Well that's just prejudice!

 WARNING: This is going to be rather crude.

Says an anon when commenting on homosexual anal plunging and sex between infertile couples, whether due to old age, choice, or medical issues.

Anon writes:

"What you need to add to accept sex between infertile people (either from old age, medical condition, the use of contraceptive or not the right time of the month) and refuse it to gay people is prejudice. So yes, it worked better in the good old days.

Any time a straight couple have sex knowning that they are not fertile, they are doing it only to give pleasure to their partner, which is arguably one of the primary function of sex.

You can't have it both way. Pleasure-sex is either moral or immoral, for everyone.

Each "exception" (rape, non-committed or non-monogamous relationship, ...) has to be considered as immoral on its own."

Now sure what "good old days"  mean unless you're referring to a time where you'd personally feel uncomfortable where "pride" wasn't seen as awesome.

The above quote is an argument that is used by those want to point out the supposed hypocrisy of allowing sex between opposite sex couples who know that they will not conceive, or know that it's highly improbable. The argument doesn't work out - at all.

Why? Because even though couples who have sex strictly for pleasure they haven't misused their sexual organs: it's still penis in vagina, not penis in anus. Only the fucked up do anal. The primal urge to have sex with the opposite sex is as old as time; couples have sex without abandon giving no thought to whether to use contraceptives or to get fixed (this is a relatively new phenomenon for modernists). The natural consequence is a child - if the role of the dice allows it.

Homosexual acts are intrinsincally disordered. Let's face it, the act of two guys anal humping each other is neither beautiful nor erotic to a vast majority of the people on planet earth. The same with two girls rubbing their clits together. The vagina and clit are like "Where's my dick?" It's like other depraved sexual act e.g., fisting. that step one good step away from what what raw sex is: penis in vagina. Ain't that hard of a concept to understand.

Comparing real sex with homosexual acts misses the point of what makes opposite sex couples so different than same sex pairings. They just aren't the same no matter how much the LGBT+ activist wants it to be.

If old people have sex knowing that the chances of the woman becoming pregnant is quite low it's not actually a mistake nor equal to homosexual acts because the couple is still using their sexual organs for its main purpose written in our DNA. Even if the consequence of child bearing was not met it still a natural good due to the urge to mate. That's what sex is irregardless of whether the couple wants a child: mating, and all the emotions leading up to it.

You see, this is the issue with those who want to play the "gotcha card." They suck at it. The anti-sodomy camp says that the main purpose of sex is to conceive a child (which is true) so then the LGBT+ activist says "Well X  opposite sex couples can't conceive so what now! Homo sex is okay!" Not the silver bullet as they thought it would be.

Then there's this on birth control:

"There is nothing inherently morally good about creating life. Just as there is nothing inherently morally evil about not wanting to create life."

When the couple actively does not make themselves infertile, yes there is inherent good when life is created. With that said, using birth control to stop the creation of life is evil since it obstructs the natural purpose of ejaculation and when are "in the heat." It detaches the very real consequence of sex and children. But is that the same as two people committing homosexual acts? Nope. Not even close. Penis and vagina. It's that simple.

So, what can we eat?

It's been said eggs are bad.

It's been said sugar is bad. Okay, how about artificial sweeteners like Splenda or Stevia? Bad also.

It's been said olive oil is bad, so move to coconut oil.

It's been said tofu is bad.

It's been said all-purpose white flour is bad. Move to brown everything.

What if I want to make a cookie when using these standards? Diabetic cookies taste no where near as good as traditional cookies that use butter, or some sort of fat, and sugar. Let's face it, as American Test Kitchen bluntly admits, that it's about "health", not taste. One probably has to trick oneself into believing that diabetic cookies damn fucking good.

I like your sport, not your fans.

I enjoy sports. Being a spectator is awesome (depending on the weather) and participating in organized and non-organized sports has been a favorite pastime of mine. But remember I like sports, not so much its fans or whatever politics snags the shoes of its players.

Out of the major sports played in the States the following ranks how liberal/regressive each fanbase is.

 

1. Soccer (MLS): Simply the most liberal and there's no other way to go about it. I have a good feeling that many, many liberals found a sport to attach themselves to since the MLS is still fairly new and soccer (or football) is most popular sport worldwide, so it's where they saw fertile land to insert their politics. Growing up I'm quite sure the MLS was never this liberal, but in the past decade liberals have felt empowered to watch the sport while wearing scarfs of their favorite team when it's 65+ degrees outside. They probably couldn't make enough in-ways in American football, baseball, hockey and basketball, so they chose soccer.

