that you don't have big breasts like this cute thing here (she indirectly expressed jealousy towards a co-worker's bigger bra size only to be met with breast cancer a year later; she then said that after chemo she can finally get new breasts), there's no true need to worry.

And no, I will not tell you how long my schlong is nor its girth.

Little steps made to restore liturgical dignity.

My grade school parish church decided to move the tabernacle in the center of the sanctuary after it was to the side for as long as I can remember. I may just stop in for a weekday mass to experience the aesthetic and rubric changes in the near future.

As long as I can recall it's been a post-Vatican II type of parish, but more on the reverent end. The group standing on the alter is par for the course for this type of flavor. Little steps.

Facebook "Fun"

I was on Facebook and saw a post about a man named Tony Perkins. Here's the link to the entire article that was posted. The headline reads "Guy who says God sends natural disasters to punish gays has his home destroyed in a natural disaster." I never heard of Perkins before; apparently he's the head of Family Research Center, a conservative Christian lobbying organization, that was accused of killing "thousands" of LGBT+, forcing them to commit suicide, as said in the comment section. Now I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, Perkins' supposed statement or that pro-"equality" people thinking the Family Research Center drove people suffering from same-sex attraction to take their own lives.

Either way, let's investigate if Perkins said what the article claims he said. According to snopes.com Perkins, back in 2015, was on a radio show where he and a pastor were talking about the recent Obergefell vs Hodges decision. The snopes article states -

That claim stems from a 3 October 2015 interview that Perkins did with Pastor Jonathan Cahn. While Cahn was actually the one who tied Hurricane Joaquin (which ravaged the Bahamas in October 2015) to what he said was God’s anger with the United States for legalizing gay marriage, Perkins mused (starting at around 13:15 into the podcast) that God may have been “trying to send us a message.”

Here's my attempt at a transcript at the 3:15 mark.

Jonathon: Well now we have the striking down of marriage, and I shared with you one of the key, really, flash points of judgement, is that before judgement comes there's an act of desecration and if anything was an act of desecration is to take the holy vessel of marriage, turn it against its purposes and that's what happened. And then it was celebrated by the sign of the rainbow - the rainbow is a holy vessel of God, that's a second desecration, and thirdly that night the White House becomes a desecration as it is lit up in the colors of the rainbow. I have to ask, the rainbow is about judgement, mercy, you know, and the covenant, and you know, the question is how much more can we do as a nation in the face of God to provoke judgement.

Tony: Yea, it's, it's ... All of these things are quite amazing once you look at them collectively. I'll just say this Jonathon, because I know that there are those, on the left, that like to mock these things. America has a history, our leaders actually - our presidents, our governors - when these things happened in nature, like hurricanes, all of these external events that put our nation at risk, there's a long line of historical tradition here where we, uh, not so much in recent years, but they have stepped up back and said is God trying to send us a message, and they have called upon the nation to pray and that's your emphasis here and the emphasis that we put forth is that just as in Jeremiah time God was willing to spare the children of Israel if they would simply repent, and turn back to him.

So while Tony did muse about God's anger in the form of natural disasters, the content of his words proves the headlines false. Tony Perkins never said that hurricanes are God's way to "punish gays" but are a sign to humanity for legalizing same-sex "marriage." In fact, neither did the Jonathon fellow say natural disasters were to punish homosexuals. Whether or not you think the way Jonathon does (who, by the way, has a history of interpreting worldly events like 9/11 and natural disasters as a sign of God's wrath) the headline is wrong. Unless you had an agenda, purposely twisting Perkins' words, or just were a lazy listener I don't see how one could accuse Perkins wishing death upon homosexuals. But the damage is done and people have liked the FB post. It's similar to Romney's 47% comment or Trump's remark about Mexicans and criminals - the left will twist and publish, the naive will believe anything that feeds their biases and prejudices.