Note: I for one loved the old MLS logo. Get ready to cringe: The new logo has symbolism to it.

2. Baseball (MLB): I read that baseball has liberal fans but conservative players. I think this is somewhat accurate. I've been on the receiving end of arguments where I basically was swarmed by 4 or 5 fellow baseball fans who disagreed with me. Irregardless of my arguments the spectators tend to keep politics out of the game.

3. Basketball (NBA): Yep, there are liberals here. I akin the liberalism within the basketball fanbase as the liberalism found in the parents whose kids are involved in Boy Scouts of America. Not a majority of liberals, but when the moment strikes they'll express views that would forever change the organization if not the game (e.g., had parents admit that they wanted to make BSA co-ed as far back as the 90's and while whole fully supporting openly gay scout leaders in).

4. American Football (NFL): There are liberals here, but they're more so about the game. You'd be surprised how many fans support Colin Kapernick and the kneeling as they express how racist cops are. You'll even get vets who gives zero shits about the flag.

5. Hockey (NHL): I bet there are fair amount of liberals it's just I never really saw an argument where liberals were in full force.

Girls I wouldn't date.

I consider myself rather "open minded" when it comes to dating, as in dating to marry, not dating just because or because feelings are reciprocated type of modern shit. But there are some deal breakers.

If the girl doesn't eat meat then we may have an issue. It's not a deal breaker. If she can't eat meat because her digestive system cannot process it, okay. If she's like some person who sees her identity on what she doesn't eat, like those who make their youtube channel about veganism, and if she's a vegan cultist then friends is the best we'll ever be.

Now, if the girl supports abortion then that's a major deal breaker. I can't date let alone marry a person who supports abortion. She can be gorgeous, smart, have a cute personality, good with money, and have little to no emotional baggage and I still wouldn't even consider her as marriage material. Because let's face it, she isn't for that one simple fact she supports abortion.

I wouldn't actually date an atheist - I just don't want to waste my time with that because I want my faith to be carried onto our children. The likeliness of the atheist supporting this is most likely slim.

I wouldn't date a Muslim or a Jew simply for the fact that our faiths just don't align on many things and, like them, want my faith - the Catholic faith - to be the one our children are raised in.

Now where does this "open minded" claim come from you might ask, after all I did state specific deal breakers. Well, I don't mind if the girl isn't the cutest, or if she's a bit chubby, or if she's not rolling in dough. I don't care much if she has a sizeable chest or if she has a butt that screams "squats." I don't care if she isn't "thick" aka thick legs. Aesthetically I'm fairly reasonable which encompasses how she looks with and without clothes. In a very cliche way, it's what inside that is the goldmine. I want to know how she thinks and why. I want her to align with my values. She can have one arm and I wouldn't care (I've seen a girl with just one arm and she was cute as heck).

So ideally a Catholic (if not, then a Christian) woman who supports life from conception till death. She can even have tats even though I think tats are ultimately hideous.

I believe my standards are reasonable given the day and age I'm living in. I seek someone different for the sake of truth, beauty, goodness. Lemmings mate and produce more lemmings. I want someone who is above a lemming.

Social Media.

This is comes from current cleaning of my mobile where I've decided to uninstall unused, if rarely used, apps alongside deleting or moving pictures and vids to a flash drive. I'm also thinking how I have been using social media and eliminating any accounts that aren't actually needed.

Facebook. Yes. Real Name. Main purpose to keep in touch w/ friends and family. Barely uploads pics.
Snapchat: No.
Instagram: No.
Twitter: Yes. Alias.
Viper: Yes. Real Name. Mainly used to talk to relative overseas.
Skype: Yes. Only used a few times to communicate w/ group projects; might keep it if group calls are needed.

I suppose you can count Linkedln as social media, and I do have an account, but my primary purpose are career networking and just putting my work experience up. I don't do anything on it besides those two. I am looking to make my own website where my CV will be present so I'm not sure where that would leave my Linkedln's profile since it'll make it redundant, but I suppose it's good to have just because it's become a staple among working professionals.

Compared to my peers and Gen. Y my use of social media is rather narrow since I don't use snapchat and instagram. An alias is used on twitter so I don't even count that. Viper and Skype are used only for specific purposes.

The criteria if an app would be kept are:

1. What it's purpose?
2. How often do I use it?
3. Why do I use it?
4. Is this app adding anything of value to my life?
5. Do I really need it?

Of course, this goes for spring cleaning your closet for anything that "builds up" (e.g., clothes, entertainment material, decorations, books).

As for this blog, it's just a way to pour my thoughts into. No one besides me and random visitors are aware of its existence.

Memorial Day, USA

The love story between modernism and Islam.

When issues with Islam are brought up (e.g., it being taught in public schools, though some students say it's on a historical context) defenders of it being taught tend to range from Muslims to secularists. There's not much in-between. Usually the secularists attack Christianity bringing up the Crusades, a common topic that supposedly exposes the religion for immense wrongdoings, and if the person who has issues with Islam is an American they'll say that America has been been raging war for the past 200 years across the globe. My favorite counter of those who try to make the Americas be on the defense is "it's all been verified."

Both of these talking points ignore the subject matter at hand and tend to build their talking points off of inaccurate history with poor analysis.

The Crusades:

The wars America has been have many, but a good historical exercise is to learn the motivations of entering a particular war and to see if these motivations later changed once involved.

Quit being such a p_ssy, Steve.

Or whoever is thinking of axing the comment section One Peter Five.

"I’m not a huge fan of our comment boxes. I’ll say that outright. I worry that for new people coming to look at the site, or one-time readers who may be linking in for some reason or other, they are not exactly an example of us putting our best foot forward. We have regular arguments over our comment policy. When we are forced to ban people for violating that policy, we get very huffy and indignant emails. The sheer volume of comments clogs up my inbox.

BUT — and this is a big “but” — I know that for many of you, comments are extremely important. They give you a place to work this stuff out, they keep you coming back to the site, they help you (through the related content links) to find other articles you may have missed, and so on."

1. Unless the comment section is absolute dirt I'd  argue "putting your best foot forward" is giving the visitor quality content and a user friendly interface, not eliminating the comment section because you're afraid people will run away.

2. Stop being a fucking pussy, Steve. (I already find you slightly annoying on your podcast and at times you're melodramatic.)

We Need You!

This was the very first paragraph on a sports blog calling for writers.

"We're looking for new people to join our editorial staff here at _______ and we are especially interested in bringing aboard writers who will broaden our worldview. Women.People from other parts of the world. People with disabilities. Basically: we’re looking to encourage diversity on our site."

You only got it because you're a woman and have a disability, not because you have a unique point of view and/or your writing material is of merit. 

Cohabitation

I never truly bought into the arguments of why people should cohabitate. One reason is because "it's the next step in our relationship." This is mostly bullshit because it means practically nothing unless it's symbolic of commitment (I doubt it). Some say "it's the next natural thing." Also bullshit. Many couples move in with each other because it's the norm - a norm that really has no basis in its purpose. Now, I can understand moving in for financial reasons since a roommate cuts down the cost, but that's probably the minute number.

Cohabitation is playing house when you're not even engaged let alone married. And yea, I heard the "test the waters" - also bullshit. Testing what waters? How many had a "successful" test and later broke up? How many boyfriends and girlfriends have you been through? How many moved in to only cancel the lease a year later? Can't you live alone and be in a relationship at the same time?

Call me old fashioned but when I seek a roommate I seek someone that isn't my significant other.

I simply don't play house. 

College athletics and football recruiting.

There's an argument that it's harder to sell a university and its football program if the university is in the "middle of nowhere" and/or if the location has bad weather (read: cold, windy winters) for certain programs like the University of Illinois. This is blatantly false since some of the most successful and historic football programs are located in or near medium metros or college towns. Let's just look at a number of Big Ten football teams and then a few other programs who share location "issues" and bad weather.

Big Ten
Michigan (Ann Arbor): Sometimes referred as A2, Ann Arbor, is about an hour drive to  Detroit, though how many students actually spend a night in Detroit to party it up?

Michigan St. (East Lansing): The city of East Lansing has a population of approximately 48,870 according to wiki.

Penn St. (State College): Again, according to wiki State College has a population of approximately 41,992.

Iowa (Iowa City): Population is around 74,398.

Nebraska (Lincoln): Located in the capital of Nebraska, it only has a population of 258,379. The last time I heard Lincoln wasn't New Orleans in terms of night life.