As I scrolled up to the latest post of the person who linked this article, I noticed he posted that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel "banned" Trump (Rahm just declared  the city a "Trump-Free-Zone" ... Whatever that means) from Chicago because of Trump's decision on DACA (which is highly ironic once you think of it). So an American citizen, let alone the President, isn't "allowed" in a city within the country he governs, but illegals are. Totally not virtue signally at all. The post has many likes with one response yelling "I LOVE CHICAGO!" The kicker? This poster graduated in the top five of his class - actually, I think he was the valedictorian - who is now attending DePaul University, the university that went full-retard by allowing BLM protestors to intervene Milo Y.'s visit. A+ in naivety and stupidity.

The great nuances of the left.

The left love to use the word nuance to describe how one should go about race relations, or when they talk about great art. Nuance. Ahhh.

When I first tried my hand at being a conservative, or at least espoused conservative stances, I was called the following:

racist
bigot
sexist
homophobic

All within an hour's time.

A year down the line someone took issue with me saying that Macklemore's music was entirely mediocre (on Breitbart.com). Red flags came up after reading a few lines, I can't remember what he wrote, but it made me quickly believe he was some liberal dick and sure enough this someone was. He then went on to frame my whole existence:

apparently I was white
toothless
I played the banjo
had parent-children (young parents)
had sexual relations with my sister
lived in the swamp

When I told him I and my family were  non of those things, quite the opposite actually, he said "something went wrong." I suppose if you're non-white and was raised in an urban setting you'd ultimately realize that Macklemore was on your side because he was a "conscious rapper" standing up for LGBT+ rights and whatnot. And it turned this someone was a homosexual who taught English to little Asian kids abroad. Go figure.

And just yesterday something similar happened. I responded to a youtube comment, just saying that I wasn't in favor of the NFL kneeling protests. It garnered a poster to say that it was rich of me, as a white boy, to dismiss it. I responded back that it was utterly typical of his kind to assume I was white.

The funny part to this is that I sense - no, I know (like how I know water is wet) - that my interactions with the bottom-of-the-barrel leftists, their assumptions and accusations, are the same assumptions and accusations that pervade the staff room at NYT, CNN, MSNBC, the entertainment and publishing industry, and academia when anything with a lick of conservatism interjects their orgy of feelings, indignation and their worry for brown kids.

But no, it's those evil, mean racist conservatives that uphold the patriarchy and backwards social policies whom I should hold contempt for.

New link added.

It's called Badass Catholic. A millennial blogger who pokes at her generation, though with compassion.

Catholics do enjoy life.

And within these struggles - abstaining from sex, to not abort, to follow the doctrines of the Church - there comes great triumphs.

Those critical of Catholicism say that the faith has too many rules. Maybe so. Even if it does, it's the most balanced worldview, allowing Catholics, within good judgement, to partake in the worldliness of planet earth. I'll try to frame this post in a way that best represents some of the secular worldview on Catholicism.

1. Catholics don't like sex. 

A couple of decades ago Catholics were known to have large families, say three kids or more. Sex is encouraged and seem as something amazing - within marriage. So yes, Catholics do have sex - as seen by those Catholics who commit sin by premarital acts and out of wedlock babies (the all-female Catholic high school next to my high school alma mater was mockingly called Queen of Pregnancies due to a senior becoming pregnant every other year, though the amount of pregnancies dropped when I was in school), and as seen by Catholics who get married and have children.

2.  Catholics follow a puritanical system of beliefs.

See #1. So no. See #3. So no. Strict, yes. Puritanical, no. Keep reading #2.

I'm going to kick secular non-meat eaters between the legs because I can (it's my fallen nature). Vegetarianism abstains from eating any meat products. They believe meat is murder. Veganism goes two steps further and abstains from not only consuming meat products, but any products made from animals. This means no eggs and diary. It's encourage one to not wear clothing made from animals, so no real leather. Catholics can consume meat with no shits given unless it's Friday during Easter (or if they give up meat for Easter) or, if they truly want to, every Friday of the year. (If you haven't noticed, I have grave issues with the non-meat/sustainable/food movement bunch.)