Purdue (West Lafayette): The city of West Lafayette has a population of 45,872.

Wisconsin (Madison): Probably, besides A2, the best college town within the Big Ten but still suffers the Midwest winters.

Mid-Majors
NIU (Dekalb): Arguable the most successful football program in the state of Illinois and one of the few MAC football powerhouses. They have a horrid track record when it comes to bowl games: They simply get crushed. Plenty of NFL players from NIU's program. Dekalb, located west of Chicago, is about an 1 hr and 15 min. drive from the city.

Boise St. (Boise): Like Wisconsin, the university is located in its state capitol which is home to about 205,671 people.

Independent 
Notre Dame (South Bend): Located in South Bend which has a population of about 101,735. About an 1 and 30 min. drive to the city of Chicago. Probably the most storied football program besides Nebraska and Penn St. listed.

When Ron Zook was hired to be Illinois' head football coach in 2005 top recruits came to Urbana-Champaign. Part of it was because Zook was a great recruiter and the other was implanting the idea that they were pioneers in helping Illinois become a winning program, something that it wasn't in years past. So the recruits came and they started winning, sorta (out of seven seasons, the Illini went to three bowl games, winning two of the three). This in spite of where the university is located - central Illinois, two hours south of Chicago - and the bad Midwest winters top recruits came. The Urbana-Champaign metro has about 231,891 living souls, which, besides Madison, is the largest metro in the list.

It helps to have a winning a program. It's better to have a head coach that knows how to recruit and how to recruit the right players to fit his system. The winning will come, slowly but surely, but until that happens the recruits need to buy into the vision of the coaching staff.

Verdict: Location and weather doesn't really matter. The vision and system of the head coach, aided with his recruiting abilities, matters more.

The Catholic Geeks

New link added called The Catholic Geeks. The name says it all: Catholics who consider themselves geeks.

Technology progs.

What's worse, someone who doesn't use every feature of a smartphone, making themselves use older methods of doing things, or someone who thinks that person is somewhat backwards? Take for example the quote below from AndroidCentral.com that I found in the comment box.

"Or you can find a payphone and carry loose change for phone calls. Or carry a paper map in your pocket. Or perhaps a camera around your neck?"

The person was responding to an OP where the OP stated he didn't need NFC (ability to pay without an actual credit/debit card) and that people who needed it were lazy. Basically you can go wallet/purse-less. Now, okay, I can see why people who responded got upset but I do see his point. There are some who think whipping out your wallet to swipe your card is truly archaic, but then again people still pay with cash. But here's my response to the quote above:

1. A vast majority of people use cards to pay.
2. Paper maps are actually handy to be honest when technology fails. Learning how to read  a map is a dwindling skill that is useful when needed.
3. Some people do carry around cameras. Nikon. Canon. Pentax. DSLR versions. Heck, there are even people who carry around film cameras.

Stick to the OP's point: not every feature that is seen as convenient is a necessary function for those who do not  mind living their daily lives in less sophisticated ways. Remember, some places don't even accept cards to pay (certain bars, certain small shops, food purchase during opera break) so logic follows that they also don't accept NFC. So that flagship android phone with NFC capabilities? It has no place in such establishments. That 1K iPhone? Useless. At least at all the establishments I've visited cash was always accepted. Cash is king.

Pathetic courage and faux class.

I just got done watching Sidney Lumet's Murder on the Orient Express. I liked it; it was humorous in more places than I expected. I did also read the novel on which it is based off of, inked by Agatha Christie. This I also liked, but not as much as I hoped for. Nonetheless decent entertainment.

SPOILERS

Now, onto the post's heading. I was particularly intrigued by the portrayal of Greta Ohlsson played by legendary screen actress Ingrid Bergman. I found her execution of her lines very amusing. For example her character becomes pious after seeing Jesus in the clouds surrounded by brown children and it is this revelation that her character is inspired to go to Africa and "help little brown children." Of course, credit should also be given to Paul Dehn, the script writer, for giving a talented actress like Bergman to work with. In the dvd's special features Bergman insisted that she wanted make the character "a crazy nanny" and so she did. Honestly, her interview with Poiret was one of a kind. By far the best interview that Lumet had set up, which was rather different than what happened in the novel.

But, ah, admiration for Bergman's acting talent is wear my admiration stops. Forget her fight with cancer. Many have died with cancer and I see her as no difference, after all she had people drooling over her and forgiving her for every since, or "sin", under the sun. I quickly wiki'd her and learned that, to no surprise, she went through several marriages. The first marriage she had two affairs that is known. The first affair she luckily didn't get pregnant, but the second one she did. While on shoot I believe. So shortly after her second child was born (first child born within marriage to her first husband), she divorces her first husband and marries the director who impregnated in Mexico. After five or so years of marriage, and with the birth of a set of twins, he cheats on her and then later leaves her. Karma is a bitch. Later she remarries in which it would be her third marriage.

The Daily Beast deeply cares on how she was treated by US Senator in the 1950s. As Marlow Stern writes, " Senator Edwin C. Johnson (D-CO), a rank moralist who opposed FDR’s New Deal policies, slut-shamed the actress on the Senate floor." What? Do leftist moral relativists always add in X policy that a politician opposes that is beloved leftists at that time? Seems like it. And of course the "you slut-shamed" card. But what exactly did the senator say?

“Mr. President, now that the stupid film about a pregnant woman and a volcano [Stromboli] has exploited America with the usual finesse, to the mutual delight of RKO and the debased Rossellini, are we merely to yawn wearily, greatly relieved that this hideous thing is finished and then forget it? I hope not. A way must be found to protect the people in the future against that sort of gyp,” he proclaimed.

Sen. Johnson then proposed a bill wherein movies would be approved for licenses based on the moral compasses of those behind the picture, insisting that Bergman “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage,” and going so far as to call her “a powerful influence for evil.”

In Johnson's defense he wasn't too far from the truth. It's now 2018 as I write this and given how many think sex outside of marriage is totally A-OKAY the sexual adventures of a Swede (go figure) being treated nonchalantly by so-called progressives comes to no surprise.

What more interesting is how Bergman responded when she decided to return to the States.

“No, I have no regrets at all,” she said, unleashing that radiant smile. “I regret the things I didn’t do—not what I did. I have done what I felt like.”

This ties in a very narcissistic mindset on what is said earlier in the Daily Beast article when Bergman ponders about the films that either inspired her or which she acted in.

It’s the tale of a gal from Stockholm who grew up obsessed with the story of Joan of Arc, marveling at how this young, rebellious woman followed the voices inside her head, social mores be damned.

Well, that doesn't mean to sleep with whomever you "fall in love with" (it wasn't love). Stern attributes a line said by her character, Joan, in the film to how she lived her life.

“I don’t want any roots,” Bergman says in the film. “I want to be free.”

And, despite her marriage to Lindström—which produced a daughter, Pia—Bergman lived freely, much like many of her male movie star contemporaries.

Freely? Well damn social mores of fidelity and commitment, eh?

"She’d won an Oscar (for Gaslight) and purchased her family a luxurious home fitted with a gigantic pool in Benedict Canyon, yet still suffered from what she calls “a daily sadness.”

“I never understood the kind of happiness I was longing for,” she recalls in the film. “We finally got a house, fixed it up the way we wanted. But then that bird of passage started to flex its wings again.”

It seems Bergman wanted the next excitement after the material goods of earth bored her.

But shortly after the 1960s, the height of the Sexual Revolution, another politician wanted to address  Senator Johnson's remarks.

“Twenty-two years after Sen. Johnson’s disgusting tirade, on April 19, 1972, Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) read an apology to Bergman on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, one of the world’s loveliest, most gracious and most talented women was made the victim of bitter attack in this Chamber 22 years ago. Today I would like to pay long overdue tribute to Ingrid Bergman, a true star in every sense of the word.“I know that across the land, millions of Americans would wish to join me in expressing their regrets for the personal and professional persecution that caused Ingrid Bergman to leave this country at the height of her career,” he continued. “Miss Bergman is not only welcome in America; we are deeply honored by her visits here.”

The issue here is that I see no apology needed. One wanted to warn the American people of how zombie like devotion to an actress who's private life was a mess (but she was a wonderful mother! some may say) and to not let it influence their sexual morals and actions while another, for whatever, went the fanboy route. Percy would have probably pre-ordered Notorious: The Life of Ingrid Bergman. (Apparently the book reads like it was written by a fanboy.)