There is debate that Christ did not want humans to eat meat, with followers of this particular belief saying it's found within scripture. This particular belief is made up of a very small minority (if we want to play the numbers game). For the most part there is no true "food movement" to abstain from any meat or animal products in the form of the secularized version of food purity. Catholics enjoy meat and they enjoy beer as well as a good cigar. Afterwards, if they're married, they can enjoy a good shagging with their opposite sex spouse. Please be aware that I did not use any male pronouns here because I truly believe that a Catholic/Christian woman can enjoy meat, beer and a cigar just as a Catholic/Christian man would. How's that for equality, eh?

3.  Catholics hate science.

This is a loaded statement. If being skeptical of climate change (read: anthropological global warming) makes one anti-science then you're full of yourself. If believing that a fetus is an actual human, and therefore the Catholic stands by the Catholic stance to be against abortion, makes him anti-science then you're an arrogant dick. If not supporting same-sex "marriage" due to natural law and just the innate reaction of "well this is messed up" makes one anti-science then you're a bigger idiot than Christian fundamentalists.


4. Religion is just something to hold on to because you're weak.

More false than true. I believe everyone is weak and we attach ourselves to secular movements to fill the gap in our life to have a purpose (see: veganism and the "sustainable movement"). Catholicism to me fulfills my thirst for truth and knowledge. That might've of made non-religious folks chuckle loudly because in their mind religion is anti-science and anti-knowledge, like "Catholics hate science" their belief is quit loaded and assumes many things. Catholicism encourages me to seek out the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. In many ways it's natural to me. Study astrology. Study the classics. Study architecture. Study sex. Study philosophy. Study different cultures. Why? Because there is truth, goodness and beauty in each. Be in the world, but not of it.

Catholicism is a complete worldview. It's the Ivy League of faiths steeped in history and culture. It's the Big Ten school with its fervent pride found within its followers. It's the liberal arts school where personal, quiet attention can be found. It's the University of Chicago where knowledge, and even wisdom, is nestled, waiting to be discovered, though many are not aware of its grandeur and uniqueness. And just as varied as these academic institutions, there are elitists, obnoxious frat boys, artsy, bohemian folks and intellectuals found within Catholicism.

Hey White folks, if you need lecturing on your "whiteness' here are some books.

I was on instagram going through some pics that was filtered through a hashtag of one of my favorite clothing brands. One account had various posts that were very appealing when it came just pure interior design. But there was one that made me raise my eyebrow. It was entitled Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America by Micheal Eric Dyson. I heard of Dyson before when he was Bill Maher's show when he was guest alongside the late Andrew Breitbart. The discussion was about race and Dyson came across the typical "angry black man", hate to say it. When Breitbart was critical of the intelligentsia Dyson became offended - he thought his words were insulting black intellectuals and Dyson retorted "I can read you know." His newest book comes to no surprise. 

As I looked up the book on Amazon I was met with a list of recommendations that could be described as "angry blacks moan and b_tch." and "white people who believe in white privilege literally are cucks."

Here's a curated list I made made up of books that seem to be the go-to for white guilt -

Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America
The New Jim Crow
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America
I Am Not Your Negro
White Awake: An Honest Look on What it Means to Be White
White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son
Between the World and Me 
Waking Up White, and Finding Myself in the Story of Race

Now, I'll probably read some of these via library loan. 

EDIT: I was stifling my laughter when copying and pasting these titles. You cannot get anymore crazy than an "angry black man" with beta whites who swallow the concept of white privilege like it's a green smoothie. 

Even in circles were Christians are thought to be tolerated, atheists still are gunning for them.

I was reading youtube comments on a Ben Shapiro speech. He was answering a question that intersected at abortion and black crime. Within the comments I found an atheist who said this:

 "Man, I'm just too smart for all that hocus pocus!"

The curious thing is that Shapiro only mentioned religion in the form of churches since the black community tend to be church goers, were the church encouraged people to get married. He believes that a two parent household is the best resistance to neighborhood crime. And his yamaka was in clear sight.

But they have feelings too.

A sympathetic meat-eater wrote this when someone jabbed at the "animals are sentient" line, a popular line amongst non-meat eaters.

it would be nice if more meat-eaters stopped to think about the sentience of the animals they eat.  Yeah, they're not as smart as humans.  Their level of awareness probably doesn't come close to ours. 