So yes, Bergman is a "true star in every sense of the word." Multiple divorces. Multiple marriages. Multiple kids from multiple marriages and affairs. Rootlessness. And the ever so smug "I regret nothing," mentality. But is she a "class act" as Stern writes? Only in the eyes of people like Stern. They are the ones that produce phrases like "rank moralist." Well, you can't cover up urine smell with makeup, costumes and the industry's highest acting award. Urine is urine even if it's named of Ingrid Bergman.

If you bark back you still aren't given credit.

I'm not a gun owner. I never fired a gun. I never stepped foot on a gun range. But I do know a couple of gun owners. That's them, though. The thing is I support the 2A and from what I've observed is that non-2A people shallow arguments (for the most part) and have even worse tone when dealing with 2A supporters.

Take for example the Peru born Carlos Benavides who now lives in Florida:

I stumbled upon Carlos on a Louder with Crowder article dismissing Gatorade Tide Pod Player of the Year David Hogg. Carlos continues saying, "Do u think Davig Hogg gives a shit what u haters think? " (He's a fan of these emoticons, like a child who sticks out his tongue when he think he says something really clever.)

There are more anti-2A comments from others. This one, ironically, confidently says that once gun buybacks have been permitted to use the guns on the people in case if there was a civil war due to said buyback:

Then there people who really (like really) display a type of stupid that makes you just smile at them with a certain affection.

You can't make this stuff up.

You're drunk, modernism. Go home.

Every now and then you'll get a person who supports abortion to admit that yes, the "lump of cells"/"goo" is a person and that it's fine to kill that person and it's okay for various reasons: would be mother can't afford a child, doesn't want the baby, to population control. It's all about "reproductive rights" and "choice." If you think this is absolutely evil then you're clearly judgemental and backwards.

Now let's turn our eyes towards IQ. If you say certain races have, in general, different IQ than others, say whites over blacks, then you're committing a crime against humanity: you are indirectly calling for race subjugation and demoting blacks to that of a 2nd class citizen.

Burkean Journal joins the ranks.

I've added a new link under "Links." This addition is called the Burkean Journal. Below is the full detail from their "About" page.

"The Burkean Journal is an online political and cultural magazine run by university students in Ireland that promotes conservative thought and ideas. Founded in Trinity College Dublin, the Burkean Journal seeks to be a nationwide magazine for all Irish universities and for Irish society in its entirety. Our aim is to provide an intellectual platform and a publishing service for students to contribute their conservative views on local and general issues that are not otherwise represented by mainstream publications on their campuses. We also publish articles from non-student writers and conservative experts in their respective fields, so as to provide our readers with the best quality material.

The Burkean Journal is named after Edmund Burke, one of Ireland’s most distinguished statesmen. His statue stands just outside Trinity College’s main entrance as a sign of respect and admiration to his life and achievements. His writings and ideas have contributed enormously to the field of political philosophy and he is considered to be the father of modern conservatism. 

Part of our goal is to have a wide range of conservative spectrum — paleo-conservatives,neo-conservatives, the deeply religious and the agnostic, libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist. We encourage debate and give a forum to the many veins of conservatism. Apart from politics, we also address wider issues such as culture, history, philosophy, literature and the arts."

Thanks to the Irish Papist who has an article published in it for indirectly introducing me to the journal. If the left in Ireland thinks it's trash then it must be doing something right (no pun intended).

When Brits, or just foreigners in general, try to take on the American psyche and its institutions.

I'm talking about filmmakers and those in the entertainment industry. Rarely do you see an American filmmaker try to passive-aggressively mock [insert country not named America] and its values or what they've heard of X county. Listed below are examples of those in the entertainment business that try to do this.

The Shape of Water by Guillermo del Toro.

• Takes on the positive thinking type of American
• Takes on the machismo element of military men
• Takes on the nuclear family
• Takes on the public manners of white Americans in the 1950's

All shorts - American Virgin, American Pride and American Carnage all by Tamzin Merchant. 

Note: I haven't watch these shorts but I'm taking a good stab on what they're about just by the trailers and the tone of the interviews.