Animals are smart for being animals. Animals are nowhere near as smart as humans; in fact they aren't the same besides both being mammals.

But their bodies still feel pain.  Their brains still produce the hormones that cause them to feel fear.  However they experience pain and fear, it's real to them.  And as dumb as they may be compared to humans, they're unfortunately smart enough to know that they're about to be slaughtered.  Their behavior changes completely, and it resembles what humans do when we perceive we are in a hopeless situation and resign ourselves to it.  They feel fear, they know what's coming, they fight for a little bit, and then they give up.  

This sounds familiar. Wait, it does. Like when a LGBT same-sex mirage supporter or sympathizer saying that same-sex attraction to those who have it is "very real to them." 

Westerners have the luxury of not having to mentally confront death every time we eat meat - out of sight, out of mind.  Just like the homeless person begging at our car window.  If we drive down another street, we won't have to feel all this guilt for not feeling any compassion for the less fortunate.  I don't mean to equate the lot of animals to the lot of the homeless, but in some ways, it is similar.  

It's not similar. What I'm getting is if I hunted my own food and "confronted death" every time I ate (like the caveman saying, "I'm sorry, boar, but I have to this." Gets out knife. "Arrrgghh!" Said no caveman) I'd be pondering about its sentience. Hmmm. I have family members who kill pigs for food. They don't give a shit about the animals' sentient nature; sure they do it quickly as possible but they aren't feeling damn sorry about it.

And for me, there's only guilt when I've done something wrong. When a homeless man approaches my car there isn't any guilt. There's hope he'll find some place to stay, but guilt? Nope.

It's kind of appalling to hear meat-eaters revel in their lack of compassion for the animals they're eating.  I'm not saying give up eating meat.  But it is sad somewhat that Americans have forgotten how to have a solemn gratitude for the animal that died for us so that we wouldn't have to.

What's appalling is thinking humans should poke at their chicken dinner and think oh you poor chicken.The poster is alking about animals like they're soldiers who died overseas for their respective country.

Cultural Appropriation, sorta.

This post is just a side-thought of a bigger issue that I'll try to address later.

The basic idea behind cultural appropriation is that another culture, mainly whites, are misusing X culture to their own amusement, whether intentionally or not. By doing this it mocks X culture and therefore it is innately racist. What if we extend this misuse to the social institution of marriage?

In the earliest days, the concept of marriage was between a man and a woman, whether for procreative and/or real estate purposes. This distinct characteristic, a man and a woman, that forms what is widely known as marriage has been slowly changed to mean "between  X party and X party" in order to make room for same-sex pairings. Would this count as a form of cultural appropriation? Defenders of real marriage argue that same-sex "marriage" mocks the original constitutes of marriage that has been upheld for hundreds of years. But here's the catch. Arguments for supporting same-sex "marriage" say that marriage that does not allow two people of the same sex to get hitched to one another is not inclusive, while, say, the banning of a collegiate mascot or symbol that is deemed offensive is the "right thing to do." Statements by school representatives say that they want to be "inclusive", hence the banning of a school symbol or the taking down of a statue.

It can get confusing but that's the hilly reasoning. I'm still figuring out the definition of "inclusive" in both cases. One case is using to allow a certain form to exist; the other is generating feelings of non-offensiveness. The first case seems to be using the word correctly while the second shows up no where in the dictionaries I've referenced.

An atheist admits: unburdened by charity.

Over at neoneocon, poster Les says the following:

Initially, I thought I could never vote for Trump and I didn’t, but that was because due to a death in the family, I didn’t get a chance to vote. I’m still not sure whom I would have voted for, but I was overjoyed on election night to see the shock going through the mainstream media and, yes, the shock on faces of all those Hillary supporters (being an atheist, I don’t worry too much about showing Christian charity).

I'll admit, being a Catholic I was smiling at the shocked faces of Hillary supporters.  But I think at that time there was no need for "Christian charity", after all, it's an political election and I only tend to be charitable during debate or if someone has done me wrong, perceived or real.

It's 9/11 to CNN and the MSM

There was a protest agains taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue in the state of Virginia. Supposedly the man who organized the protest was a white nationalist. Anti-protestors, mostly black, showed up and tensions rose. Violence broke out but no news source is sure who threw the first punch. A car backed up into a crowd of anti-protestors where one was fatally injured.

For the past, I don't know, five hours it's been the main story on CNN. The commentary was the usual  - take some moderate and/or sympathetic Republicans, grill them with ridiculous questions, while having self-indignant leftists, usually black, act as if their safe space was violated. The "moderate" Republicans also threw the right under the bus: an ex-CIA who grew up in a household of Republicans said that there is indeed a racist segment inside the GOP. He didn't names of course.

Another tactic was expressing the disappointment on how Trump reacted, where one commentator said he was diminishing the reality of the situation, saying that Trump's "we must condemn hate" was not enough. And the kicker? Before CNN took a commercial break the host quickly confirmed that she received news that the person who was driving the car that backed up into the crowd of anti-protesters was white. "And I received confirmation that the driver was white." MSM is rather determined to stamp this as a "white on black" crime. Too bad they wouldn't eager to know the San Bernardino terrorist's ethnicity. Alongside this was, again the host, doing something that was seen a mile away. Remember how the right criticized Obama and Hilary for not saying the word Islamic extremists after numerous domestic attacks, and even international attacks? Well the host asked a moderate Republican why Trump couldn't say (read: admit that the even was due to) white supremacy. When I heard this I had to chuckle and shake my head. Really? After one violent gathering where there are no official recordings of who started the fight CNN thinks they have a "gotcha" card on this. You got to be kidding me. Then she, the host, tries to idiotically tie in the KKK's backing of Reagan - "Your idol Reagan was supported by racists! What do you have to say to that!" Haven't they learned a lesson? They pulled this same nonsense when Piers Morgan tried to put Ben Shapiro in a corner asking him about Reagan's stance on gun control to which Shapiro said so what.

It's "breaking news" on youtube and it's going to receive front page news for Sunday's paper. It will most likely be the talk of the town for the entire week, focusing on how racist America is and how Trump's presidency is responsible for this. There will be "highlighted" youtube vids on this event by angry blacks saying "I told ya so!" You told nothin', brother. Same old same old.

And the MSM still hasn't a clue about what is the alt-right. Their idea of it is so shallow that it's almost embarrassing. To them alt-right mainly equals white supremacy. Because Richard Spencer and Bannon and Breitbart.  That's basically it.

Quarrels over fish.

Over at fisheaters, the traditional Catholic forum when compared to the VII friendly CatholicAnswers, I've discovered all is not well, at least when it comes to those who are converting - to Orthodoxy. I've noticed more than few a posters express that if they had an Orthodox church near them it be very tempting to convert while a couple went through the conversion.

On a thread where the original poster said that she was thinking of leaving Catholicism due to her addiction to masturbation, one poster actually said to look into Orthodoxy. What's more disturbing is that no one actually really said to this poster that he was leading her astray from God, since it is the belief of the Catholic that Catholicism is the true church of God. Any other sect or denomination is a pale imitation if not an outright lie. So even in the trad community there is a little VII spirit, just in a different light. I suppose it's because Orthodoxy is seen as the closest thing to Catholicism in the eyes of the well-read trad Catholic. Still, I was expecting these types of Catholics to interject and say the famous belief that gets Protestants all in the piss: Catholicism is the one true church of God. Salvation outside of the Church is not possible.

Protestants take this as arrogant and their reading of "outside the Church" means those who do not believe in a God and/or live a very secular, sinful life.

What I gather from those on fisheaters, from those who converted to Orthodoxy, is that the Catholicism is riddled with convoluted apologetics, the issue with infallibility, the Church's dealings with sin (e.g. masturbation - in the Orthodox mind it's still a sin but it's much less serious when compared to a Catholic lens), and historical grievances. I'll confess I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy, but just on face value those who converted tend to act very Protestant when expressing their disagreement. I find this rather ironic.