• Virgin takes on the concept of virginity within the American psyche, that it is seen as a precious "asset" (as noted in the short's description). The short is about a teenager whose accepted into Julliard Summer Program but due the high costs cannot afford it so she resorts to prostitution (similar case to the Duke student who resorted to porn and now is a porn star ... The secular world says to not judge but it'll judge those who view virginity as something else than a societal myth.
• Pride is about a closeted homosexual who is seen making out with another man behind the wedding curtains just when the bride and groom kiss where all the sitting public can see. This probably takes on America's more conservative social norms in comparison to UK's and Western Europe. Because what's the big deal, right?
• Carnage, as Merchant admits to listening to several podcasts (what type of podcasts my dear?) that formed her thoughts and later script, is about a Brit's (and more a critical American take on Trump) view on the political "carnage" that led to the 2016 POTUS election. Listed on the short's IMDB's page is picture of a live version of the Statue of Liberty and the main actor in Pride wearing a t-shirt that says "Pride." In one of the director interviews a church is seen being used as a setting. I bet it's used as a symbol of hypocrisy. It just looks like a Brit's take on God, Guns and Country. Maybe Michael Moore makes a cameo?

Foreigners can sometimes give insights on America that are worth listening to. Sometimes these insights have some truth to it, helping even the most patriotic American reflect on their country. But often times the insights are shit and skewed to the left where modernism talks about X institution and Y social value but utterly fails on understanding it. Foreign filmmakers can use the yellow school bus, dress their actresses in 1950's skirts and blouses, locate a beautiful church, but never understands their significance, cultural worth and history. 

They gathered all the hallmark symbols of what one thinks of America, but what they didn't do is talk to those who hold the symbols used in their production as signs of identity. In other words they're talking about things they don't understand in an honest manner. They just see America as a country filled with strangeness. But it's Americans who have to change when they view another culture through their red, white and blue prism, or so the modern world says.

When non-progs talk about education curriculum it's an embarassment.

AR-15 forum talks about STEM vs STEAM.

Art just drags STEM down? What?

New link.

I found out about an online blog/mag, Thermidor, via Social Matter's podcast Ascending the Tower. It doesn't label itself alt-right, but it's definitely not "progressive." Like Social Matter it can find itself naval gazing but overall the writing is quality and, unlike some triggered cradle trad Catholic who showed some embarrassing signs of leftist tactics, has some interesting thinker that probably think more than the average person who fanboys over X public persona.

Youtube secularists.

It's entertaining when some secularist on youtube responds to a post appealing to Bible verses. One secularist said this in return:

"The bible says a lot of nonsense. Would you like to be executed for wearing 2 different types of cloth? I thought not. Or maybe you'd like to hear the bible's rules on slavery and that it's OK to beat them to death as long as they take over 24 hours to die."

So I figured that the person either picked and choose the "nonsense" or got his ammo from some anti-theist page. 

As I said before, a gnu atheist is a gnu atheist.

What I mean by this is that a gnu atheist will display the same bitter and dickhead attitude towards religion regardless of where his politics lie. He could be a centrist, or leftist, or a liberal or someone on the right. He could be apolitical.

In today's world culture wars are multilayered. There is a left-right divide and there is a secular-religious divide. I've concluded that even if the world "corrects" itself and stops his "global citizen" bullshit there is still secular-religious divide. This particular divide is what ultimately will define civilization. Take for instance the current lost of a Republican candidate to a blue dog Democrat in Wisconsin's special election this month. One poster thought it was due to the Republican's religious talking points that drove away voters (as if that ever proved to be the case of a loss in any election, local, state or federal). This is poster believes in a racial homogeneous America. But he's also a gnu atheist. In an America Thinker article the writer of the piece doesn't mention religion, but the poster did.

A poster named Spaghetti wrote -

"It would not surprise me if the repubs were also spouting off about religion and the evils of abortion, two issues that drove sane repubs (yours truly) away 2 decades ago. Also, it would not surprise me if an AT journalist failed to mention, or even recognize, that in their defeats. ( A la psycho Roy Moore... Religion in AL)."

Those who were "driven away" from the Republican side to wherever are either social progressives or believe the current GOP is filled with RINO's. The former seems to be the case of Spaghetti. He then later blathered more about religion.

"Sorry, but people who pray to and believe in imaginary beings are by definition, insane. And, just because those insane who believe in another stupid religion other than yours, does not make them any dumber than you. Pssst, keep preaching this crap and watch more democrats win elections."

This isn't necessarily new. Atheists who tend to be libertarian tend not to hide their loathing of the "Religious Right," believing that they are the reason for losses to Democrats. In the case of Spaghetti his politics are irrelevant now since he has demonstrated that he is the enemy even though he might not be a prog himself. It's not because he in not religious or a believer in a divine, but because his attitude is the same pure hatred that the left usually shows for religion. He is just one step away from being of the left.