Pacman, a poster at the site, posted a thread stating he was leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. The byproduct was 29 pages of debate on whether Orthodoxy is more "true" than Catholicism. I tend to read the entire thread to learn about his reasons for leaving and, ultimately, to learn a little more about his new denomination.

So instead of debating whether there is a God, at fisheaters the fight is over Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If there's one thing both sides over at the forum agree upon is this: VII effects suck and modernism can go to hell.

In the end it's still sad. Not even the beloved Latin Mass, so revered in the trad community, was enough for these Catholics to Orthodox converts to stay. 

The English like to use "shit" a lot.

I'm a supporter of Aston Villa FC and today was their opener against Hull City, a club that was recently relegated to the second tier of the English professional pyramid, the Championship (not to be confused with the Champions League). The match started off with AV attacking and moving the ball through the midfield, bottling a few good changes but also scoring one goal. The second half was night and day. There was a lack of attacking and AV allowed Hull to have their way in the first 15 minutes of the second half. Eventually the opposition scored. It was tied 1-1.

Only in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the match did AV resembled their first half self. A few point blank chances bottled. At least they were getting chances now. Too late. The ref blows his whistle and both clubs have to settle for a point each in the table.

The disappointment on the reddit forum was understandable, but I can't help but bring up one word that kept coming up. Shit.

Comment from discussion [Match Thread] Aston Villa Vs Hull City.

Comment from discussion [Match Thread] Aston Villa Vs Hull City.

Comment from discussion [Match Thread] Aston Villa Vs Hull City.

Comment from discussion [Match Thread] Aston Villa Vs Hull City.

I've noticed the same thing on youtube's comment section when I'm watching vids about English clubs.

"Newcastle is shit."
"Birmingham City is shit."
"X manager is shit."

Etc. etc.

I just find it amusing. In the States there tends to be a plethora of words to express extreme disappointment. I'll even say it can be quite tame but the amount of words used is greater.

"X baseball manager is horrible at his job. He should be fired."
"X professional player is just not talented enough to play at X position as a starter."

Or it can be less gentlemanly.

"That fucking dumbass. He can kiss my sour ass for all I care."

There's also much more optimism when it comes to Americans and a disappointing opener. Take for instance the Chicago Cubs. The darn club just recently won their first World Series after 108 years. The saying "There's always next year" became a Chicago Cubs thing that would define the optimism of the fans despite no real evidence of things getting better. Then again the culture is different in American sports - there is no relegation/promotion battle found in the MLB or any in major league. In the case of AV the mentality is, given the squad and the time the manager had to settle in, a win today against a not so great Hull City squad would've been the start the club wanted to build of off for push towards the top of the division for an automatic promotion. Ever since the birth of the Premier League (1992), AV has been a staple until a year ago where the club made a record, a horrible once, for the least points scored in the history of the top flight: 13. Pride is at stake as well as the manager's job. (In the world of Western soccer/football, managers are fired as frequently as teenagers go through girl/boyfriends -- basically every three to six months. If you last a year consider yourself a rare gem.) Fans want the club out of the second tier and back into the top flight were they think it belongs. They just want to get back "home." I do too. I want AV to be promoted.

Next up is Cardiff the upcoming Saturday. Three points would be great. At least I'm hoping that's the case.

But as a Chicago Cubs fan, I'll say this - "There's always next match."

The LGBT+ narrative isn't sound.

So those with same-sex attraction, either exclusively or attracted to both sexes, are "born that way" -  but transgenders' bodies are wrong.

Ah shit. Just ignore it.

Where does whole "body positivity" come in? There's this whole "love the skin you're in" mentality directed towards chubby and fat people, so why can't this be directed towards transgenders to just "love the skin you're in"?

Which is more common?

A stereotypical Bible thumper talking about fire and brimstone who beats his wife and thinks blacks are sub-human or an anti-theist gay guy?

I'd put money on the latter.

"I'm just glad I don't have to believe that fairy tales and mythical creatures in the sky exist just to be good to others and to get through my day to day life lol. You religious people are pathetic."

"I long for the day when we live in a completely secular society, it likely won't happen in my lifetime but I hope that it will for future generations."

"You're a racist!"

PLACE: Youtube comment section.Video about suburban life in the 1950s. Family shown is white.

Comment 1: This was when America was great! MAGA!

Comment 2: Yea, if you were white,  male and heterosexual.

Comment 3. This video isn't about race.

Comment 2: It's about the 1950s.

Comment 3: It is, but you're basically making it into something that it isn't.

Comment 2: Are you denying the fact that blacks didn't have rights before the Civil Era?

Comment 3: I'm not denying it, but why bring it in here? My parents aren't white and they're doing fine.

Comment 2: Good for your family. But plenty of minorities suffered from discrimination before Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960's and even after that.  Ask them what life was like in the 50s. Ask the people who marched and fought for civil rights what it was like. Get your head out of your ass. Just because life was good for you doesn't mean it was good for everybody.

Comment 4: In life-your outcome is directly related to your effort. Plenty of brown skinned individuals thrive in life. They made wise choices, they pushed themselves to the next level. Prime example, Dr. Ben Carson, admirable. hard working, aimed for excellence & achieved it!! The south was & still is a different situation. We have laws to protect everyone.

Comment 2: The south does now. But back in the 50s that wasn't the case. That's the point I tried to make that some people just don't get.

Comment 3: lol telling me to get my head outa my ass when I'm not the one living the in the past. That's the MO of your kind - play the "but the 1950s" and "muh Civil Rights" cards like it just happened a decade ago. Why don't you find a black man and ask him about the 1950s, a black that's over the age of 65. The 1950s is like the boogeyman man decade for you race baiters. Shit, you should be indignant about the shootings in Chicago. More blacks are dead by their own kind than by the white man in that city. Your sorry ass is brainwashed that you look at history in a narrative/thematic way that you're unable to approach it dispassionately. 

Comment 2: Um, this is the comment section for a video ABOUT the 1950s which is why I've been talking about the 1950s. And black people in the 1950s had to fight for basic civil rights that white people took for granted. That's a FACT and part of our history whether you like it or not.

Comment 3:  It's about the lifestyle middle class 1950s, not about blacks and inequality of the 1950s. That's a fact. You commenting about civil rights in a video that has mostly nothing to do with it shows your cards of that of someone fixated on race who pathetically begrudges the decade. You might as well complain about WWII while you're at it and how Japanese-Americans were put in camps.

"That's a FACT and part of our history whether you like it or not."

Ah, the original sin of America: slavery, Jim Crow laws and racism. Hey, Skylark, get the fuck over it. The FACT doesn't sway me to adopt your mentality. In fact, I out grew it a few years ago. Now if the video commented on how everyone was happy, marriages were amazing, and there was little to no racism then I'd probably object to it, but the video said non of those things. Your facts, again, have little to do with what's being portrayed in the video. You hijacked it to shove your race bullshit here while appealing to emotions in the name of "facts." Here's a fact from the 1950s: women were mostly stay at home moms. My brown mom doesn't give two shits. But maybe some rapid feminist will, like the "concerned" Skylark does with race. #MAGA #FuckSJWs #FuckBLM

Comment 2:  I didn't hijack anything. My first comment was that life could be great in the 1950s if you were white and middle-class, which is what the video is about.  You're the one who's hijacked the discussion with your rants about race baiting and black crime. But seeing your hashtags clarifies everything so I'll consider the source and not waste any more of my time trying to argue with a racist.  Life's too short.

Comment 3:  Ya, you did hijack. You're trying hard to say, "No you're the one who did it, meanie!" A pathetic attempt to paint me as a race baiter ... Do you even know what that is? You turned the video about race. The video wasn't about race nor did it even mention it. Who's the race baiter again?

"But seeing your hashtags clarifies everything so I'll consider the source and not waste any more of my time trying to argue with a racist. Life's too short."

So you're the kind who covers his ears, shuts his eyes and says, "I'm not listening! Nah nah nah nah!" It's highly ironic you shut your brain off when you see these: #MAGA #FuckSJWs #FuckBLM But hey, I'm a "racist." And you're right, life's short - you can't start thinking critically about history or question SJW's or BLM, because that'll be "racist" and we can't have that now.

Liberals, "being judgemental" and sex.

The people that tend to complain about being judged are liberals. I'll probably eve say it's an actual fact, at least in the US. Do people liked to be judged? Of course not. But if they are, to what degree and in what context? This is where liberals show some sort of pathology - no judgement whatsoever unless it's judgement towards those that disagree with our views. When liberals feel judged they think it's an attack on their character, which may be the case.

I don't agree with same-sex unions, whether some religious sect approves of it or the secular state does. I'll lay out my case the best way I can. I'll most likely be called a bigot, as if my stance is true bigotry. I don't agree with premarital sex. I view those that who do engage in it part taking in a mini-tragedy and, yes, they are unpure. Premarital sex is a form of depravity and a lack of respect for both parties involved. Does this make me judgemental? Yes, but so what. If a woman switches boyfriends every two years and has sex with them does that mean she's a slut? No, she's sorely misguided. Does this make me a jerk? I don't believe so. Am I offended if some woman says I am? Not really.

Say if a person says they aren't going to do all the "bad stuff" in college (e.g. premarital sex, drink, do drugs) and quotes the bible are they being judgemental? Maybe. If anything, the feeling of irritation or shame, if one feels those things, when met with this type of person should reflect on why they feel irritated or shameful. The "judgemental Christian" may have a very good point.

In general, I find this "you're being so judgemental" immensely weird. Liberals feel slighted even at the mention of restraint, especially when it comes to the topic of sex. Paranoia disorder? I'm just entertaining the idea. They love to talk about sex, or at least have a sense of comfort, when it's brought up. But be critical of modern practice and thought on sex? An avalanche of judgement is thrown your way, ironically. The standards of the social conservative world is clear: no sex before marriage. Being a virgin is the ideal. Not being a virgin before marriage is a sin and one should repent via confession; one should also "sin no more." Mention this on a comment section in youtube and watch heads explode or people typing, "Ugh. I hate your kind."

But hey, I'm a guy - an honest one. If you have no standards the "world" will barely disappoint you. If you're anything like me, you hold out hope yet at the same time realize that their is forgiveness, from yourself and from the divine. Yea, I went there.

What VII and the Sexual Revolution have wrought on the Roman Catholic Church.

(Oct 1962 – 1965)

Tridentine Mass --> Novus Ordo

                                     ↓              ↓

   Shrinkage of priesthood       More drastic shrinkage of nuns/sisters

                                     ↓              ↓

   *Consolidation of parishes   Sisters who taught left teaching; 
                                                  hiring of laymen = tuition rises

                                                     ↓

                                                 Catholic parents send kids to 
                                                 public schools = no/little tuition

                                                      ↓

                                                 Shrinkage and closing of parochial schools

*Add in laymen not catechizing their children soundly and you have cafeteria Catholics and fallen away Catholics, thus furthering the shrinkage of practicing Catholics when one enters their 20s and 30s. The acceptance of contraception has proven to equate to smaller families, or no kids at all due to “choice.” 

Liberal Catholics do no favors for the Roman Catholic Church, turning it into some Protestant Episcopalian or UU wannabe denomination. This also goes for the “liberation” of those in the consecrated life, shedding their habits that once made them distinctly unique to the public eye. Sister Theresa who does yoga in the park, in her Eastern influenced martial arts uniform, is no inspiration because she most likely looks like a grandma who belongs to a third order, not someone who once was a dignified Bride of Christ. 

I won’t go into the Church of Nice priests, “I'm gonna say something profound but not really” cardinals and spineless bishops. They do no service towards Catholics wanting true guidance on the local level. 

So what is the seeking and faithful Catholic to do? Call the ordained and the nuns/sisters out. Enter teaching and teach at Catholic schools. Better yet, practice your entrepreneurial skills and takeover a Catholic "light"/VII school and make it actually Catholic in curriculum and social practice.